BBC removes radio host after mocks 'global warming'.....

[_ldsfaqs]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... stapo.html

I gave another thread the other day how the top weatherman in the UK was fired for being a skeptic of man-made global warming.
Here again, we have more liberal fascism on display.

See, you liberals think there is such a "consensus" with global warming by people of all types..... yet what you don't realize is it's because anyone that disagrees is more often than not "forced out" of the discussion.

This is why an "alternate" movement has been created, is because of liberal fascism supressing thought and facts.

True Science thrives on debate and challenge.... Only science that's not science needs to force those who don't agree out of the discussion.
You all like to claim Mormonism is "hiding the truth"..... welp, that's EXACTLY what you all are doing.
Your science can't survive the scrutiny, those in power know it, so they shut those out who would expose it's flaws and lies directly to the public because it doesn't fit the Liberal Green Agenda, the cult of Green. Thus, all of those who know the actual truth of things are kept on the fringes, and so you falsely think they are quacks, when it's in fact those in power who are the quacks.

[_just me]

1. Why do you care what they do in UK?

2. Don't you believe a company has the right to choose who works for and represents them?

3. Do you see a difference between the government fining or jailing someone for what they say and a company choosing to let go an employee for what they say (which reflects on the company)?

4. Do you believe a Catholic school should be allowed to fire a teacher who is teaching that there is no God?

[Guest]

Now here is how the same story is reported by a (conservative, right wing) newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch, sans sensationalism:

Radio 4 show that criticised Met Office stance on climate change broke broadcasting rules

BBC Trust says What's the Point of the Met Office?, broadcast on August 5, was a "serious breach of the editorial guidelines for impartiality and accuracy"

A Radio 4 programme that claimed that the Met Office had exaggerated the threat posed by global warming as part of its “political lobbying” has been found guilty of serious breaches of the BBC's editorial guidelines.

The BBC Trust said that What's the Point of the Met Office?, broadcast on August 5 and hosted by the journalist Quentin Letts, had "failed to make clear that the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science were supported by the majority of scientists".

Criticising the corporation of a "serious breach of the editorial guidelines for impartiality and accuracy", the broadcaster's governing body said "audiences were not given sufficient information about prevailing scientific opinion to allow them to assess the position of the Met Office and the Met Office position on these criticisms was not adequately included in the programme".

The What's the Point of...? strand is a light-hearted, provocative show that takes on British institutions, asking what purpose they serve. A report into the show said that management errors meant that the controversial nature of its content were not flagged up.

The Trust said: "The programme went on to include a number of script lines and contributions that questioned the Met Office’s work in this area and the science behind its long term forecasting suggesting that: it had been given the task of lobbying for and promoting the 'man-made climate change theory'; that the theory that more CO2 led to global warming was a 'fiction'; and that the Met Office exaggerated the threat posed by global warming to “biblical” proportions as part of its 'political lobbying'."

Writing in this week's edition of The Spectator magazine, Mr Letts said: "I certainly didn’t try to give listeners a reverential précis of ‘prevailing scientific opinion’ — didn’t think that was my remit. The BBC hierarchy’s overreaction to all this has been an education.

"Meanwhile, my ethics and religion mates have been sentenced to hard labour on the BBC Academy’s impartiality online training module, with ‘a substantial scenario on reporting climate-change science’."

Richard Ayre, chairman of the Trust's Editorial Standards Committee, said: “It is clear that this programme fell well short of the standards of impartiality audiences have a right to expect. The BBC recognises this and the Trust will receive updates on the steps the BBC Executive has said it is taking.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/120 ... rules.html

[_The CCC]

Now here is how the same story is reported by a (conservative, right wing)newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch, sans sensationalism:

Radio 4 show that criticised Met Office stance on climate change broke broadcasting rules

BBC Trust says What's the Point of the Met Office?, broadcast on August 5, was a "serious breach of the editorial guidelines for impartiality and accuracy"

A Radio 4 programme that claimed that the Met Office had exaggerated the threat posed by global warming as part of its “political lobbying” has been found guilty of serious breaches of the BBC's editorial guidelines.

The BBC Trust said that What's the Point of the Met Office?, broadcast on August 5 and hosted by the journalist Quentin Letts, had "failed to make clear that the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science were supported by the majority of scientists".

Criticising the corporation of a "serious breach of the editorial guidelines for impartiality and accuracy", the broadcaster's governing body said "audiences were not given sufficient information about prevailing scientific opinion to allow them to assess the position of the Met Office and the Met Office position on these criticisms was not adequately included in the programme".

The What's the Point of...? strand is a light-hearted, provocative show that takes on British institutions, asking what purpose they serve. A report into the show said that management errors meant that the controversial nature of its content were not flagged up.

The Trust said: "The programme went on to include a number of script lines and contributions that questioned the Met Office’s work in this area and the science behind its long term forecasting suggesting that: it had been given the task of lobbying for and promoting the 'man-made climate change theory'; that the theory that more CO2 led to global warming was a 'fiction'; and that the Met Office exaggerated the threat posed by global warming to “biblical” proportions as part of its 'political lobbying'."

Writing in this week's edition of The Spectator magazine, Mr Letts said: "I certainly didn’t try to give listeners a reverential précis of ‘prevailing scientific opinion’ — didn’t think that was my remit. The BBC hierarchy’s overreaction to all this has been an education.

"Meanwhile, my ethics and religion mates have been sentenced to hard labour on the BBC Academy’s impartiality online training module, with ‘a substantial scenario on reporting climate-change science’."

Richard Ayre, chairman of the Trust's Editorial Standards Committee, said: “It is clear that this programme fell well short of the standards of impartiality audiences have a right to expect. The BBC recognises this and the Trust will receive updates on the steps the BBC Executive has said it is taking.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/120 ... rules.html

As is said "Now for the rest of the story" Thanx MissTish

[_ldsfaqs]

Now here is how the same story is reported by a (conservative, right wing) newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch, sans sensationalism:

Radio 4 show that criticised Met Office stance on climate change broke broadcasting rules

BBC Trust says What's the Point of the Met Office?, broadcast on August 5, was a "serious breach of the editorial guidelines for impartiality and accuracy"

A Radio 4 programme that claimed that the Met Office had exaggerated the threat posed by global warming as part of its “political lobbying” has been found guilty of serious breaches of the BBC's editorial guidelines.

The BBC Trust said that What's the Point of the Met Office?, broadcast on August 5 and hosted by the journalist Quentin Letts, had "failed to make clear that the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science were supported by the majority of scientists".

Criticising the corporation of a "serious breach of the editorial guidelines for impartiality and accuracy", the broadcaster's governing body said "audiences were not given sufficient information about prevailing scientific opinion to allow them to assess the position of the Met Office and the Met Office position on these criticisms was not adequately included in the programme".

The What's the Point of...? strand is a light-hearted, provocative show that takes on British institutions, asking what purpose they serve. A report into the show said that management errors meant that the controversial nature of its content were not flagged up.

The Trust said: "The programme went on to include a number of script lines and contributions that questioned the Met Office’s work in this area and the science behind its long term forecasting suggesting that: it had been given the task of lobbying for and promoting the 'man-made climate change theory'; that the theory that more CO2 led to global warming was a 'fiction'; and that the Met Office exaggerated the threat posed by global warming to “biblical” proportions as part of its 'political lobbying'."

Writing in this week's edition of The Spectator magazine, Mr Letts said: "I certainly didn’t try to give listeners a reverential précis of ‘prevailing scientific opinion’ — didn’t think that was my remit. The BBC hierarchy’s overreaction to all this has been an education.

"Meanwhile, my ethics and religion mates have been sentenced to hard labour on the BBC Academy’s impartiality online training module, with ‘a substantial scenario on reporting climate-change science’."

Richard Ayre, chairman of the Trust's Editorial Standards Committee, said: “It is clear that this programme fell well short of the standards of impartiality audiences have a right to expect. The BBC recognises this and the Trust will receive updates on the steps the BBC Executive has said it is taking.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/120 ... rules.html

Did you even read the article.....?
It's not any better..... There is no "law" indicating that people are required to give the "other side" information when they give opinions about something at that very moment (except in places where liberal fascism has gone full bloom like the liberal UK). Further, especially when everyone is well aware of the "dominant" view concerning climate change, i.e. by the company in question.

That is STILL standard liberal fascism.
But as usual, liberals are fine with facism as long as it's not done against them.....

As to the question about company's having the right to allow whatever they want.
That is true, the difference is this is radio program in which people have all kinds of views and opinions.
It's even viewpoints they ALLOWED..... The Facism is them saying radio personality's must be forced to include "other views" when talking about something, the very moment they talk about them, and every moment then talk about something. That's facism.

Liberals have been trying to do the same thing here in the U.S. to conservative talk radio which dominates talk radio.
What was it called again the "Fairness Doctrine".....? (can't remember atm) It's nothing more than facism.
So, this is highly different than a company simply having it's own employment standards. It's a complete afront on free speech.

[_MissTish]

Did you even read the article.....?
It's not any better..... There is no "law" indicating that people are required to give the "other side" information when they give opinions about something at that very moment (except in places where liberal fascism has gone full bloom like the liberal UK). Further, especially when everyone is well aware of the "dominant" view concerning climate change, i.e. by the company in question.

There doesn't need to be a "law", there are BBC rules and editorial policy.

Here are the BBC standards:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline ... s/accuracy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline ... partiality

So, this is highly different than a company simply having it's own employment standards. It's a complete afront on free speech.

Please explain how it's different.

By the way, before you start in on the free speech bit, familiarize yourself with the fact that the UK has different " laws" than the US regarding the same, and that even in the US the right to free speech doesn't necessarily give you the right to say whatever you like at your job.

[_Some Schmo]

By the way, before you start in on the free speech bit, familiarize yourself with the fact that the UK has different " laws" than the US regarding the same, and that even in the US the right to free speech doesn't necessarily give you the right to say whatever you like at your job.

Boy, isn't that the truth. There's a woman at work who's sexually harassing me, and I know my rights. The minute I get tired of it, she's in big trouble. (I keep saying, "Next year... I promise, next year...")

[_MissTish]

Boy, isn't that the truth. There's a woman at work who's sexually harassing me, and I know my rights. The minute I get tired of it, she's in big trouble. (I keep saying, "Next year... I promise, next year...")

[_Some Schmo]

Boy, isn't that the truth. There's a woman at work who's sexually harassing me, and I know my rights. The minute I get tired of it, she's in big trouble. (I keep saying, "Next year... I promise, next year...")

OK, MissTish. You have just won the award for best gif in context ever. Christ, that made me laugh.

[_Blixa]

OK, MissTish. You have just won the award for best gif in context ever. Christ, that made me laugh.