BBC Complaint Filed Over Sackur Interview
By Paul Homewood
Following that appalling interview by Stephen Sackur, I have now filed an official complaint to the BBC.
BBC Guidelines state:
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines/#impartialityinbbccontent
Sackur’s rabid animosity towards to fossil fuels was clearly evident throughout the interview, most of all when he rudely interrupted the President almost shouting “
Does that give you the right to release all this carbon?"
Guyana is an independent country, and that gives it the right to do whatever it wants, without the need to justify it to the BBC.
There was no mention anywhere in the interview of any concern from Sackur about the economic wellbeing of Guyana’s population, or any balance of any sort.
Instead it must have been obvious to anybody watching Sackur’s belief that we must bow down to the God of global warming, regardless of the consequences.
“
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Make Guyana great again.
Well done Paul. I expect you’ll get the usual response, i.e. the BBC will decide that the BBC is right.
Love the irony of your last sentence, Phillip! 🤣
The President was careful to avoid the trap of being accused to be a “climate denier,” merely focusing on their afforestation and forest protection policies, and pointing out that their net contributions to emissions were nil or negative if the impact of the trees is taken into account (more nonsense I know, but it passes for logic in this crazy world). He certainly put the imbecile from the BBC in his place.
The president should have ‘avoid(ed) the trap’ by calling out the Thermostat Theory BS and striking back at any ‘denier’ slanders. Conceding that consensus science exists is the first mistake, Bjorn Lomborg a prime example.
In the book The Deniers it showed that there were those who were correctly pointing out the failings of alarmists in their own sphere but were happy to accept the alarmist view in other areas. Lomborg is one of those having correctly worked out that the cost of dealing with the effects of any change in the climate is far cheaper and less destructive than the Net Zero lunacy.
Lomborg’s work is excellent but it’s still a mistake to concede to the Thermostat Theory lunatics. Much better to take the robust stance of proper scientists like Clauser, Happer, Lindzen, Soon, Koonin etc.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31851190/
I haven’t read The Deniers but that is a strange fact I have noticed. You will get a totally reasoned argument as to why saturated fat is not a problem, but a throwaway comment about settled science on climate. It’s a human nature thing. In business I often witnessed middle managers cheating their own budgets, but being surprised when someone below them cheated on their budget.
accused to be a “climate denier,”
The usual “you are a denier” accusation needs a logical response(s).
The climate demonstrably exists.
Climate change demonstrably exists, and has been occurring for billions of years i.e. long before humans appeared. (There are some believers who will tell you that climate change didn’t start until the industrial revolution).
Dangerous climate change caused by humans does not demonstrably exist.
if he’d tried that interviewing technique in some countries he’d be lucky to get home safely.
You have to remember that this wasn’t just any old interview, it was on the “hard talk” program.
Sackur takes that aggressive attitude with every one appearing on that show, it is what the show is about.
Thanks Paul!
It is rather interesting that neither “Climate Change” nor “CO2” get a single mention at
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines/#impartialityinbbccontent
Contentious Views and Possible Offence
4.3.14 Contributors expressing contentious views, either through an interview or other means, must be challenged while being given a fair chance to set out their response to questions. Minority views should be given appropriate space in our output.
Consequently, we will sometimes include in our output people whose views may cause serious offence to many in our audiences. On such occasions, referral should be made to a senior editorial figure, who should consult Editorial Policy.
The potential for offence must be weighed against the public interest [3] and any risk to the BBC’s impartiality. Coverage should acknowledge the possibility of offence, and be appropriately robust, but it should also be fair and dispassionate.
The public expression by staff and presenters of personal offence or indignation, or the tone or attitude of an item or programme as a whole may jeopardise the BBC’s impartiality.
(See Section 5 Harm and Offence: 5.3.32 and 5.3.38 and Section 8 Reporting Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour: 8.3.3) Consensus, Campaigns and Scrutiny Consensus
4.3.15 There are some issues which may seem to be without controversy, appearing to be backed by a broad or even unanimous consensus of opinion. Nevertheless, they may present a significant risk to the BBC’s impartiality. In such cases, we should continue to report where the consensus lies and give it due weight. However, even if it may be neither necessary nor appropriate to seek out voices of opposition, our reporting should not use language and tone which appear to accept consensus or received wisdom as fact or self-evident.
….and BTW, I cannot get access to the whole interview, here in Denmark! 😂
Try the link provided by David in the original post on 30th March.
Sackur’s attitude was appalling. He was acting like a colonialist.
At the same time I think the interview was a gift to the president who has been demanding reparations from the UK. He was quick to keep asking “Did you pay for that..”
No doubt Mohamed Irfaan Ali enjoys the irony of that stance.
Perhaps not, Barack Obama was said not to have been at all happy with Gordon Brown’s gift of a pen holder to go on the ‘Resolute’ desk made from the timber of HMS Gannet of the East Africa Station. He responded with a gift of 25 DVDs! Resolute desk made at Chatham where HMS Gannet is displayed, HMS Gannet made further down Medway at Sheerness.
https://thedockyard.co.uk/attractions/hms-gannet/
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/questions/what-is-the-resolute-desk-and-where-did-it-come-from
The President is obviously a well ecucated eloquent man.
No – the interview showed him to be just as much of a climate grifter as Sackur, just in a different way.
Absolutely, grift seems to be an important part of his SOP, hysterical tone a bit of a red flag griftwise. Still good to see Sackur getting a richly deserved kicking though.
Well done Paul.
I wish someone would ask these opinionated fools in the MSM for evidence that Hydrocarbon deposits originate from fossils, because as far as I can discern, there is no evidence that is so. Or that they are depleting to zero.
I was once told that the North Sea oil reserves have only been depleted by less than 50%. The extracted content was relatively easy because of the pressure the reservoirs were under. The remainder will be more difficult to extract because the pressure has declined over the years and future extraction will eventually have to be carried out by other techniques. If this is true for the North Sea then it’s likely to be true for the rest of the oil producing nations.
Wherever they may be found geographically, hydrocarbons (oil and gas) originate from long dead organisms and decayed organic matter buried, compressed and heated over millennia. Read any petroleum/geological text book for details. Typical recovery rates for mature oil reservoirs are around 20-40%, though for more volatile oils can be higher, whilst for gas reservoirs it’s in the range 80-90%. The reason for this is primarily the difference in the density of the fluids. Once you get to these levels of recovery the economics of going further are against you and the still remaining oil and gas volumes stay in the ground.
Thank you for your reply to my comment, it’s always reassuring that someone takes the time to read them. We are at least in agreement about the depletion of existing reserves.
However, just as with The Big Bang and Evolution, the production of Hydrocarbons from fossils is just a theory and there is, as far as I can discern, no evidence to support any of the three theories.
In my almost 30 years in the Oil and Gas industry, I don’t recall anyone referring to them other than Hydrocarbons, because that’s what they are. The term Fossil Fuels is a relatively recent phenomenon and it appears to me to have been a construct by people who have ulterior motives than revealing the truth. Just as the CIA coined the term Conspiracy Theory to disparage anyone who questioned the official explanation of how President Kennedy was murdered, so Fossil Fuels and other terms such as Climate Change are being used today.
For some insight into who might be behind these hidden, and not so hidden plans, I can recommend a book by Dr. John Coleman entitled “The Committee of 300: The Conspirators Hierarchy”. And the Tavistock Institute features prominently in these matters. You may choose to ignore what he says but for me the evidence is compelling. It was first published in the early 1990s so it’s quite recent though some of those named have since died. But I believe the organisations still exist, probably with replacements to fill vacancies.
I have come across Sackur quite a few times as i am usually awake crack of dawn and his interviews tend to be shown at 5am on BBC News24. He is usually being obnoxious, patronising and following the BBC line on everything to the letter. However it all fits with the BBC as that time of the morning they usually also show a “documentary” piece about some climate catastrophe in some obscure part of the world
That time of day is for overseas audiences, it is well known that the BBC is trying to establish/maintain itself as a trusted and popular news source for those audiences. The BBC is funded by the UK public, but they concern themselves with the publics of other countries, especially all Middle East countries other than Israel.
The President of Guyana has shown both Sackur and the BBC the correct way to run an interview – first make sure YOU know the facts and do not go screaming at the interviewee when he makes you look crass and stupid.
The President of Guyana was impeccably polite, factual and concise, showing a level of knowledge that frightened Sackur into taking the only course of action left to the stupid- try to be clever, unfortunately for Sackur, his “victim” was just too on the ball.
Guyana 5: Biased Broadcasting Corporation 0
I imagine the President of Guyana has more to worry about than the arrogance of a BBC hack. Venezuela has long laid claim to the oil rich Guyanan province of Essequibo which comprises two thirds of the country.
Venezuela has recently carried out a referendum which supported the annexation of the province.
We, of course, will be expected (with US help) to stop that happening, RN to the fore as ever, just as they were on West (and East) Africa Stations, expending ‘blood and treasure’ projecting the power of the first nation to force an end to the slave trade. Much to the annoyance of the likes of the Oba of Benin.
This chap (Michael Greenwood) was press ganged in Faversham aged 16/17. enslaved by ‘The Moors’ for 17 months 10 years later and then ransomed to return home and resume life as a fisherman. Died 1812 so would have known about the West Africa Station and his old companions in RN.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3018396
Slam dunk, Mr President of Guyana! Awful arrogance from Sackur
Sackur, pomposity on a stick.