The BBC pits six lawyers against one questioning blogger, Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky, who was making an FOI request for the 28 names. In the process, the judge demonstrates he has partisan views on climate change.
Via Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
As expected, the BBC has won its legal battle against blogger Tony Newbery. Newbery wanted the list of “scientific experts” who attended a BBC seminar at which, according to the BBC Trust, they convinced the broadcaster to abandon impartiality and take a firmly warmist position when reporting climate change.
When the Beeb refused to divulge who these people were and who they worked for, Newbery took the corporation to an information tribunal. Now the names and affiliations of the 28 people who decided the Beeb climate stance – acknowledged by the Corporation to include various non-scientists such as NGO people, activists etc – will remain a secret.
…
The other lay judge, former Haringey councillor Narendra Makanji, appears to have strong views on climate-change skeptics, as he tweeted here this year: “Michael Hintze who dines at no 10 is backer of Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate change deniers fronted by Nigel Lawson.” We asked the Information Commissioner’s Office how a lay judge with such partisan views on climate change came to oversee hearings so closely coupled to the subject of climate. Campaigning lay judges would not normally be appointed to sit on such a case, a spokesman noted, and concerns would be legitimate grounds for appeal.
–Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 9 November 2012
Newbery writes about the affair:
Harmless Sky in court – a fair hearing?
Andrew Orlowski of The Register has written a very accurate and fair account of happenings at the Central London Civil Justice Centre last Monday. This was the first day’s hearing of my appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that the BBC were correct to refuse a request for the names of the ‘best scientific experts’ who attended their seminar entitled ‘Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting’ in January 2006. This expert advice was cited on page 40 of the BBC Trust’s excellent report ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century’ as the authority for a very important editorial decision.
I’ve written about this very strange seminar here and many other times at Harmless Sky.
==============================================================
Bishop Hill writes:
Tony Newbery has lost his FOI claim for the details of the attendees at the BBC’s climate change seminar. The decision was issued in an extraordinarily short period of ten days (it normally takes four weeks).
Andrew Montford has written a 26-page guide to the seminar saga, and the subsequent Freedom of information battle: you can buy it in ebook format here for ~75 cents.
Footnote: Given that the BBC is publicly funded, and has denied public disclosure of the information which by law should be public, this list of 28 won’t likely stay secret very long. In every organization, there’s usually a few people with a conscience. As we’ve seen in Climategate, it only takes one. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr Michael Bravo was there, he even listed it on seminars attended as SPEAKER, in his colleges annual report. So he didn’t think it a secret
Andrew Simms was there, whose views on deniers he has tweeted.
@ur momisugly Barry Woods
I think we can divine a probable list and publish it here. Start with Richard Black and work your way down the food chain.
It is so sad when institutions, once held in such high regard, fall by the wayside. Sorry to say, but the sooner the BBC is put out of it’s misery the better.
Not a surprise. The BBC has, for a long time, been horribly partisan most obviously on N Ireland, Sri Lanka and Syria as well as Climate. I have, for some time now, ceased to get my news from the BBC because I expect ALL news to be heavily slanted to fit with this PUBLIC broadcaster’s world-view.
I would prefer the truth (in as far as that is possible).
Goodness me. Here we have an organisation funded from public funds that has been accused of covering up internal claims of child abuse AND spending large amounts of money to maintain secrecy about its Climate Science investigates.
Surely this is unprecedented or is it just par for the course nowadays?
“You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.”
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
It says if you “watch or record” but in reality it’s more “own or have” just another tax.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20278885
e BBC lurches from crisis to crisis and this once highly respected institution is fast becoming the object of ridicule.
Their fawning adulation of paedophiles, such as Jimmy Saville, to the promotion of junk science, especially in regards to ‘climate change’ has demonstrated what a truly amateurish organisation it is, run by hugely overpaid bureaucrats concerned only with maintaining the status qui.
Their insistence on secrecy means it is probably a safe bet that the identification of these 28 individuals would expose the BBC to more ridicule and derision.
The BBC is in deep s–t at the moment after the disclosure of a name of a man accused of child molestation.This disclosure had no evidence on which to base it apart from the hearsay evidence from a victim. The victim later retracted his accusation because the named man was not the correct one! Tabloid justice at its worst. BBC is now grovelling so would be a good time to repeat this FOI request. Give it a try.
According to the Newburry/Montford – Andrew Simms was there, his views on ‘sceptics’ (ie deniers’) are clear. see his tweet here, when he welcomed the Carbon Brief to twitter:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/
How do we know whether they were Chatham House rules at the time (did the BBC just make this up, after the event?) I ask, because one of the speakers, felt perfectly able to put it down in a list of conferences seminars attended, in his departments annual report. (which shows at the VERY least, the BBC has no excuse to not publish names.
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/dept/annualreport06.pdf
——————-
Michael Bravo
Lectures and Conferences
November 2005
Bravo, M.T. ‘Where is upstream? Science and its publics for International Polar Year (2007-2008)’, Science and Technology Studies Workshop, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
January 2006
Bravo, M.T. ‘The impact of climate change on northern peoples’, Climate Change – The Challenge to Broadcasting, BBC Bush House April 2006
Bravo, M.T. ‘Science’, British Association for Canadian Studies Annual Meeting, New Hall, Cambridge
May 2006
Bravo, M.T. ‘James Rennell and the cartography of shipwreck’, Shipwreck Conference, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich
August 2006
Plenary panel, ‘Narratives of climate change’, with William Cronon, Diana Liverman, and Richard Hamblyn, IBG Conference, Royal Geographical Society
——————–
The above implies to me (ie a routine listing) it was just another routine CMEP style seminar, and the secrecy requirement after the event, is just an excuse, so that the BBC doesn’t get embarassed by this seminar..
more on CMEP (but I recommend the Montford/Newbery report)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/
The UN and club of rome is behind the hole propaganda plan!
its not the BBC that is the problem its the UN mandatate given to it self that is the problem. Broadcasters allready promised to cooperate directly to the UN and you are just focusing on a symptom not the reason behnd medias loyalty to the UN. The loy and corruption of independence and integrety is guaranteed through informal meetings. They ar not that stupid that they leave transcripts or written agreements behind. Its implemented by pressure and group pressure.
A dreadful episode.
I wonder how a Scottish court would have handled the case; or can’t the BBC be taken to court in Scotland?
Considering the trouble the BBC has put itself in with shoddy investigative standards on Saville and the false accusations Lord McAlpine this might be the proper moment for whistleblowes to step forward to crack this cartel of misinformation on global warming.
A biased judge has caused a major problem for the New Zealand Government relating to the Turitea wind farm The never forgetting internet has come to the aid of those protesting this corruption.
http://turiteadocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/shonagh-kenderdine-the-activist6.pdf
http://turiteadocuments.wordpress.com/
Go straight to the BBC’s Director General in an open letter and ask him,
If the BBC has nothing to hide, why are you not releasing this information?
Why should certain news lobbyists at the BBC be kept secret?
As other folk have pointed out, the BBC DG is under scrutiny and pressure at the moment.
It’s not been a good week for the Beeb.
Apart from their Pyrhhic victory over Tony Newberry, the row over the Newsnight programme is getting worse and worse. Legal proceedings are threatened and the new chief shows yet again that he has the cojones, savvy and attention span of a small female goldfish.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9668823/George-Entwistle-admits-Newsnight-Tory-sex-abuse-claims-should-never-have-been-broadcast.html
Anthony Watts says:
November 10, 2012 at 4:10 am
@ur momisugly Barry Woods
I think we can divine a probable list and publish it here. Start with Richard Black and work your way down the food chain.
_________________________________
The climategate e-mails would give good clues.
I would be surprised if the list didn’t include a few Defra funded apologists for the UK Government’s coastal abandonment policy.
Two minds with but a single thought Latimer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9667947/BBC-in-chaos-as-abuse-victim-says-Lord-McAlpine-was-not-my-attacker.html
An excellent suggestion from Anthony.
For the amateur sleuths out there here is a good link to get some possible candidates into the frame for the ‘BBC28’
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/01/05/richard-black-influencing-world-policy/#comment-211
‘TwentyEightGate’ anyone?
“In every organization, there’s usually a few people with a conscience. As we’ve seen in Climategate, it only takes one. – Anthony”
At the BBC? Won’t hold my breath.
AW: …this list of 28 won’t likely stay secret very long. In every organization, there’s usually a few people with a conscience.
I wouldn’t hold your breath. These 28 scientists, NGO reps and activists were probably selected on the basis that they were true to the cause and would give the BBC the
excusedecision it sought.Soon I’ll be sending a cheque for £145 to pay for my TV licence, which finances the BBC. I think I’ll include a note to say how much I resent being forced to pay for a corrupt left-wing organisation that ignored child abuse for decades, that attempted a cover up over Jimmy Savile, that is now actively taking part in a witch hunt against innocent people and whose coverage of the EU and climate change is completely biased.
Chris
Dr Joe Smith, Harriban’s climate buddy must have been there…
The BBC has been a laughing stock here in the UK for a few years now. Even the superb series “Wild China” included the warning that the Himalayan Glaciers were going to vanish within 30 years…. They long ago lost control of the tightness of their output and contantly produce dubious material. The coverage of the current sex abuse scandal is amateur to say the least. So called broadcasting “professionals” on six figure salaries paid by the public are on a slippery slope though because the ship it seems has completely lost its rudder…..hopefully one day soon it will loose its funding completely and have to compete in the real world.