Despite the refusal of the BBC to reveal the details, the truth will out. We now have the list of members of the seminars organised jointly by the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) and Cambridge Media and Environment Programme (CMES), aimed at changing BBC policy on climate change.

Already, via the Register, we know something of the CMES, established by activist Joe Smith and the BBC's Roger Harrabin. CMEP received funding from the hardline green organisation WWF and the UK government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It later transpired that £15,000 was also received from the University of East Anglia - the institution at the heart of the Climategate scandal.

However, equal partner in the enterprise is the the IBT, about which less is known. The accounts of this charity, though, show that in the five years ending 31 December 2011, it was paid no less that £397,691 by DFID.

View full article here

Over time the IBT has morphed from a producer of programmes about people in the developing world to lobbying on climate change.

DFID has been involved with the IBT from the very early days of the Department existing.

"What makes an effective development awareness strategy" 12th July 1999

Dish of steaming schadenfreude today.

How to deal with these sprawling, incestuous, corrupt, secretive networks of influence financed from public funds by people calling themselves public servants?

My only weapons are not paying TV tax and directing the curious to enlightenment.

What would be truly delicious is mainstream big audience shows being shown up as cynically contrived propaganda vehicles and that the producers and writers are shown to be patronising elitists tipping thoroughly adulterated swill into the trough - slagging off the punters a la Gerald Ratner...

I'd bet that there's more than a few BBC goons desperately trying out how to work this wayback machine thingy from their iPads

I have to say - I've tried it on other issues and damn it ... the sites I looked at weren't in there....

This is just begging for one of those loose-cannon documentary makers to come along and produce a 90-minute DVD exposé to splash out across the globe so that everyone can get to see what these utter fcuking slimy commie bastard thieving lying scumbags are up to.

What's Martin Durkin doing these days?

The law of [un?] intended consequences always kicks in, the bbc have been responsible for promoting this lunatic green agenda - so it follows that these deaths can also be laid at the door the BBC and their cretinous advocacy of CAGW.



link

And we know why but there are other reasons:

Edited by user 14 November 2012 00:10:38(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I have decided, in an ex cathedra sort of way, that "chairperson" is specist ... if there is such a word. Discrimination against different species is hereby prohibited. "Chairthing" it must be!

Edited by user 14 November 2012 11:43:44(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I too noticed it and liked it.

Before seeing your explanation I entertained the idea that 'chairthing' was intended specifically for use in instances when wimmin (or suspected wimmin) served as chairmen, but that otherwise the traditional generic word 'chairman/men' would be used, i.e. for both men and women, and, of course, NEVER 'chair'.

I think it's important that, whenever and wherever one can, one should tread on as many peecee toes as possible, literally in some instances. In fact, I think one is morally obligated to give the maximum possible offence one can to anyone who expects one to adhere to these peecee diktats. They need to realise that their attempts to coerce and bully others into donning their twisted and controlling mental straightjackets are not only not wanted but might well incur ... well... let's say very severe reactions including ones that might well be damaging to their physical wellbeing.

Peecee is nothing but terrorism. The fact that it's generally practiced at below the threshold of physical violence is neither here nor there. Even if it is, that does not mean that the response to it has to be. However, I can imagine that those cases requiring a 'higher-level' response would be fairly rare.

I too was immediately taken by this apparent neologism. There are some situations where the desire to be polite and respectful, and the desire to be the preux chevalier fails us: those are situations where simple honesty demands a more earthy expression. I am a great believer in decorum and I have been an advocate for it on this site pointing out its appropriateness and advantages on several occasions (sometimes in the face of strong objections). But in all fairness, there are times when decorum gets to be a bit thick and a wise person stockpiles words such as "Chairthing" against such occasions. I plan to add this word to my vocabulary and I advise others to do the same. I doubt that I will ever use it, but I will feel better and more confident knowing that it is there if I ever need it.

I have been slow in posting this and, much to my chagrin, I find that Dr. North, euSSR Go Home and John Archer have been much quicker. I think it very telling that so many readers of this forum should focus in on one word. I especially like the philologistic twist of euSSR Go Home's introducing alphabetic letters that cannot be found on the keyboard and, by the way, I think that I prefer "Þing". Now I find that theenglishpainter has also dashed in ahead of me. Enough with "Preview," I need to punch "Post."
"

This subject interests me. I have been blogging on EUreferendum for about ten years now and am never offended by Richard's language because everything he writes is well researched and he uses the right words for the right context.

In a local campaign against windfarms I have the job of writing the newsletters, and I find I constantly get into trouble for being straight in my language which is toned down compared to Richard's . I always illustrate the letters with pictures, the applicants for turbines are vultures with wheelbarrows full of money, the local Parish Council are mice and local councilors meercats. Boy do I get into trouble, both inside my group and with the authorities who are heartily offended.



I often wonder why Richard has not been asked on panels such as any questions. He has such a good grasp of what is going wrong on so many subjects. Even by people on his own side he is treated as an outsider. I can only presume it is to do with hurt feelings because his language is always a bit too honest for their ears. I think that is a real shame, and it reflects badly on the bad listeners rather than Richard's posts which as I said before are always well researched and written

Edited by user 14 November 2012 11:02:03(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Careful you're using a well-worn BBC phrase to justify its impartiality.

The problem is you've become infected with Northern bluntness by living there too long. If only you lived in leafy Oxfordshire the gentle types of the legacy media would listen to you, like myself and Witterings...oh wait that doesn't work either

Edited by user 14 November 2012 12:18:28(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified