Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Alan Kendall's "What should the BBC do to improve its climate change coverage?

Alan - I think the Caps Lock key on your keyboard is stuck. Could you check it please. Otherwise your words might appear as bullying.

May 3, 2016 at 8:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Alan - very strange - the comment [by ?janice21??] and your advice to her IN CAPS seem both to have disappeared - hence my 8:33 comment won't appear to make any sense.

May 3, 2016 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin A.

I do believe the Bishop has excommunicated my spellchecker, and jessica121thingy got caught in the backlash.

May 3, 2016 at 9:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, if only Climate Science could be excommunicated, or at least banished to some remote rural University Campus, where it could be quietly forgotten, and allowed to drift back into obscurity.

All I am saying, is give peas a chance.

May 3, 2016 at 9:19 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Do you have anywhere in particular in mind gC? UEA perchance?

Broccoli sprouts to you Sir.

May 3, 2016 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

I think Nigel Farage does both, as one has to if you make a successful lasting argument.

Take uncontrolled mass migration: it does depress wages, increase housing shortages, decrease life chances for the young, increase health waiting lists, overcrowd schools, increase traffic.

What from the above list is incorrect and how does facing up to such serious problems make one a panderer to popular desires or be irrational?

I suppose one could keep quiet as the country is slowly destroyed.

May 3, 2016 at 8:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

Steve Richards
What from the above list is incorrect? The word "mass"' mainly. Can you define "mass migration"?
Can you provide any evidence that the current level of immigration from within the EU (non-EU immigration is a different matter) depresses wages, increases housing shortages, decreases life chances for the young, increases health waiting lists, overcrowds schools, or increases traffic beyond what a mature civilised country ought to be able to cope with?.
And would be able to cope with if it wasn't wedded to a totally insane welfare policy. So try laying the blame where it belongs — with Gordon Brown for the crazy system of in-work benefits in the first place and the bleeding-heart liberals (and the bunch of chancers that calls itself the Parliamentary Labour Party) who effectively blocked Osborn's attempt to restore some sanity to the system last year.
Then you can have a go at the government that didn't take advantage of the rule that allowed free movement from the new entrants to the EU to be phased in — headed by a guy called Blair, I seem to recall.
If you make the UK the most attractive place in Europe for the poor and the huddled masses then they will come by hook or by crook by boat or by lorry.
As for non-EU immigration, the same thing applies. Forgive me if I quote from my own blog:

Remember the ‘Jungle’ is not full of Bulgarians; it is full of Syrians and Somalis and Sudanese and a dozen other nationalities from all parts of the alphabet who, like Dick Whittington, think the streets of London are paved with gold (though they would probably settle for them not being open sewers knee-deep in camel dung).
Most of them have travelled half-way across Europe to get to the UK. Why? Because we are a soft touch; generous benefits, lax law enforcement; no realist checks on illegal workers; a Human Rights Act which, because of the way we have re-structured the judiciary, is more restrictive than the ECHR.
And Farage is barking up two wrong trees: first, out of the EU it will be Bulgarians and Romanians as well as all the others that will be camping in the Jungle and trying to get in; second, the average Brit won't stand for the measures needed to fix the problem. In France I am legally obliged to carry identification at all times. If I am driving I am legally obliged to have my driving licence with me — and I have alread seen on several blogs the huffing and puffing at that idea.
"Terrible! Not British, don't you know!"
Farage has no cure for the immigration problem (and I would certainly agree that at least potentially there is a problem). But he sounds good.

Apologies for driving this thread even further off topic. Time for bed, I think.

May 3, 2016 at 9:48 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

In France I am legally obliged to carry identification at all times

I don't think that is true any longer, Mike. Although pretty well all French citizens do seem to carry their ID card at all times.

May 3, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

ID in France. Plenty of people seem to say you have to carry it. But I have a pretty clear recollection of looking it up on a gouv.fr site (but not clear enough to remember where) which said you don't - except perhaps under a narrow range of circustances.

May 3, 2016 at 11:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin A /Mike Jackson
Why not take it further off topic? The person named in the title wasn't over the moon about its creation in the first place.

I always have it in mind that I should carry ID whilst out and about. Carrying a passport at all times is inconvenient. My only experience is a few years ago whilst on holiday here we were stopped by the Gendarmes on a random check about a mile from home, it looked foreign and old vehicles were being stopped. Anyway as we'd only popped out we didn't have all the cars documents or everyone's passports, in France I think you still have to carry the Carte Grise and the little green insurance thing. The Gendarmes weren't at all happy, but fortunately Mrs S is fluent an explained that no-one carries car documents in case the car gets stolen and sold and we'd forgotten the passports. To avoid further complications we picked up all the documents and went back to show them.

When I'm out on my bike I carry the minimum amount of stuff, wallet and mobile phone. The wallet so I can buy a coffee if I pass an open cafe.

May 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS

Yes, if you are driving in France you should have available for inspection:
- Carte grise
- Insurance certificate (little green thing displayed in the windscreen if the car is registered in France)
- CT (=MOT) also displayed on the windscreen.
- Driving licence

But what I have learned from a bit of hunting around:
- It is not compulsory for a French citizen to have an ID card.
- The flics don't have the right to ask you to identify yourself except within 20km of the border or if you are subject of criminal investigation. You can then prove your identity 'by any means'*.

All the same, it's not a bad idea to have some form of ID on you in France. A passport is too precious to carry about and risk loosing. I've always found a driving licence (UK or French) is accepted.

EU citizens are not required to have a French Carte de Sejour (residence permit) but they have the right to request one and, within France, it has the same status as a French ID card does for a French citizen, so far as I can see.

I don't know but I would guess that a French Carte de Sejour would suffice to enter France. And I don't know, but I would guess that it would *not* suffice to enter the UK (although a French ID card does).

*Article 78-2


Judicial police officers and, upon their orders and under their responsibility, the judicial police agents and assistant judicial police agents mentioned under articles 20 and 21-1° may ask any person to justify his identity by any means, where one or more plausible reasons exist to suspect:
- that the person has committed or attempted to commit an offence;
- or that the person is preparing to commit a felony or a misdemeanour;
- or that the person is able to give information useful for an inquiry into a felony or misdemeanour;
- or that the person is the object of inquiries ordered by a judicial authority.

May 4, 2016 at 8:59 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

The advice from the Mairie when we moved was that we ought to have some recognisable means of identification and carry it with us. Maybe the situation has changed or they were being over-cautious. I find that a scan of the relevant page of a passport serves adequately and since that is in my wallet with all the other clobber it is always with me.
(I don't carry my passport since the time it was nicked two weeks before I was due to fly to the UK for my son's wedding! Yes, I did get there, but involved a day-trip to Marseille to organise a replacement!)
Car documents are supposed to be with the car at all times when you are using it and it was that that caused the huff by some guy who thought it quite unreasonable that he should be expected to have his documents with him. I can't see why that should be such a problem but I know that there is a fairly solid resistance by the average Brit to the idea of any official form of identification.
I'm pretty sure (but since I've just been wrong once, who knows!) that a carte de séjour is not good enough to get you into the UK. My understanding also is that if the UK leaves the EU it will be a passport or nothing though I doubt anyone knows for sure at this stage.
My point in reply to Steve was that if that is the way the average Brit feels about ID documents then there is no point in complaining about the consequences which are that it becomes that much more difficult to control illegal immigration, amongst other things.

May 4, 2016 at 10:51 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike Jackson


My point in reply to Steve was that if that is the way the average Brit feels about ID documents then there is no point in complaining about the consequences which are that it becomes that much more difficult to control illegal immigration, amongst other things.

That'll be the fault of the EU as well then /humour

May 4, 2016 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Mike J I think you'll find Steve Richards lives in France too. I have a holiday home in Cognac( birth place of Jean Monnet), but the life style is a little slow for my taste to live there full time. I like the French they are very kind people with an English sense of humour - at least in the Charente, but I don't want to be part of a superstate with them. If we remain in the EU they will, with or without us, proceed to a USE, I don't know how you'd organise an USE with four or five satellite states, why would you want them to share law? except those agreed by the UN, where most EU provisions originate.

You may think I've gone off topic, but I haven't. What I've just said would never get onto the BBC, or if it did, would be the one dissenting voice allowed among thousands.

May 4, 2016 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

geronimo
I'm in Burgundy and I have to say the lifestyle suits me just fine but each to his own.
Obviously you don't believe the EU when its officials say that a European superstate is not on the cards. I do. Having desperately and not altogether successfully tried to avoid annoying all my friends by keeping out of the referendum debate I would rather not get embroiled in it here as well but I see no evidence that the 28 nations of Europe have a taste for the sort of "ever closer union" that the Leave scaremongers and a few Euro-fanatics either fear on one hand or have some sort of fetish for on the other.
The French are against it; the Dutch are against it; the Irish are against it; as far as I know the Danes are against it. I doubt you'd get it past the German Constitutional Court and the chances of getting it through the UK parliament are slim to non-existent.
Added to which the Commission has made it abundantly clear, and not just in connection with the current situation, that any progress in that direction will be at a speed that suits individual countries. Which in my experience is bureaucrat-speak for "we're stuck with this idea but nobody actually wants it"' which probably explains why if you examine the draft of the Lisbon treaty that never happened you will find the phrase "ever closer union" disappeared.
And the latest incarnation, some sort of statement by the Speakers of a handful of European parliaments, was disowned by the Commission and the governments of the countries concerned in very short order.
Whatever force it had in 1957 has long since waned and if you want a recipe for ending the 70 year peace in Europe trying to shoehorn 28 different democracies into one state is as good a way as any!
My view only, you understand, and one thing is for sure: my generation and the next will be dead long before anything like it comes to pass and by then who knows what Europe will look like?

SandyS
Most (bad) things that happen in the UK are the fault of the EU as far as I can tell. Makes a change from blaming global warming, I suppose!

May 4, 2016 at 3:20 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

geronimo
I live just next door in Limousin, well actually in the same Region now. We find that there is a lot to do both with the local French community and the ex-pats. Similar sense of humour and generosity here too. Not as many ex-pats here as elsewhere. Really good countryside for cycling, either on your own in a club. I miss the football scores on a Saturday afternoon on Radio5 Live (which tends not to mention CC), but not enough to make an effort to find it (back on topic).

May 4, 2016 at 4:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Here in the UK, the Green Blob are demanding life imprisonment for those not carrying correctly sanctioned Green Blob Identification. Synchronised demonstrations of support for the war on CO2 are being modelled on North Korea's worship of their supreme leader.

May 4, 2016 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Shameless pro-CAGW sh***e from the BBC: ""Ice Station Antarctica."

How to improve BBC coverage of the issue? Ban all Wet Office staff from the airwaves. Take all ex-Guardian staff out of the BBC. Put them up against a wall. Rule .303.

May 4, 2016 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterjolly farmer

Mike Jackson et al: I do live full time in the UK although I would dearly love to move to France (my other half does not want to go...).

Mike: re 'ever closer union', and your odd dream of the EU not wanting to do it.

The following is from your home/UK parliament: "Ever closer union" is an EU aim and is enshrined in the EU Treaties. David Cameron wanted to exempt the UK from it, and this has been achieved in the new settlement for the UK in the EU. This note looks at the background to “ever closer union”, its survival through several Treaty changes and its use by the EU Court of Justice.

The link to the UK parliament is: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7230

So, the British Government thinks the EU is determined to go down this route, your belief may differ.

In terms of uncontrolled mass immigration, can I provide written proof of lower wages, worse housing prospects, overloading of health services:

Are you serious?

If net migration into this country is 323,000 from: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/february2016#main-points

how can you expect anyone to believe that current inhabitants of these islands will not be affected by such numbers.

For each 323,000 people coming in, is 323,000 jobs taken, leaving current inhabitants, 323,000 short.

We already have a housing shortage in the UK, causing massive house price inflation. With 323,000 people coming in each year, we have less units of habitation remaining, forcing up property prices faster still.

We have people living longer, people getting divorced, both increasing the need for more dwellings before we consider the needs of the 323,000 pa.

Health services are stretched servicing the needs of the existing population, add 323,000 pa and you can see why people start to get a bit jumpy on this topic when they may be called 'little englanders'.

School places are short, class sizes too large, adding the child portion of 323,000 pa to the school roles is compounding a badly managed situation.

Yes the situation is badly managed, Yes Cameron is stupid and incompetent and possibly an out right liar.

Re lower wages: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration has a balanced view. Stating that higher paid UK people benefit and lower paid UK workers suffer.

I suspect you were/are in the higher paid bracket, same here, however I feel that the interests of the weakest in society should be protected.

We can not do that when 323,000 incomers pa, from low pay societies, move in, in groups to reduce housing cost, take skilled/semi skilled work at lower pay, screwing up current inhabitants chance of living an acceptable life with its normal living costs.

May 5, 2016 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

"I'm in Burgundy and I have to say the lifestyle suits me just fine but each to his own."

Mike I'm in no way criticising the French lifestyle we have many friends scattered about France who love it. Maybe it would explain it if I told you that the place I most liked living in was Hong Kong, I also love New York and in the UK I love Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool and London, in no particular order. In short I'm a townie, who by the way lives in East Anglia.

As for the EU becoming a supranational ESA, That is the whole purpose of the European project and just last year the Five Presidents report set out the road map to political union:

"Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards a genuine Economic Union that ensures each economy has the structural features to prosper within the Monetary Union.

Second, towards a Financial Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing with the private sector. This means completing the Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets Union.

Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation.

And finally, towards a Political Union that provides the foundation for all of the above through genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional strengthening."

John Monnet, whose birthplace I pass everyday when I'm in Cognac is supposed to have said:

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what’s happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having economic purpose, but will eventually an irreversibly to a federations.”

He might not have actually said that, I haven't been able to find the original, but it looks very like what's happened to the EC since we joined.

Anyway no more on Brexit, I don't want to fall our with anyone.

May 5, 2016 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Geronimo. This reads like a hostile takeover bid from Robert Christopher's EU bashing discussion thread. Have you squared this with the relevant authorities? Or perhaps you're lost.

May 5, 2016 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

geronimo / Steve
This is definitely my last word because I likewise have no wish to fall out with those that have been "soul mates" (for want of a better phrase) on here. Frankly Brexit is not worth falling out over.
We are quite evidently never going to agree on the interpretation of "ever closer union". I have made my reading of what the EU does as opposed to the platitudes it spouts as clear as I can. I'll stand by them.

geronimo
On economic and financial union the UK has a longstanding opt-out, which has been clearly stated on more than one occasion.
On fiscal union, my belief is that hell will freeze first regardless of what any number of presidents say.
On political union, it was made clear that the UK also has an opt out and in any event the EU itself has made clear that any progress will be at whatever pace each country thinks suitable for its own situation. Which sounds to me very like "probably never".
None of these, to my mind, is a reason either to get out or to stay in. At least on their own. I'm not about to claim that anyone who chooses one way or the other is right or wrong. It's a value judgment but one that needs to be made on the basis of facts, not myths, rumours, fairy stories because I am very worried that in the event of Brexit, five years down the line the people are going to be out with the ropes and the lanterns. Why? Because that is about how long it will take to understand fully that 90% of the nasties that were being blamed on the EU are actually the result of diktats from much higher up or are home grown. And the "sovereignty" that is being touted as the cure-all is, in this 21st century, 24-hour world, just another myth.

Steve
We're not about to change each other's mind. Figures can be made to prove anything and often are and political statements can be interpreted in a dozen different ways. As I've said, I'm not in the business of trying to persuade anyone. I just rather fancy hearing some sound reasons why we should stay in and some sound reasons why we should leave.
All I've heard from both sides so far is scaremongering waffle based on cherry-picked data and political statements.
Climate change and the Scottish referendum all over again. No more!

May 5, 2016 at 6:15 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson