Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Travelling Tina | Main | Shout out for Donna »

28gate hits the MSM

David Rose has a big spread in the Mail on Sunday in which he gives the 28gate story a good going over. (If you haven't read it before, get yourself a copy of my pamphlet on how Tony Newbery and I uncovered the story.)


The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.


The new attention on the 28gate seminar has been prompted by disclosure of documents showing how the Department for International Development responded to a funding request for funding from the International Broadcasting Trust a body that lobbies broadcasters on behalf of green NGOs. What we have, in essence, appears to be government paying for subversion of the state broadcaster.
Which is pretty appalling when you think about it.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (112)

What we also have is the Labour Government giving taxpayers money to the BBC to pay for propaganda in favour of the then Labour Government's policy on climate change. No wonder all concerned wanted a massive cover-up.

Jan 12, 2014 at 9:20 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

I have a strong feeling it's just the same in Norway with NRK.
A lot of climate change problems and we have to act now and similar BS.

Jan 12, 2014 at 9:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterJon

Read about this in the Mail Online yesterday,,,,,,,,,,

Such a shame there was no mention of the Beebs Pension Plan investments! That would have really opened up some eyes!

Jan 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterDickymint

"Such a shame there was no mention of the Beebs Pension Plan investments! That would have really opened up some eyes"

I think that the pension fund investment story has been debunked.

Jan 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

Which is the greater crime? The BBC's facilitating Savile's sexual assaults on under-age children, or the BBC's promulgation of the CAGW myth and suppression of alternate views? Hard to say.

Jan 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

As the BBC's interests merely mirror the interests if the Labour Party they (the politicians) probably didn't have to do any arm twisting to get Al Beeb to report what they wanted spread about how catastrophic Mann Made Global Warming (tm) was going to be!


Jan 12, 2014 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Here, again, is the list of whom the BBC's pension fund's invested in.
GlaxoSmithKline - 50.7

Rolls Royce - 48.2

BP - 46.7

Amazon.Com - 46.4

AstraZeneca - 46.3

Royal Dutch Shell - 43.0

British American Tobacco - 37.8

Vodafone Group - 29.8

Pinault Printemps - 26.7

Inditex - 26.2

Novartis - 25.5

Centrica - 25.3

BAE Systems - 25.3

Baidu - 25.1

Reckitt Benckiser - 24.5
etc, etc.
So, 2 "Big Oil" & 1 "Big Tobacco" in the top 6 and an "Arms Manufacturer" to boot!
(Bish, how about stickying a link to this list somewhere, then the muppets like Dicky can check before they post.)

Jan 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterAdam Gallon

is there a link to the newly disclosed documents?

Jan 12, 2014 at 10:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Whenever I visit the Daily Mail website it's a constant struggle to not be distracted by photos of frolicking naked celebrities and the enormous Kardashian in the right hand column

Jan 12, 2014 at 10:23 AM | Registered Commentershub

Documents and more detail at Tony's harmless sky blog, link on the right.

Tony 'won his battle last month'. And kept quiet about it! Though there was a hint in early December.

The Rose article is good but does not mention that the list of attendees that the beeb fought to keep secret was found on the web later. Maurizio might be a bit peeved.

Jan 12, 2014 at 10:31 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Shub, click on the 'news' tab. You are probably on the 'home' tab.

Jan 12, 2014 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered Commenter:}

Yes Jon, I agree that the Norwegian counterpart to BBC is very much the same. NRK is also a tax payer funded leftist mouthpiece, spewing out AGW propaganda, pro immigration propaganda etc. I t is only truthful when it serves T Cause. I wish it was either disbanded or privatized/defunded. I see no need for such an institution and being forced to pay for being subjected to such propaganda makes me quite annoyed.
At the very least NRK scope (and funding) should be narrowed down to cover only such topics of national interest not covered by commercial broadcasting. Many feel the same way about BBC I would assume.
In fact, I believe there are such parallels between most tax payer funded public broadcasters in the western world.

Jan 12, 2014 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeorgeGr

What a shame that the pension fund is not invested in the following:

Jan 12, 2014 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

Sorry, try this one.

Jan 12, 2014 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

@Shub yes Mrs Shub was telling me about your accidental clicks when you are spending hours looking for climate stories in the Daily Mail

Jan 12, 2014 at 10:57 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I've been looking at the BBC docs.. and ref that January 26th seminar, organised by IBT and CMEP (Harrabin, Smith)

Do we know whether Roger Harrabin was still on the advisory board of the Tyndal Centre in January 2006,
wayback machine shows he was in August 2005 (then Tyndall changed their website, and no lists available)

Tyndall had FUNDED Harrabin/Smith's CMEP to organise BBC seminars, and in Prof Mike Hulmes (Tyndall) words, to keep sceptics like Stott of the airways!!

Mike Hulme (climategate 2 email):

“Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)

Both Harrabin and Smith seemed to think hem Influential:
The CMEP seminars seem to have been very succesful in persuading the BBC to change it stance and policies in the reporting of ‘climate change’ as described by Dr Joe Smith’s in his OU profile: (h/t DAvid Holland)

“The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing significant changes in the tone and content of BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming,” - Dr Joe Smith

“It has had a major impact on the willingness of the BBC to raise these issues for discussion. Joe Smith and I are now wondering whether we can help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world” – Roger Harrabin

I wrote about the above at Watts Up With That, when climategate 2 broke, quotes from & more detail here:

Jan 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

It looks like the Mail may be blocking new Comments as in prior articles where the comments slate the government & BBC, there haven't been any new comments for 2 Hours now.

Jan 12, 2014 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterA C Osborn

As the BBC's interests merely mirror the interests if the Labour Party they (the politicians) probably didn't have to do any arm twisting to get Al Beeb to report what they wanted spread about how catastrophic Mann Made Global Warming (tm) was going to be!


You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.

But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to.

Humbert Wolfe: "Over the Fire", from The Uncelestial City (1930)

Jan 12, 2014 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterAllan M

You have to wonder what sort of scandal the BBC would have to be involved in before its executives throw their hands up in the air and say, we admit it folks, the BBC is a sick organisation that cannot reform itself.

Jan 12, 2014 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterMax Roberts

A footnote to Barry's comment at 11:01 - the "Stott vs. Houghton" segment is still available on the BBC's old Today programme archive, and I have a transcript of it here:

Jan 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

Congratulations and sincere thanks to Tony Newbery for his perseverance and David Rose for exposing this disgraceful behaviour by the BBC.

The story is actually much bigger than I initially realised and is well summarised in Bish's final sentence. I hope this is not the end of the matter, it would be intolerable for this scandal to brushed under the carpet. How can we ensure that it is not?

There are more questions to be answered, too. The BBC Trust obviously knew all about this, why has Patten not resigned? Harrabin has now been exposed publicly as a climate change activist, even though we all knew about him for years. Why should anyone believe anything he says about climate anymore? Why is he still in his job?

Jan 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Surely this blatant bias and accepting funds from the Labour party puts the BBC in breach of it's charter. What body has the power to act against such breaches ?

Jan 12, 2014 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

See my letter to the BBC Trust sent 23 November, 2012.
Needless to say I got the brush-off (see response).
Huppert was equally useless.

Director, BBC Trust
The BBC Trust
180 Great Portland Street
London, W1W 5QZ

Dear Sir,
I am writing to you about a serious concern regarding the BBC’s reporting of climate change science and associated issues.

From the detail emerging in the aftermath of Mr. Tony Newbery’s F.O.I case (EA/2009/0118) it is absolutely clear that the BBC is in breach of its Charter, which requires it to be impartial.
Furthermore it knowingly and wilfully breached its Charter in this regard and has since tried to hide this fact from the Public and license fee payers, at the Publics’ expense.

In June, 2007, the BBC Trust published a report entitled “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st Century”. That report, which is fully endorsed by the BBC Trust, contains the following statement (page 40):

“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."

This statement forms the basis for the BBC’s decision to breach its Charter and abandon impartiality on the subject of climate change and instead provide a highly biased and alarmist presentation of the science of climate change, without any attempt at counterbalancing argument, let alone “equal space”.

Since then attempts have been made, via FOI requests, to find out the identities of the so-called “best scientific experts” who attended the “high level seminar” which thereby provided the justification for the BBC to abandon its principle of impartiality in this area. To my best knowledge, the BBC has not abandoned its impartiality in this way, even in wartime.

Tony Newbery, a pensioner, clearly felt the same way and has gone through a long series of FOI requests and processes, culminating, earlier this month, in a tribunal at the Central London Civil Justice Centre (case no. EA/2009/0118). The FOI request was for the identities of the “best scientific experts” who attended the seminar. In order to conceal this information, the BBC fielded a team of 6 lawyers, including barristers, at an estimated cost of £40,000 per day, to prevent the list of names from being published. Whilst they were successful, it was a pyrric victory, as it transpires that this information, that the BBC had tried so hard to conceal, had been in the Public domain for some time.
So who were these “best scientific experts”?
It turns out to be a motley collection of climate alarmists, activists, environmental advocates and those with vested financial interests:

Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director,
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia.

Not one of these could be described as “scientific”, let alone an expert.

The remainder:

Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge

are scientists, but were misleadingly described in court by Helen Boaden (of Jimmy Saville infamy), as “scientists with contrasting views”. In fact all are unashamedly alarmist. Pointedly, not one of these scientists deals with attribution science, or the atmospheric physics of global warming.

So where are the real experts? Scientists from the Met Office, or the Hadley Centre, one of the foremost climate research centres in the world? Where are the names of Dr.
Chris Landsea, World expert on hurricanes, or Dr. Nils‐Axel Mörner, World authority on sea level rises? Or Professors Richard Lindzen, or Murry Salby, World experts on atmospheric physics? Why are there no experts from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia?

It now crystal clear why the BBC went to such great lengths and expense to
withhold the names of those attending. They are not the “best scientific experts” but
rather a group overwhelmingly comprised of environmental activists and NGO’s,
with no scientific training, whatsoever, or those with a vested interest, often financial, in keeping climate change alarmism firmly in the Public eye.

In conclusion I put it to the BBC Trust that:
1. The BBC and, by endorsing the report, the BBC Trust, have lied to the public that
they organised and/or attended a seminar at BBC Television Centre involving the
“best scientific experts” on climate change.

2. That its change of policy to no longer be impartial on the subject of climate
change was not based on scientific evidence, or the views of the “best scientific
experts”, but in fact was as a result of listening to the views, advice and lobbying
from inappropriate and biased individuals, groups and organisations including Greenpeace, Tearfund, US Embassy, BP, IIED, IBT, AsRia, E3G etc.

3. That the BBC and the BBC Trust are in breach of the charter and acting
unlawfully. The following quotations are taken from the website

1.2.1 Trust
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.

1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.
1.2.3 Impartiality
Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.

1.2.4 Editorial Integrity and Independence
The BBC is independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.

Each and every one of these guidelines has been knowingly breached.

This is a scandal that is, in its own way, more disturbing than the one over the Jimmy Savile affair, as it has implications for the whole population. Interestingly the key players is this scandal, George Entwistle, Helen Boaden, Peter Rippon and Steve Mitchell, are also key players in the Savile affair. However whilst the Savile scandal is being looked into by a series of inquiries, this has been ignored.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course on this matter. Please also be advised that I have sent a copy of this letter to my Member of Parliament the Rt. Hon. Julian Huppert, MP.

Dear Dr. Keiller.

Dear Dr Keiller
Thank you for your email to the BBC Trust. I am responding as a member of the BBC Trust Unit which supports and advises the Chairman and Trustees.
I note your concerns about the impartiality of the BBC and I can assure you that ensuring the impartiality of the BBC is a key priority for the Trust; it is essential to its independence that the BBC retains the public’s trust as an impartial purveyor of news and programming. The BBC is required to deliver duly impartial news by the Royal Charter and Agreement and to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality. The Trust is committed to making sure that the BBC fulfils this obligation.
The seminar to which you refer was held on 26 January 2006 under the Chatham House Rule. It was organised in partnership with the Cambridge Media and Environmental Programme (CMEP) in conjunction with BBC News and BBC Vision. It pre-dated the Trust and was not a BBC Trust event. I understand that the Seminar was a one-day event focusing on climate science and the possible implications for businesses, individuals and international diplomacy looking ahead to the next 10 years and exploring the challenges facing the BBC in covering the issue. The event brought together 28 BBC representatives and 28 external invitees including scientists and policy experts including representatives from business, campaigners, NGOs, communications experts, people from the 'front line', scientists with contrasting views and academics. It is important that, in order to achieve an understanding of where due weight might lie in an argument, the BBC establishes what the prevailing consensus on an issue is and I understand that the seminar was part of that effort.

New editorial guidelines were published in 2010. The current BBC Guidelines state that, "Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve 'due weight'. For example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing consensus."
The Trust's Editorial Standards Committee has explained its position in some of its findings on the subject in recent years. The Committee decided that its position was that there is a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and laid out some of the reasons for reaching that decision, which included the statement by the Royal Society that, "Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming". The Committee also noted that all three of the larger British political parties, as well as the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, have accepted man-made climate change as a reality.

However, if you feel there are specific instances where the BBC has not met expected standards of impartiality then you can of course raise them using the BBC complaints process. Details of the process are available online at
I hope this is helpful.

Jan 12, 2014 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

The question that occurs to me is why Dfid would be awarding such grants. Under what twisted criteria does training the BBC staff in anything count as international development?

Jan 12, 2014 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

I think there is another scandal. About ten years ago I worked for a development agency and we booked a BBC TV science journalist to give us a series of talks about things like, getting on air - how to get your story on the news, and how to be interviewed. I recall that she was well paid for a days tuition but had to frequently break off to take calls from her editors - seems she was double-dipping and being paid twice that day.

Jan 12, 2014 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJud1

Excellent letter Don.

Even though they ignored it - we can hope that one day, when the whole fiasco is exposed and gets the Jimmy Savile forensic treatment, it will resurface and help somebody's head to roll.

Jan 12, 2014 at 12:48 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

Like all state broadcasters the BBC is an organ of state propaganda. Not always the elected government's views, but the views of other components of the state. Those parts which ensure continuity despite party politics. The BBC charter, the trust and the illusion of independence that they give enable the state to keep it at arm's length and maintain a more credible appearance for the broadcaster.

There is nothing new about this. It has always been the case. George Orwell worked for the BBC and only extrapolated slightly when he put his experiences into a book.

Jan 12, 2014 at 12:49 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Writing to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee asking for an investigation would seem to be the best bet given Philip Davies performance recently.

I don't think that the Secretary of State has the powers to intervene directly where the BBC is concerned, and quite right too!

Jan 12, 2014 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterTonyN

Don, Thank you for posting your letter to the BBC. Their reply could be paraphrased as: "We held a conference from which we excluded people whose views we don't agree with, and this confirmed that our policy should be that we exclude views we don't agree with."

Jan 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

The BBC is supposed to be independent (what a joke) so politicians don't like to interfere. However, there are some Tory MPs who have a go now and again. One raised the question of BBC funding recently while complaining about bias - I think it was Grant Shapps but I could be wrong. Perhaps one of these MPs would raise the issue in the House just to do a bit of stirring.

Maria Miller as culture secretary with responsibility for the media should also be pestered about this.

Get writing!

Jan 12, 2014 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

The BBC's tentacles spread far and wide with donations to BBC Media Action separate from the licence fee:

"BBC Media Action is the BBC's international development charity. It is legally, financially and operationally independent from the BBC"….However, "BBC Media Action 'belongs' to the BBC…."BBC Media Action grew out of earlier BBC initiatives, including a charity called 'Marshall Plan of the Mind'…. set up to encourage high standards of journalism in the Former Soviet Union…"

"We work in partnership to provide access to useful, timely, reliable information….Trust is a founding principle of BBC Media Action. We are open and transparent….."

Where does their money come from?

"In the year to 31 March 2012, BBC Media Action received £29.5 million. The principal funding source was grants receivable from international bilateral donors."

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation £1 Million

Dutch Government £2 Million

United Nations £2.2 Million

US State Department £2.3 Million

Foreign and Commonwealth Office £2.6 Million

European Union £3 Million

Other grants £5.1 Million

Income from generated funds £1.2 Million

UK Government's DfID £10.1 Million

"We do not receive funding from the BBC licence fee. However, we are grateful that the BBC provides BBC Media Action with office space and a small grant from the World Service."

Climate Asia is one example of their reach:

"Climate Asia will be the largest ever research study into public understanding of climate change in Asia with more than 33,000 interviews conducted across seven countries: Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam. This working paper explains the distinctive research approach BBC Media Action has taken in these seven focus countries, which have a combined population of more than three billion people."

Jan 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered Commenter52

Here is another name to look at with awe and amazement- John Bridcut who was commissioned to write "From See-Saw to Wagon Wheel - Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century"
and which informs the current BBC Guidelines which state that, "Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item”.

It was Mr. Bridcut’s conclusion that the "28gate" Seminar included 'some of the best scientific experts', which underpins the BBC's stance on Climate Change"

And just who is John Bricut?
John Bridcut is an award-winning film maker, with a string of varied documentaries to his name. Much of his recent work has been with his own company, Crux Productions, but he also works as a freelance director and producer for other production companies. He has also published two books and lectures on music and broadcasting.

His latest music documentary Delius: Composer, Lover, Enigma explores the pleasures of Frederick Delius, and was shown on BBC Four in May. A week later A Jubilee Tribute to The Queen by The Prince of Wales was shown on BBC One three times, with a total audience of 10.3 million viewers. His 2011 documentary, The Prince and the Composer, a film about Hubert Parry by The Prince of Wales, has now been released on DVD after its acclaimed screening on BBC Four.

The third of Bridcut's composer-portraits, Elgar: the Man Behind the Mask, won the Czech Crystal Award for best documentary at the Golden Prague TV Festival in October 2010, and went on to secure the 2011 BAFTA Craft Award for Sound (Factual). The Passions of Vaughan Williams (2008) and Britten’s Children (2004) have also won awards. He complemented the Britten film with a book of the same title, which was published by Faber and Faber in 2006. Since then, he has written the Faber Pocket Guide to Britten, which was published in November 2010. He has also produced film portraits of Roald Dahl, Hillary Clinton, Rudolf Nureyev, Mstislav Rostropovich and The Queen.

John Bridcut began his career as a journalist on the staff of The Spectator, and moved into broadcasting as a BBC News Trainee. After twelve years at the BBC, where he worked in national and regional newsrooms, and produced programmes such as The World at One, Newsnight and The Money Programme, he moved into independent production. With Viewpoint, and later Mentorn, he produced a range of current affairs programmes for Channel 4 and the BBC, as well as several series on subjects of contemporary history. For a total of more than ten years now, he has produced programmes through his own company, Crux Productions.

In 2007 he authored a report for the BBC Trust about the safeguarding of impartiality in the 21st century, entitled From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel.

John Bridcut is an English documentary film maker, best known for his films about British composers. His most famous work, Britten's Children (2004), is a study of the influence that Benjamin Britten's close relationships with children had on the composer and material from the documentary was later made into a book (2006).[1]
He has also created documentaries about Ralph Vaughan Williams (The Passions of Vaughan Williams, 2008), Edward Elgar (The Man Behind the Mask, 2010) and Hubert Parry (The Prince and the Composer, 2011), the latter a collaboration with Charles, Prince of Wales, whom he had earlier profiled in Charles at 60: The Passionate Prince. Other documentaries by Bridcut include studies of Queen Elizabeth II, Rudolf Nureyev, Roald Dahl and Hillary Clinton

I have yet to hear a credible explanation of how Mr. Bridcut’s specialist knowledge of English 20th. Century composers in any way qualifies him to pass judgements on science, or whether those who attended are “some of the best scientific experts”. In fact the vast majority on the 28gate list are not scientists, rather activists and campaigners from organisations that promote climate change alarmism and indeed, stand to profit from it.

Jan 12, 2014 at 1:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Having spent many hours and posts here looking into the BBC Pension Fund investments after a similar claim was made on an earlier thread and finding nothing concrete only some circumstantial evidence on the fund manager could you post any references giving exact details of where investments are and their value?

Many thanks in advance.

Jan 12, 2014 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered CommentersandyS

"the BBC Trust should now set up a genuinely independent inquiry into how editorial policy on climate change has been formulated and who has been able to exert influence on that process".

The Tony Newbury sentiment above seems almost as if Brendan Montague had a heads-up on the story.

"We've been running a two year investigation into climate change and how policy is formulated by special interest groups".

Jan 12, 2014 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

Sorry.... Tony Newbery

Jan 12, 2014 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

Jan 12, 2014 at 12:26 PM | Don Keiller (quoting letter to BBC dated 23 November, 2012)

So where are the real experts? Scientists from the Met Office, or the Hadley Centre, one of the foremost climate research centres in the world?

Thank you for the endorsement, Don. It's good to know you think we are among the real experts.

Jan 12, 2014 at 2:07 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

CMEP Seminars and any other influence prior to 2006, appear to be when the BBC's Roger was on the advisory board of the Tyndall Centre (joined 2002), where he seems to have been on the board for at least 3 1/2 years.

When Mike Hulme was saying this is why we fund CMEP, to keep Stott of airwaves (in 2002) Roger Harrabin had been invited onto the board, in 2001!

see this email from Mike Hulme (Tyndall) extract:

“date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:12:40 +0000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Advisory Board members

We have been strongly ‘encouraged’ by our Advisory Board to broaden
membership slightly to include someone from the media, another NGO member,
and an ‘economist’ or investor, also to think carefully about membership of
our External Review Panel and our Annual Assessment Panel. I am therefore
proposing the following:

1. We invite three more members to our AB:

Roger Harrabin (media; Radio BBC) – reserve Paul Brown (The Guardian)
Bill Hare (NGO; Greenpeace) – reserves Mike Harley (English Nature); Derek
Norman (NWREDACTEDSustainability Group)
???? (one suggestion Thomas Johansson, energy economist, UNDP/Sweden) –
others please.”

So how much influence did CMEP/ BBC’s Roger Harrabin have between 2002 and August 2005 (or later, when did he step down) when Roger was on the Tyndall Advisory board..

other interesting climategate 1& 2 emails (search term 'Harrabin' or 'advisory board')

Does anybody know the date Roger Harrabin stepped down from the Tyndall Centre advisory board

Jan 12, 2014 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

FOI Reply

The seminar was conducted under the Chatham House Rule to enable free and frank
discussion, something that is necessary for our independent journalism. Some information
regarding this event was posted on a website in 2007 without the permission of the BBC,
and later taken down. It has recently become apparent that this information is still available
on an internet archive. However, this does not impact on the decision of the Tribunal nor
the reason the BBC defended its decision not to disclose the material sought under the FO

In total, £18,665 plus VAT of £4,091 was spent on legal fees.

Please note however that the majority of Freedom of Information work is carried out in-
house within the BBC. The Information Policy and Compliance team, which deals with
many aspects of FOI, does not charge out for its work and we therefore do not hold
information relating to the individual costs of in-house work.

Jan 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdrian Kerton

How much of these tens of thousands of pounds, some of it on interset free loan from the European Union, has been covered up by the current BBC trust chairman and EU Commission Pensioner Christopher Francis Patten

According to article 213 of the EU Treaty

Commissioners, When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 216 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.

Jan 12, 2014 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

And all for only £3 /week?

The BBC, definitely needs ending but how do you kill a monolith?

The BBC loves to nurture, it coddles and inveigles, it is clever and it is in your house day and night. Warm and the cosy grand-parental image it loves to promote but which is so far away from it's real motives.

The Savile scandal, is now safely put to bed, shut down, hidden - covered up? A sorry saga of a man who could not control himself and who was one who was proclaimed to be a paragon and darling of the BBC. But it was not a fiction the BBC loves but the reality of a serial paedophile who remained free over 50 years to molest and rape with abandon in the buildings of the BBC and elsewhere and no one, not one? No person, noticed his deviant behaviour [or, did they]? The Savile palaver, is now out of the news, hushed up - who or. what 'kind of pull' can command that sort of power?

I think that, the BBC deserves all the opprobrium that flies its way, however, umbrage and detestation can not and will not change it, its editorial, or its prime raison d'etre.

The function of the BBC, has been changed since the days of Reith, even if we are to believe history and those noble aims, certainly even back then there were some ignoble charlatans in the corridors of Broadcasting house, and inexorably those ignoble charlatans now rule the roost.

The BBC is corrupt, it is run by a bunch of old white liberal hand wringing PC corporate managers who do the bidding and answer only to a higher authority. The BBC, it is fat and lazy and it does not answer to any British authority, it is very much like the Vatican state - a state within a state and able to do as it pleases because it answers only to the Gods in Brussels.

Evidently, the British people in the form of the licence fee fund the BBC. But funding - this we should all [here in Britain] seek to change, to end it and now.*

Entertainment, is that what it does? No, entertainment is merely a by product, of course - circuses are important as is the bread, but merely entertaining the masses is not the real reason the BBC still exists.

The BBC, it functions solely for the purpose's of re-education and the total reshaping and alteration of social mores and behaviours in this nation. This will be done, through propaganda, the advertising, promotion and use of televisual brainwashing in all programming pun intended. One only has to switch onto one of the BBC's flagship programmes, a soap about life in the East End of London, where dysfunctional families run the street, petty and major crimes are a constant theme and 'modern' values and dissolute sexual practices are portrayed as the norm. Even if you drop in to watch stargazing efforts, the happy chappies, Irish and all smiles never miss an opportunity to mention all sorts of bogus science - man made warming passed from science and metamorphosed into the great new religion - all of the BBC worship at its altar. Newsnight, Question Time, not news, not current affairs - just pushing one political and polarized version and that is propaganda.

The BBC doesn't have to be teflon coated, it just exists outside of Westminster's political remit and our power, yes we fund it but no, we do not own it [and Is it not time to change that?].

UNEP Agenda 21, is the new edition, is the bible, is the way.

UN agenda 21 and forwards with the BBC at the vanguard. Witness, how the BBC though Lord knows why, is still revered overseas, in most regions of Asia and Africa, the considerable almost universal reach of it's foreign service - The importance of the role of the BBC was recognized early and is utilized by the EU and UN to promote all of their redistributive, Marxist inspired doctrine. World news24, if you ever have the misfortune to have to watch it, it is THE global warming channel. After that, all cultural Marxist precepts will be adhered to and promulgated throughout the country, Dave, our PM has no more power over the BBC than do us ordinary Joe's and Joanne's.

The story is big but 28gate. Sock puppetry, using government money, paying green NGO's to propagandize itself - well truthfully speaking - that's par for the course.

*Though, these days the PC brigade also pervade at Sky and ITN - the internet is the last truly free and unbiased news media remaining.

Jan 12, 2014 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

"Jan 12, 2014 at 12:26 PM | Don Keiller (quoting letter to BBC dated 23 November, 2012)

So where are the real experts? Scientists from the Met Office, or the Hadley Centre, one of the foremost climate research centres in the world?

Thank you for the endorsement, Don. It's good to know you think we are among the real experts."

Even Don Keiller is fallible....

Jan 12, 2014 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitter&Twisted

I haven't seen Richard Betts post here for some time. I assume that he has contributed to Donna's expenses, though no sign of him over on that post yet. He must be able to afford it far more than us (we?) pensioners, as we are all funding his large salary.

Jan 12, 2014 at 3:23 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Which is the greater crime? The BBC's facilitating Savile's sexual assaults on under-age children, or the BBC's promulgation of the CAGW myth and suppression of alternate views? Hard to say.
Jan 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I would hope that the our scepticism about the climate change hysteria might make us think twice about swallowing other hysterias whole.

Jan 12, 2014 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

"Thank you for the endorsement, Don. It's good to know you think we are among the real experts."

For what it's worth, only real experts deserve to be called experts, (and earn the bouquets and brickbats)

Jan 12, 2014 at 3:41 PM | Registered Commentershub

There is a Wiki page called 'Criticism of the BBC'. It has been the subject of much passionate editing and reediting, and the BBC's own staff have been accused of participating in this edit war. See:-

But the 28gate scandal or any reference to it has never yet, as far as I can ascertain, found its way on to this high profile summary page. It is high time it did so and now the David Rose article is published there is really no excuse for it to remain censored from that wiki page.

Hopefully someone with the skill and fortitude will facilitate this...?

Jan 12, 2014 at 4:29 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

I wonder how the BBC pension fund investments look like??
I shudder at the thought they would be invested in eg an airplane jetmotor manufacturer (carbon!)

(Hows RR.L doing lately, btw?)

Jan 12, 2014 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterptw

The way the BBC conducts itself IS a problem but its a problem that can only be solved if our so called political masters grew a backbone and made the BBC tax voluntary.

The BBC's only concern should be in reporting the news and nothing more. When I say the news I mean the news and NOT the BBC's opinion which it reports as the news!

Additionally, all BBC employees should NOT be holding second jobs and working for this think tank or that action group etc. Hell, these clowns shouldnt even be using twitter!

I think the sad reality though is we are stuck with the BBC and how it undermines everything about this great country. Having said that, the BBC is the last place I go to for news and I suspect thats true for a very large number of people who still retain the critical ability to think for themselves.

If only Jeremy Clarkson was running the show aye! Then we would have proper quality material broadcast (like his fantastic doco on PQ17 and also Top Gears awesome review of the BMW GT5 car and of course who could ever forget the quite deliberate BBC p1sstake when he was driving some little car through BBC HQ and burst in on a BBC management meeting that contained a lesbian, a dwarf, a green loon and was talking about climate change!).

JC for Prime Minister! :)



Jan 12, 2014 at 4:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Whenever I visit the Daily Mail website it's a constant struggle to not be distracted by photos of frolicking naked celebrities

Why wouldn't you want to be distracted by such 'solid' reporting. At my age that's all I have, look but don't touch'.

Jan 12, 2014 at 4:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

I haven't seen Richard Betts post here for some time. I assume that he has contributed to Donna's expenses, though no sign of him over on that post yet. He must be able to afford it far more than us (we?) pensioners, as we are all funding his large salary.

Jan 12, 2014 at 3:23 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

He was communicating by tweets with Ryan Maue et al but appeared to get the cold shoulder. He'll be back when instructed to do so by the dame.

Jan 12, 2014 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterstephen Richards

The first of the documents at Tony's blog is interesting. It is the application from Mark Galloway of IBT to DFID requesting funding for the seminars. It talks repeatedly of the aim of improving media coverage of the developing world. Climate is not mentioned at all, unless I missed it. Galloway seems to have obtained government funding for his climate activism seminar under false pretences.

Jan 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

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>