Monday, 31 January 2011

Meet the Sceptics

The BBC, an organisation committed to many left ideological causes like Global Warming, put on a programme called Meet the Sceptics. The BBC had carefully employed an independent film maker, who says that he has 'green' leanings but has 'put them aside'. The film then does exactly what an independent film maker would do, if the idea was to sell the programme to the BBC, he took the usual swipe. The format now seems to be boring in its repetition. He allows the 'scientists' to give their views without criticism and presents the deniers (he was careful to make sure the sceptics of the title were re branded right at the start) as fruit loops. And it is clear this didn't just happen, he edited it like that because it was absolutely surreal.

The other point which this film took great care over (as they all do) was to ensure it didn't present any evidence to back up Global Warming. Oh it made assertions and vague comments, but not anything you could check. Just in case you did. He didn't ask why the 'scientists' claim that you are not allowed to debate Global Warming (when did that represent 'empirical science'?) nor look at sceptics claims of falsification of data. You wouldn't want to muddy the water and confuse the simple plebs who you want to pay, would you?

I did agree that the best and simplest explanation came from a US teacher and his risk analysis. Unfortunately for the film maker he thought the smug assertion in support of Global Warming was brilliant. The guy said the question was do we take action which will cost us an enormous amount of money, or do nothing, in which case catastrophe could happen. Oops!

I also liked the CO2 destruction of Monckton near the denouement. The claim was that 750 million years ago there was 30 per cent saturation of the atmosphere with CO2 and the world was an ice ball, so CO2 doesn't lead inevitably to Global Warming. The 'scientists' said that he was using a greenhouse gas to prove it isn't, which is mad. Er, isn't it the 'scientists' who keep telling us that CO2 will, as day follows night cause the temperature to rise?

Then the film ended with patronising comments and a summary that proves the big money supporting the carbon industry is right; heatwaves and freezing weather and floods all happening around the world. Even Sherlock would be surprised.

Monday, 10 January 2011


I go on about the police here because I have seen what they can be like and am greatly distressed by the way they have chosen to go. However, I should be fair and in the interests of balance add a little something to the previous Jo Yeates post. Whilst the police should have checked the local area in case anyone had CCTV in case it had captured important information and I have criticised them for not so doing, it is also true that local people have a responsibility too. I like to think that, should anything like this happen in my street I would be doing everything I could to help. Surely to goodness people don't need the police to ask them to check their CCTV recordings? Admittedly the general public might miss something, but certainly any footage of Jo would bring a closer look at the rest of the 'tape'? So yes, the police don't seem to inspire confidence, but the same malaise infects the ordinary person too and once again people wait to be told what to do. What a hopeless state of affairs.

Thursday, 6 January 2011

Jo Yeates Murder

The killer of Jo Yeates is still outstanding, so all comment must take care on legal and taste grounds. But I think comment is due, not least now the police have banned a broadcaster from press conferences because they questioned the progress of the investigation. This arrogant response by a public service is unacceptable. If the broadcaster was in error in what they said, the police should have dealt with it by the quality of their response to any charge. Banning is no response and this, allied with the arrogance of the action itself gives us a window into the police and why we have seen the chaotic output from Avon and Somerset police.

We don't seem to know much about activity between December 17th, when Jo went missing and Christmas Day when her body was discovered, but then a 'missing person' enquiry will always be lower profile than that of a murder. However, we do know that the police didn't check with neighbours who had CCTV cameras until after the body was found and that at least one over-writes itself every 4 days. We have heard that a massive search for the box of the pizza she bought was under way, but only that it 'might contain vital evidence' though not why. The search didn't seem important though until the day after the bins were emptied. A press conference was held during which nothing of substance was revealed (it couldn't be, there isn't anything) but the lead officer in the enquiry, DCI Phil Jones droned on at length about how hard his men were working on it. So it seems that was what it was about, a PR puff on behalf of the police. It would be nice if they stayed focused on what is important; a girls murder and worried less about their image.

We were told soon after the body was found that she was fully clothed and there was no sign of a sexual assault. Now we are told a sock and some other items of clothing were missing and she may have been sexually assaulted. I fully support the notion that, in private, in the confines of their offices the police should discuss and consider any possibilities. But what we seem to have with A&S police is a force publicly leaping from theory to theory and randomly releasing snippets of information. The pizza box. Was it sinister that it was 'missing' or did Jo cook it and eat it throwing the box away, to be collected by the binmen before officers started looking for it? Did the autopsy not reveal whether or not a pizza was her last meal, or have the police omitted to check? On current form, the latter doesn't seem unlikely unfortunately.

I don't think there is any doubt that the killer took the body by car for disposal. That meant that this was unobserved as she was placed in the car in an urban street, or persuaded to enter a vehicle and killed elsewhere. But the former is more likely I feel as the place she was left is interesting. If you go West from Clifton, you come to the A4 running North/South, a fast route for escape but public, what if you were stopped? The other side of the A4 is Leigh Woods, which you may feel a likely spot to get rid of the body, but it is skirted by the A369 that may still be too busy. If you want to stick to B roads and lanes then Longwood Lane, where Jo was found is one of the first you naturally come across. To me, without a clear sexual motive or one of robbery, it seems likely to have been a spur of the moment altercation that led to a killing and the rapid disposal of the body.

It snowed the next day and so the body was covered and the cold would not aid discerning a time of death. Which is why stomach contents I think are of great importance. I would want to know whether she would normally buy such a pizza to eat by herself and whether two bottles of cider were her preferred tipple. Would she normally, to buy such a limited range of things visit Waitrose, Tesco and Bargain Booze? It seems quite a trawl to acquire so few items.

I am also fascinated by the speculation that she may have been abducted whilst collecting her post. This, we are led to believe she would have done with only socks on and no coat, despite requiring a journey around the outside of the building. Her boots and coat we can now be told were not on the body but were 'found at the flat'. Or maybe the police have only just realised.

The suggestion that their investigation was being led by people who perhaps lack a little something did, of course, seed itself in our minds when the landlord was arrested. Whilst he could have let himself into her flat (there was no sign of forced entry) and he had given 'contradictory' statements to the police, this seems thin ground indeed on which to arrest someone for murder. Particularly if the arrested is a slight, 65 year old who has apparently strangled a fit 25 year female. I mentioned earlier that there was no sign of forced entry and yet, in one of their public musings the police speculated that someone could indeed have effected a forced entry. Well, as the initial suggestion was that forced entry meant 'breaking in' it would be unhelpful in the extreme if the police were now using the phrase to also mean 'pushing their way in' once a door had been opened. Otherwise, if there still isn't any sign of forced entry, then there wasn't a forced entry and to now bring it up suggests a degree of confusion in the minds of those leading this investigation that we would ever hope was absent.

The important thing here is that the killer or killers of Jo Yeates should be found and then hope against hope that a judge thinks murder is a crime worthy of being taken seriously. It is a problem though that, yet again in a major operation senior police officers are appearing on our screens who give little or no confidence in their abilities. We must hope the police actually doing the legwork haven't been drinking from the same source.