Britain Doesn’t Have To Concede Lisbon Treaty Defeat

Tell E.U. ,Treaty Can’t Go Ahead Until British People Vote
Come on Cameron, Show Us Some Leadership, Courage

    The Tories are trying to be too cute with their “stand” over the  E.U.’s Lisbon Treaty, following Ireland’s shameful, craven, and cowardly “yes” vote.
    “Let’s wait until we get into power. Let’s wait and see if Czechistan or Poland ratifies the treaty. There’s no point taking a policy stand now, when we can’t know what the conditions will be when/if we win power next year,” is more or less what shadow foreign secretary William Hague told BBC Radio 4’s World at One today.
    The Tories don’t have to be so weak. The party should be taking a much more vigorous and pro-active stand. Britain should be saying there can be no ratification of Lisbon until the British have expressed their democratic view, as promised by the Labour Party in its last manifesto. The “ratification” by Britain’s Parliament had no standing because it didn’t provide the voice of the people in a promised referendum, as promised and denied by the Labour Party.
    It’s no use saying that the Irish have let us down. Mind you, what kind of people would embrace the “yes” cause in this way? Surely any people with an ounce of self-respect would have overwhelmingly rejected this second vote. But now the Irish have shown their true colours, Britain still has the power to make its own decision. We don’t have to rely on anyone else.
    All parties at the last election promised we would have a referendum, but Gordon Brown and his cabinet of second rate weaklings and shysters on the make lied to us about the nature of the Lisbon treaty, to get off the hook they’d created by promising us a vote. They knew they would lose this vote on a treaty, which creates more institutions in foreign policy and other areas that we don’t want, and creates the office of President, which looks like being taken by Tony Blair of all people. (No voting, of course; this is the European Union, don’t forget). The Tories are hoping something will turn up so that that they can avoid taking any tough decisions over this potentially divisive issue for the party as it gathers in Manchester for its annual conference.
    If, between now and our general election (presumably next May) the E.U. insists that technically, after Czechland and Poland ratify (if they do) the Lisbon treaty is approved, it will be an outrage this overbearing and undemocratic organisation will regret. It will simply open a running sore with the British people that will never heal.
    The Tories must be tough. David Cameron must tell Brussels, Britain will have its referendum. The treaty cannot proceed to ratification until the British are allowed their promised vote. But this will take political courage, backbone and principle, three crucial attributes in a leader that I don’t think Cameron has.
    Surprise me this week if you can, Dave.
    

Hard Talk? More Like Easy Rider

Lack Of Balance Breached BBC Guidelines

More Half-Truths Spread By BBC About Climate Change

Smug, Arrogant King Should Have Been Challenged, Not Humoured

    Last night’s Hard Talk with Stephen Sackur on BBC World was a travesty of a programme which kids itself it is grilling guests with tough questions.

    By failing to brief himself properly, Sackur made sure the programme breached BBC guidelines, which insist on fairness and balance. (I know, BBC, that you never do, but that’s what the rules say you should do).

    Last night’s interviewee was Sir David King, the former chief scientific advisor to the British government and committed warmist. King has a long record of arrogantly insisting he is right about climate change. He once foolishly said it is more dangerous than Islamic terrorism. King regularly dismisses opponents by hurling personal insults rather than engaging them in scientific argument. He says those that disagree with him are all apparently in the pay of big oil or coal, even though the ranks of sceptics are full of eminent and independent climate change experts like Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr Fred Singer of SEPP. (I could provide Sackur with a massive list of highly qualified scientists for his next climate change interview).

    Towards the end of the interview on Hard Talk, King did what he does best – he sought to undermine the reputation of those who deign to disagree with him by hinting that they were corrupted by money. King also dissembled, when he said the science proving human influence over the climate was strengthening. The reverse is the truth.

    If Sackur had done his homework, he would have known this was not the case, in spades. Sackur blew the chance to shine light on this issue. Either because he didn’t have the guts to do it, or because he was ill-briefed about the formidable amount of scientific evidence casting doubt on the theory that human activity is changing the climate.

    Sackur did admit towards the end of the programme that public opinion wasn’t convinced that human induced global warming was really happening. If he had been properly briefed, he would have quoted the likes of Lindzen and Singer to challenge King, and at least made clear that despite the efforts of the BBC to pretend that the issue is closed, that is far from the truth.

    Why does the BBC continually breach its own guidelines about fairness and balance over the issue of climate change? Surely, as the hugely important Copenhagen climate change approaches, the BBC should be seeking to educate the public, not batter it into submission with crude propaganda.  

BBC Watchwords – Traduce, Delay, Obfuscate, Intimidate

Threat To Free Speech From BBC 

Warped View Of Copyright Law Used To Stifle Criticism

     The BBC refuses to respond in a forthright way to my accusation that it used gutter-press tactics to attack a local doctor, then tried to intimidate me into remaining silent by crude threats about copyright.

     The BBC is attempting to use copyright as a means to shut down criticism of its editorial standards.

     The copyright law is pretty clear. If I sent a letter to X, I retain that copyright, and X cannot publish it without my permission.

    But if X is the nation’s biggest media outlet, financed by the taxpayer, and the letter contains a reaction to a report that is already in the public domain and published by X, to say that it is copyright and can only be published with the BBC’s permission is clearly ridiculous. Any jury in the land would see through the threat as an attempt to suppress information that should be public.

    The BBC’s letter, this time from Mr Larner, appears below. I’ve asked Mr Larner to comment on the last paragraph, but so far he hasn’t responded. To reply to this email, you have to go through a tortuous process on the BBC’s complaints website. You can’t simply reply to the email. It’s all part of the BBC’s plan to deflect criticism, I suppose.

Dear Mr Winton

I write in response to your recent submission via the BBC Complaints website addressed to BBC Director-General Mark Thompson regarding BBC South Today.

My name is David Larner and I am the BBC Information Complaints Co-ordinator with responsibility for the BBC's English Regions therefore this matter has been escalated for my personal attention. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, the Director-General receives more correspondence than he can deal with personally, so correspondence is forwarded to us in BBC Information so we can respond on behalf of the BBC's management.

Thank you for providing your further personal views on the matter of BBC South Today's reporting of Dr Rodney Tate, which I note you have chosen to also publish on your website.

As the programme's Producer has provided you with a full and detailed response explaining the context of the report in question which featured a former patient who did not wish to be identified, there is little I can add here other than to reiterate that Dr Tate was offered a full right of reply on the matter but declined to comment, as is his right.

I note that you make comment upon the BBC's Editorial Guidelines whilst appearing to be unfamiliar with the detail contained therein, therefore I copy below the web address for this published document in order that you may familiarise yourself with them: www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines.

Noting that you have published Richard Spalding's reply on your website, I would remind you that the copyright in written replies on behalf of the BBC

- including my own here - rests with the BBC. I would further remind you that publishing, reproduction or distribution of copyrighted material requires formal permission from the copyright holder. (my italics)

Yours sincerely

David Larner

Complaints Co-ordinator

BBC Information

Neil Winton – August 19, 2009

(Here’s the rest of the saga)

Apologise, reprimand South Today, insist it never happensagain

Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 6:15PM

To: The Director General, BBC

From: Neil Winton

Can I insist that you change your editorial guidelines to outlaw the disgraceful reporting by BBC SOUTH TODAY on June 17, which smeared Dr Rodney Tate.

I’ve attached a copy of my email to The Editor, South Today, and the reply, in the form of a blog published on my website.

Apparently, your editorial guidelines now apparently state, as if you were the Sun/Mirror/Star – “Feel free to use an anonymous interviewee, back to camera, to say suggestive things about a person, as long as that person is in a weak position, and has a background that can be used to make them look guilty. It doesn’t matter that the content of the interview adds up to nothing, it is the impression that counts. It doesn’t matter what harm you do to this person, it is the story above all”

Can I suggest that you change your editorial guidelines to something like this.

“When you have an anonymous interviewee, because of the danger that innuendo can cause, the content of the interview must be compelling, and move the story on in an important way. For an anonymous interview to be used, the content of that interview must speak for itself, bringing important new information to public attention. You will never descend to “no smoke without fire” journalism.”

I’m sure you will agree that BBC South Today’s behaviour in this case was inexcusable and obnoxious. You should apologise to Dr Tate, reprimand BBC South Today, and lay down guidelines to make sure these tactics are left to the gutter press, which you sadly seem so keen to emulate.

Neil Winton | Post a Comment | Share Article

Sunday

28Jun

BBC South Today Uses Crude, Tabloid Tactics To SmearDoctor

Sunday, June 28, 2009 at 7:20PM

The BBC can truly be a malign, bullying and worrying influence.

The BBC’s operatives, when challenged, always put on an air of superiority and talk about their world class standards. Most of the time, this is a dangerous illusion, it seems to me. The BBC is a monopoly, is funded by government edict, often has the gutter standards of the worst tabloids, and unlike the rest of the media, is still immune from the recession’s impact.

Recently on BBC South Today I saw our state news provider at its worst. It used the inconclusive meanderings of an anonymous source to traduce the reputation of a doctor. Because this doctor was once subject to a court case for which he was found not guilty, and had since been struck off by the GMC, the BBC felt it could run the story without fear of retribution. Just like the worst examples of our gutter tabloid press. Nudge, nudge; wink, wink; there’s no smoke without fire, don’t you know.

I contacted the editor of South Today.

His reply is published below.

This is what I wrote –

The Editor

BBC South Today

From: Neil Winton

I watched the lunchtime report on Dr Tate today, and again this evening on BBC South Today. It was a travesty. It was irresponsible journalism. The report at 1.30 interviewed an anonymous woman, whose accusations amounted to only that the doctor looked at her. He was the doctor doing the examination for goodness sake. Of course he looked at her. I wasn’t sure that this was so because the lunchtime report didn’t have subtitles, I don’t think. It was very difficult to make out what the women said.

The version this evening had the transcript. How dare you use such a thin amount of evidence to try and traduce Dr Tate. Then you followed it up with some stern words from a lawyer, based again on the thinnest of evidence, but assuming his guilt from the film you had shown.

It may well be that the other charges you mentioned may indeed be stronger, but to air evidence on a case like this on zilch evidence is totally irresponsible. It seemed clear from the film, (I’m no doctor, I don’t really know) that .......... woman .... presumably had lost her baby (although you didn’t explain this, another example of irresponsible journalism) and felt that Dr Tate was somehow responsible for this.

Once you have aired accusations like this, it is hard to undo them. But I hope, as Editor, you will admit that this is not the way to report on serious cases, and that you will make sure the journalists responsible will be reprimanded.

I ought to point out that I know Dr Tate slightly. He is a member of my golf club. I know him well enough to say hello to, but that’s it. I have no knowledge of his background...... But that surely doesn’t justify your sickening and irresponsible trashing of his rights.

Regards

Neil

(I’ve edited this version)

This is the BBC’s response

Dear Mr Winton

Thank you for your e-mail about our report on Dr Rodney Tate on June 17. Please allow me to explain some of the background before I answer the issues you raise.

Five days before the report was aired - June 12th - we carried a short piece saying that Dr Tate had been struck off the Medical Register by the GMC.

Seven patients had complained that he had violated their privacy and performed examinations without their consent. He was a well known GP in Brighton, having practised at the Old Steine Surgery for 36 years.

The story you were unhappy was a follow-up. On the basis of the GMC's decision, several patients had approached a lawyer called Sarah Harman. She was featured in our report and had told us that the patient we interviewed was considering suing Dr Tate and that others were doing the same.

We took the decision that, with the history of the GMC's findings the previous week, it was a valid story to run. We pointed out that Dr Tate had not been convicted in a criminal court of any offences. He was acquitted in 2006. That is an important fact in this case and was clearly stated in the graphics part of the report.

However, an equally important fact was that he had been struck off by the GMC - the professional body which regulates doctors. Based on the fact that the GMC had ruled his behaviour was inappropriate and struck him off I took the decision that the story was important enough to run. Any action by the women would not suggest guilt of a criminal offence, it would be a civil matter.

The woman we interviewed was prepared to talk on the condition she was not identified. This is something we are happy to agree to in sensitive stories such as this one. Her interview was relevant as she was one of the complainants in the GMC case. No sexual intent was proved her case but his behaviour was considered inappropriate which amounts to more thanas you arguea mere examination. So the report we carried was not based as you assert on 'thin evidence'. It was based on fact - that Dr Tate had been found guilty by a professional body of inappropriate behaviour in a working environment . A second fact is that patients are considering suing him. There is an important difference in language here - we did not state that they are definitely suing him.

I should also add that we did approach Dr Tate for an interview but he declined to comment. So rather than 'trashing his rights' we gave him the right of reply and he madea decision not to take it.

I hope this sheds some light on why weran the story.

Regards

Richard Spalding

Producer

BBC South Today

My comments

Nothing you say alters the fact that the interviewee, hiding behind anonymity, leveled accusations against Dr Tate that amounted to very little indeed. It seems to me that you ran this story because you knew that because of Dr Tate’s record, it would be very difficult for him to deflect even these flimsy accusations. Offering him the right of reply is meaningless in this context. Because you knew Dr Tate was in a weak position, it was alright to attack him, even if the material you had amounted to very little indeed. The material did not take whatever case might be forthcoming against Dr Tate any further. It simply made him look bad, even though what was said didn’t amount to much. You set up a bad context, then filled it with nudges and winks but no fact.

It seems to me that an ethical and responsible organisation would have declined to run this material, unless the participants were willing to come up with something substantial. This is the gutter journalism of the worst tabloids, not what I would expect from the BBC.