Tonight I am going to perform the magical feat of reviewing the BBC Savile documentary before it has even been broadcast. Why? It is on late and I have to go to work tomorrow!
Even so, am I jumping the gun? Being a little premature maybe?
Well, not as premature as this so called Panorama expose.
After all is this not all part of a C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L investigation?
It appears not. At least as far as this documentary is concerned.
This late night Panorama program cynically ensures the BBC can beat it's chest about Savile, without breaking the criminal investigation embargo. It concentrates on a side issue, the pulling of an earlier documentary about Savile. It is being broadcast late on, just as many people are going to bed so minimising the audience.
It is difficult to see this forthcoming Panorama broadcast can be anything other than a clever damage limitation exercise. The documentary can try and draw a little of the poison from the Savile affair and also get pro BBC propaganda out even while the criminal investigation continues.
Here we have the BBC earnestly investigating the BBC. Then carefully orchestrating how and what is revealed.
No doubt there will be some tut tutting about a little corporate naughtiness, then they will grandly announce that there is nothing really rotten at the dear old auntie Beeb.
You know: Practices have been amended, lessons learned, staff re-trained etc. etc. Ra.. Ra.. Ra..
Of course it is likely that Savile was only the tip of the iceberg. Consequently I expect email and data backups relating to other potential abusers are currently having a "deep clean" at dear old Beeb.
To me, it is difficult to see anything other than that the crimes of Savile were actively aided and abetted by BBC production and contract staff. They must have known what went on. It was after all, done under their noses. It also appears to have been common knowledge in the BBC.
But still they rehired him. Again and again. Then quietly let it go on some more. For thirty years.
I am not a lawyer, but to me that sounds like a large number of BBC employees may be potentially "Accessories After The Fact" ( Wikipedia Here ) and possibly complicit in the crimes of Savile and others.
I would also expect that this superior "couldn't give a damn" attitude extended right to the top.
Simply, the BBC ruling elite just didn't care. Why should they?
The BBC regards itself as above the law. Normal rules that apply to the rest of us are suspended for the BBC. In many ways the BBC is a state within a state. Or at least as ruthlessly self centred as any large predatory corporation.
The BBC can and has broken governments. It has it's own poll tax. It is immune from competition and has a guaranteed multi billion income. So why should it care about some young girls, especially when some of their "stars" find them so enticing?
The BBC regulates what you see, like this documentary tonight. You would be naive to expect the truth.
Anyway later on, for those who can keep their eyes open, we will see how right or wrong I am.
Just one final thought:
We have all been appalled by the disgusting antics in News Corporation, but really for every criminal in News Corp it looks like the BBC probably has ten.
Will we be seeing any of them in court soon?
The Purbeck Film Festival is to present the film Gasland as one of it's features. For those who do not know, Gasland is a documentary about Fracking. (Natural Gas extraction by Hydraulic Fracturing).
As a film, Gasland has been totally discredited by a number of sources. As a documentary it is laughably inaccurate and riddled with innuendo and make believe. Truth is most certainly not it's strong point. To say Gasland refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good fairy-tale would be the understatement of the century.
The fact that this grubby piece of propaganda, with so many inaccuracies, contradictions and outright lies should be shown as some form of "environmental" expose says a lot about the gullibility and narrow mindedness of those presenting it. I notice they couldn't wait to run up a poster with somebody in a bio hazard suite. No doubt their mates will be impressed.
The truth, as shown in the USA now over several years is very, very different from the childish paranoia as displayed by our local eco-warriors.
If you go and watch this preposterous lie of a film first of all read at least some of this detailed demolition of the film, (virtually minute by minute.) Here Or for a synopsis Here
Alternatively try this article by Liz Stelle at the Commonwealth foundation Here
Or maybe this demolition piece at the New York Times Here
This film is so pitifully inaccurate I could go on and on with more exposé's. But I'm bored. Google "Gasland debunked" yourself.
So what is the truth about Fracking?
Let us start with a few undeniable facts (even by the eco-zealots)
- As fracking has become a mainstream source of natural gas in the USA, prices have fallen to one third of their 2011 price. In other words wholesale gas is, at most, the same price it was ten years ago.
- In the USA gas is now cheap enough to displace coal as an energy source for generating electricity. Consequently USA Carbon emissions have massively decreased. Please note: The vast majority of this decrease is due to the utilisation of natural gas NOT wind or solar (whose contribution gets buried in the noise).
- Fracking in the USA is now a very large industry employing many thousands of people, yet the paranoid depictions and claims of huge (or even small) water poisoning problems as made in Gasland have been shown to be utterly false.
- Because of fracking, the USA has for the first time in a 100 years, become a net exporter of oil products and is within sight of what most Americans regard as their holy grail - energy self sufficiency.
- In fact the USA is likely to become a large exporter of LNG in the next few years. They are also converting thousands of trucks to LNG so reducing their Carbon emissions even more.
The final irony on all this is that as gas has displaced coal in the USA, world coal prices have fallen. Because Russian and Norwegian gas is expensive we, in the UK, are now burning more coal. Our emissions have increased because we have not adopted fracking like they have in the USA.
So how does this directly affect us?
Purbeck has the largest on-shore oil field in Europe (ever noticed it?) Potentially there might also be a great deal of gas, the extraction of which will be about as noticeable as the extraction of the oil has been for the last 50 years.
While I hate wind turbines and would happily do without them, even my windy turbine loving readership must admit they need backup (aka gas) Either we can be held to ransom by Putin (or even buy US fracked gas at a large premium) or we can explore our own resources. That means exploring the potential of fracking in Purbeck as well as elsewhere. Wind turbines or not.
Sadly it looks like science and truth come a very poor second to fashionability for those promoting this junk film at the Purbeck Film Festival. They much prefer their self indulgent fashionable hysteria. After all, without the lies and ridiculous posters who else would pay attention to them?
The bottom line is that Gasland, is an irresponsible, inaccurate and unscientific piece of propaganda that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. It is though, Oh-So fashionable.
Interestingly there is another film for release soon called FrackNation which puts the other viewpoint. But I don't expect our eco-fashionistas will be the least bit interested let alone promoting it at the next Purbeck Film Festival.
By all means, support the Purbeck Film Festival. Even go and see Gasland if you must. But don't be naive. Those showing this film have a political agenda to which the truth is very much a secondary issue.