Friday, November 23, 2012
Letter, Unpublished Letter & Radio - Examples of Censorship, Mainly by the BBC, Mainly of UKIP
I have this letter in the Herald today.
It would obviously be insane to pay for a Gourock-Dunoon ferry if there were an alternative which was both far more effective & convenient and much cheaper ("MSP backs investigation into "bathtub boats" ferry service" Herald Nov 21 & Letters Nov 23) There is one such alternative.
We know that the Norwegians have been cutting hundreds of kilometres of tunnels at about £4 million per km. That would mean a Gourock-Dunoon dual carriageway tunnel at about £24 million - far less than a ferry would cost. Such a tunnel could carry hundreds of times more traffic, far faster, without the running costs of a ferry.
It could open up the Cowal penisula, making it only a 30 mile drive from Glasgow.
Our traditional party politicians must give reasons why they are almost totally against a solution which has worked elsewhere (& which is the official policy of UKIP). Note that the only non-grammatical editing is the totally blatant censorship of the reference to UKIP.
There are 4 online comments which, almost uniquely in my experience, are all favourable. One of them reinvents my proposal of continuing it to Kintyre (though with differences which show he hasn't seen it before). Everybody recognises the immense economic benefits to the area.
Anybody want to bet that no main party politician does "give reasons" why they are against this?
This was one of 2 letters I sent the Herald yesterday. The other one went out to 40 papers across Scortland and the UK but Google news shows no publication. Perhaps the writer doesn't reach the literary standard of the writer of the above letter. Or perhaps, since it is about 28gate, it is another, more complete, example of deliberate censorship. Here it is:
That "greenhouse gases", essentially CO2 whose main effect is to improve plant growth, contributing to the enormous increase in food production, are increasing is not in dispute.
However that this is in any way catastrophic is very much in dispute.
It would obviously be insane to pay for a Gourock-Dunoon ferry if there were an alternative which was both far more effective & convenient and much cheaper ("MSP backs investigation into "bathtub boats" ferry service" Herald Nov 21 & Letters Nov 23) There is one such alternative.
We know that the Norwegians have been cutting hundreds of kilometres of tunnels at about £4 million per km. That would mean a Gourock-Dunoon dual carriageway tunnel at about £24 million - far less than a ferry would cost. Such a tunnel could carry hundreds of times more traffic, far faster, without the running costs of a ferry.
It could open up the Cowal penisula, making it only a 30 mile drive from Glasgow.
Our traditional party politicians must give reasons why they are almost totally against a solution which has worked elsewhere (& which is the official policy of UKIP). Note that the only non-grammatical editing is the totally blatant censorship of the reference to UKIP.
There are 4 online comments which, almost uniquely in my experience, are all favourable. One of them reinvents my proposal of continuing it to Kintyre (though with differences which show he hasn't seen it before). Everybody recognises the immense economic benefits to the area.
Anybody want to bet that no main party politician does "give reasons" why they are against this?
This was one of 2 letters I sent the Herald yesterday. The other one went out to 40 papers across Scortland and the UK but Google news shows no publication. Perhaps the writer doesn't reach the literary standard of the writer of the above letter. Or perhaps, since it is about 28gate, it is another, more complete, example of deliberate censorship. Here it is:
That "greenhouse gases", essentially CO2 whose main effect is to improve plant growth, contributing to the enormous increase in food production, are increasing is not in dispute.
However that this is in any way catastrophic is very much in dispute.
However if it has proven impossible for even the BBC, with all its resources and previous prestige, to find 28 real scientists anywhere willing to sign up to the catastrophic warming scare then it is difficult, despite the hundreds of billions spent on it, to take it seriously.
Neil Craig
And finally - this morning on Radio Scotland (Kay's Show about 10.15) I heard the dulcit tones of Peter Adams, the Secretary of UKIP in Scotland. For a minite I thought the BBC had slightly taken leave of their prejudices and were actually interviewing somebody from the party that polls show has more support in Scotland than the Greens or indeed LudDims.
The lady replied calling me by name (they must have number recognition software to ensure suitable people get on). I said I would like to ask why Mr Adams had not been given a full interview or allowed to answer the EU supporter & why they were choosing EU supporters disproportionaly from among those phoning in. She said I would be phoned back with an explanation (so far I haven't but will adda na addendum if it happens), but clearly was not going to be invited to speak. Kay's final words at the end of this carefully censored one sided "discussion" said that though it had statred off wirh somebody being anti-EU
"we have ended up on a much more positive note"
Indeed. How unexpected.
--------------------
The BBC sometimes claim that when they don't read out a comment it is because they get so many and can only read a small proportion. As I was finishing this Brian on his "Big debate" said he had chosen to ask a question about Nadine Dories because "we got 3 or 4 questions .... hundreds, sent in"
UPDATE - I have been contacted by Peter who confirms "I was called this morning at 7.45 to ask me if I wanted to contribute. I was on from the start at 8.50 and had a few comments between then and 09.30 The bit you heard at 1015 was when they came back to the original theme. However by this time they had managed to find a couple of pro EU speakers as most people who had been on at the start had been anti EU, but Kaye's final comment about "starting on a negative note but finishing on a positive one" says it all"
Where apology is due it should be done. I apologise to the BBC and Kaye for believing Peter's contribution was limited to what was broadcast after 10. It was clearly closer to being balanced than I would have expected & perhaps closer than the BBC expected too.
you can listen again on this link. Fast forward to 4mins to get past the introduction and also when you get to the news you can forward it from 10 mins to 16.30 when it restarts http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nthdw
Labels: BBC, letters, Unpublished letters
