Friday 17 June 2011

BBC

Sorry to bang on about the BBC, but last night I watched a programme that was going to explain why immigrants come to the UK, despite all the difficulties and dangers and then a bit of Newsnight. I don't usually watch Newsnight because I never thought of it as a serious, intelligent programme.

The programme on immigrants was amazing, not least because the one thing it didn't try to investigate or answer was why they come here. We saw how easy corruption abroad makes it for them to start their journey. We saw how they are then pray to criminals and the weather, dying in the Saharan heat or the cold of Europe. These were terrible stories, but the BBC didn't dig, they didn't think through what they were seeing, not least because the surface gloss (their hardships and the wealth of the West) immediately conformed to their ideological image. These travellers know all about Europe and how to get there (and where), they know about the smugglers and it is clear they have a pretty good appreciation of the stupidity of EU laws. What they didn't appear to know was that the criminals they paid might cheat or harm them. Those stories apparently never make their way back. Normally we would be harsh and critical of mothers who put their children in harms way, but an African woman weeping about her rape and the interference with her 4 year old daughter was included only to gain pity. Why was she there, why was she putting her child in such danger? Because the West waves a goal at her that she thinks makes it worthwhile. That should be our shame.

Afghans were shown, almost exclusively young males, proud that all they had with them was the equivalent of £3. Now, if you think of the newsreel images of refugees in the second world war, you see people with prams and handcarts bundled high with their possessions, old men and women struggling to save their lives. But in Afghanistan, things are so bad only the young men leave home and with nothing, no clothes, no food, no money. And they are careful to avoid taking anything with them. Why should they? Europe apparently will house, clothe and feed them. Then they can get a 'job'. They were shown wailing about the lack of facilities and the BBC joined them lamenting the lack of care of the rich West. Presumably we should have enough housing and food stockpiled, just in case the whole world decides to pop over for a visit. The BBC seems to be a shamefully ignorant organisation. The left-liberal bias they spin everything with, doesn't fully explain why this important subject was so badly handled. It was plain that most of these immigrants had a fantastic sense of entitlement and were genuinely confused as to why, in another country they cannot be handed free, vastly more than they could achieve at home. One said he had no choice but to leave Afghanistan, but that he had been so badly treated in Europe that he now just wanted to go back.  I thought he had 'no choice? It doesn't occur to these people that the West is more advanced than them not least because, many years ago and in a continuing pattern, Europeans fought for better conditions and opportunities in their own countries. Yet here we are faced with our soldiers fighting and dying for the freedom of Afghans and they neither assist to improve their lot, nor feel they should be burdened with that responsibility. In Africa it is the corruption and brutality of 'leaders', in Afghanistan and the like it is that they are stuck in the Middle Ages and Islam doesn't help, as it is the same.

So, was Newsnight a breath of fresh intellectual air. Nope, it was the usual left-liberal stuff and nonsense. Apparently, sunspot activity is decreasing and this means less energy will reach the Earth. So what of Global Warming? Well, at this point any suggestion that this was a reasoned view evaporated. The intention was to bolster the theology, not allow it to be mocked. Due to 'greenhouse gases' we may heat up more slowly but it will still be dangerous and of course, when the Sun is back up to strength we will be devastated. To back this up we dropped the plural (green house gases) and decided it was all due to carbon (meaning carbon dioxide) and us. The reason they drop to the singular is that of course, water vapour is by far the most active 'greenhouse gas'. Yes, clouds.

Further evidence was obtained from an expert who supports AGW, a member of the IPCC and an in-studio guest who was from Greenpeace. Very balanced. Just to show they know what they are talking about a mention was made of when sunspot activity was low previously; in the 1600's when we had 'frost fairs' on the Thames. They picked this of course because it was pre industrial revolution Britain. But the weather was severe in the 1800's with the Thames freezing repeatedly. Oh dear, can't mention that, stick to the Climatic Research Unit's tactics and hide anything that gives the game away. Mention was made, to secure the point that the AGW religionists are right, of the 'computer models'. These are the ones that cannot get next week's weather right but can be totally relied on to predict it 100 years in the future. No really, they are. Models that tell us to destroy our economy. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the anarchists and dreamers who talk of destroying capitalism and living as one with nature.

They even started the much more dangerous talk of attempting to affect weather with mirrors, or pumping chemicals into the atmosphere. Man isn't currently doing enough to damage the climate but these loons want to. The level of threat they represent is ratcheting up. But do the BBC notice? Are they capable of so doing? Clearly, not.

No comments:

Post a Comment