A Place to Stand

  I  sent this to a large number of BBC emails 2 days ago. Unsurprisingly no reply which must be taken as a general refusal of the BBC not to call :

Dear BBC,


I note the BBC have now gone even beyond their claim that 10s of thousands of hours of warming propaganda "balanced" by zero hours of scientific scepticism is consistent with the "due balance" you are legally required to show by describing those of us who are sceptical about the claims that by now "children won't know what snow is" as "loathsome" & equivalent to paedophiles.

This is made all the worse by having the frontman for this being Michael Buerk in the nominally ethically based "Moral Maze" programme.This must, by definition, be the single programme in which the BBC ensure that their claims and acts have a moral and factual basis. If Michael Buerk is a corrupt, lying & to use the phrase loathsome individual willing to tell any lie to promote state fascism, as he clearly is, there is obviously no possibility of the BBC continuing to employ him in this role unless every single other employee at your organisation is at least equally corrupt, lying, fascist supporting and loathsome.

In any case every single person you have so gratuitously insulted, including myself, is entitled to an apology, both personally and on air in a manner as prominent as the dishonest original programme.

I trust you will also undertake never, under any circumstances, to seek"licence fees" from anybody who doubts catastrophic warming and must ask you to make it clear in all correspondence on the subject that this is the case. It would not only be illegal under UK law to do so, because you are in breach of your charter, it would be a breach of human rights to seek to force anybody to contribute to propaganda lies describing them personally as "loathsome.

I await your confirmation within 48 hours that all this will be done or be forced to assume that it won't and that no BBC employee, who has not publicly denounced the BBC as wholly corrupt, can ever dispute the right of anybody else to describe them personally as loathsome.

Michael Buerk said

“not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathsome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“

One of the emails went to Roger Harrabin who previously claimed he wanted to "talk to sceptics" but refused to answer a query of mine, allegedly on the grounds that I had been insufficiently placatory to him (I had not said anything 1,000th as disrespectful as to call him loathsome). Clearly if he had meant it he would have instantly wished to say he disapproved of the remark - that or Harraibin and indeed the BBC as a whole regard the description "loathsome" as high praise wish to be addressed as such.

   It has been argued that Buerk was, himself, parodying the BBC attitude rather than endorsing it. Perhaps so but that would only be confirmation that such total dishonesty and contempt for the fee payers does, unquestionably, represent the BBC position, which leaves the thieving scum in even deeper soup. In any case if that is Buerk's excuse he should make it.

Result of a Google search for "BBC + loathsome" - no idea