The Sunday Telegraph reveals how yet another section in the IPCC's dodgy dossier on 'man made global warming' or 'climate change' (edging their bets) came into being. Yes, the science through which Governments all over the world are redistributing our tax revenues, closing down our industries and exporting our jobs to cheaper workforces in the developing world is - amongst all of the other flaws that have been revealed recently - not peer reviewed science but "anecdotes" based on "a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine". The yet further humiliation of the so-called 'science' leads one Dublin-based Professor to despairingly say to the newspaper: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes. Why did they do this? It is quite astounding". Astounding. Quite.
The Observer, meanwhile, possibly flags a warning for all those concerned about Labour's relentless attacks on civil liberties and the right to think for ourselves as it announces: "Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics". Given Labour's track record, that may or may not mean closing down the internet and rounding people up into internment camps. We have been warned. Let's hope we have a General Election before we're all rounded up in the night, huh? Meanwhile, no word from the Prime Minister on what he's going to do about the billions of taxpayers money that he's pledged on the basis of the IPCC dodgy dossier on 'climate change'. Can we have our money back, Gordon?
A potentially big sleaze story in the Sunday Times. It reports on how the Audit Commission has apparently been hiring lobbyists to try to destabilise the Conservative Party. The newspaper pinpoints key Labour Party associations with the Audit Commission, who it accuses of paying for "advice on how to undermine Tory frontbenchers who challenged its activities". The newspaper states that it has seen several reports that back up the claims. Sounds more like the topic for a 1976 Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman film than something involving a modern British, supposedly politically impartial quango. Expect to see that row fizz along during the week.
Update: 5th February 2009 - This story is being strongly denied by the Audit Commission (see comments below). This blog made their official statement a blog post in it's own right HERE.
Jack Straw is placed under another controversial question mark by the Independent on Sunday which notes that a House of Commons select committee had a FoI request for a transcript of telephone conversations turned down. The accusation - denied by Straw - is that he is "trying to cover up details of talks he held with a BP lobbyist over an oil deal with Libya weeks before reversing a Government move to block the release of the Lockerbie bomber".
The Mail on Sunday has a really embarrassing story for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission which, the newspaper claims, "is paying its own ethnic minority workers almost ten per cent less than white staff". Obviously, if a member of the public were to do that in their business, they'd be incarcerated, databased and flogged in a market square by New Labour and it's supporters. Probably.
At least the Sunday Express finds some genuine goodness in the world to smile about as it draws comparisons between Prince Harry and his wonderful mother Diana, Princess of Wales. Bless him.
The News of the World, meanwhile, reports that The Queen has drafted in a team of advisers to further train the equally adorable Prince William for the throne. We've said it before and we'll say it again - Diana's son as King will be more than okay by us. A joyous day of celebration, in fact. Can't wait!
And while the NOTW has lots of stories about John Terry, there are no pictures of the Chelsea star wearing his seemingly always very well filled pair of shorts. Which is a shame. What time is the Match of the Day repeat on the BBC..?
Sunday, 31 January 2010
2 comments:
This blog seeks to uphold the right to free speech. However, comment moderation is used to prevent the posting of comments which could be considered libelous/offensive etc. We do not, however, guarantee to publish all comments and we reserve the right to refuse to approve any comment submitted at our discretion. Views expressed are those of the comment author and do not neccesarily reflect those of this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Audit Commission did not pay a public affairs company to lobby Tory shadow ministers, or anyone else.
ReplyDeleteSteve Bundred, the Commission chief executive, is today writing to Caroline Spelman, the shadow CLG secretary, and to Eric Pickles, the chairman of the Conservative Party, strongly to deny stories and statements to the effect that the Commission paid to lobby them or any other politician.
Mr Bundred is writing to the editor of the Sunday Times asking him to correct a set of errors in a story that appeared on 31 January in that paper.
In January 2009, the Commission’s Public Affairs team asked Connect to undertake a specific piece of work called a Perceptions Audit and Influence Map, to help staff better understand expectations of Comprehensive Area Assessment.
This report cost £9,000 and was an assessment of views among opinion leaders across the political spectrum. It was used by communications staff and not seen by senior managers or members of the Commission board.
Neither Connect nor anybody else has ever been asked to ‘lobby’ or to contact anyone on behalf of the Commission and comments in the report are those of the authors alone.
The Audit Commission did not pay a public affairs company to lobby Tory shadow ministers, or anyone else.
ReplyDeleteSteve Bundred, the Commission chief executive, is today writing to Caroline Spelman, the shadow CLG secretary, and to Eric Pickles, the chairman of the Conservative Party, strongly to deny stories and statements to the effect that the Commission paid to lobby them or any other politician.
Mr Bundred is writing to the editor of the Sunday Times asking him to correct a set of errors in a story that appeared on 31 January in that paper.
In January 2009, the Commission’s Public Affairs team asked Connect to undertake a specific piece of work called a Perceptions Audit and Influence Map, to help staff better understand expectations of Comprehensive Area Assessment.
This report cost £9,000 and was an assessment of views among opinion leaders across the political spectrum. It was used by communications staff and not seen by senior managers or members of the Commission board.
Neither Connect nor anybody else has ever been asked to ‘lobby’ or to contact anyone on behalf of the Commission and comments in the report are those of the authors alone.