Letters

Letters: Lord Lawson is not banned from the BBC, and Wales is wonderful

Plus: was T.S. Eliot the first poet of Britishness?

19 July 2014

9:00 AM

19 July 2014

9:00 AM

No ban on Lawson

Sir: You write that the BBC ‘has effectively banned’ Lord Lawson from items on climate change unless introduced with ‘a statement discrediting his views’ (Leading article, 12 July). There’s a lot of muddled reporting of this story. Lord Lawson hasn’t been in any sense ‘banned’, and the Editorial Complaints Unit finding didn’t suggest that he shouldn’t take part in future items. It found fault with the way the Today item was handled in two respects: firstly that it presented Lord Lawson’s views on the science of global warning as if they stood on the same footing as those of Sir Brian Hoskins, and secondly that it didn’t make clear to listeners that Lord Lawson represented a minority view. There is also no ban on other non-scientists discussing climate change. The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage on this complex issue. Our position remains exactly as it was — we accept that there is broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly. We do, however, on occasion offer space to dissenting voices where appropriate as part of the BBC’s overall commitment to impartiality.
Fran Unsworth Deputy director, BBC News and Current Affairs
Happy valleys
 
Sir: If there is one thing the English enjoy, it is a ‘bad news’ story about Wales, especially if written by a Welshman, and Mr Gage does us proud (‘The betrayal of Wales’, 12 July). I went to a comprehensive school too: Ysgol Eifionydd, Porthmadog. I left that school with eleven GCEs and went on to train as a teacher at Bangor Normal College (Wales).

I recently retired, after nearly 50 years of overseas service, to my birthplace: Beddgelert, a small village near Caernarfon. In December 2012 I was diagnosed with blood clots on both lungs and was admitted to Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor. I received excellent care and attention, and after several months on Warfarin and regular follow-up visits, was given the all-clear.

In the last two months I have had cataracts on both eyes removed and the lenses replaced by artificial ones at Bangor. There were no complications, the surgeon was superb, his support staff kindness itself.  My local GP’s surgery is based in nearby Porthmadog (Y Feddygfa Wen) — I receive excellent service from all the staff there and cannot praise them enough.

To conclude, I will quote a Birmingham man who now lives in Beddgelert: ‘I came to Wales to get away from immigrants, to enjoy a pleasant environment and to live among friendly people.’
John Christopher Williams
Beddgelert, Caernarfon

Lower berth


Sir: Jeremy Clarke regularly provides you with the best column of the week. Surely you can provide the poor man with the expenses for a berth at a decent hotel when he makes the considerable effort to attend your parties from his base in Devon (12 July)? Or would that compromise his integrity as the Low Life columnist?

Alternatively, does Taki have a spare room? I expect that the column describing that adventure would surpass all his others.
Hugh Anderson
Newmarket, Suffolk

Off the record

Sir: Charles Moore is spot on in his criticism of how government records are saved for posterity, or were and were not saved, in the days of the Dickens dossier (Notes, 12 July). In the 1980s, as a junior Treasury official, one of my responsibilities was to mark files for saving, destruction or review after five years. The files concerned past budgets, not a trivial topic for historians. Decades later, researching at the National Archives a book on the government’s policy on taxing tobacco, I was appalled at some of the decisions I had made, thankfully overturned by those mysterious folk, ‘the Weeders’. Charles Moore is also right that the excellent National Archives should play a much greater role in these activities and must be resourced accordingly.
Dr C.R. Pickering
London W4

Poet patriots

Sir: Leaving to one side David Watkins’s dubious conflation of poetry with the ‘sentimental’, he is surely wrong (Letters, 12 July) to contend that no Englishman in the last 300 years has written a poem expressing love for or pride in Britain and Britishness. Has he, for example, never read T.S. Eliot’s lines in ‘Defence of the Islands’ (those ‘changing nothing/ of their ancestors’ ways… for whom the paths of glory are/ the lanes and streets of Britain’) published years after Eliot had already chosen to become a naturalised British subject? The same broad point could be made of the poetry of Geoffrey Hill, whom the New Republic is not alone in describing as ‘the strongest British poet currently writing’, and whose poetry is deeply rooted in the history of the British Isles as a whole, Worcestershire man though he be.
Sir John Weston
Richmond, Surrey

Freeing modern slaves

Sir: As your leading article on 5 July says, slavery is not confined to the history books. In the UK, nearly 3,000 trafficked women are working as prostitutes at any given time. Instead of being helped by police and the Borders Agency, many victims face prosecution, deportation and the risk of being re-trafficked, which means they are often reluctant to testify against the criminals. At Housing for Women we offer long-term support and safe homes for women who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation, forced labour or domestic servitude. Their stories are horrifying.

The new laws must ensure these women are helped to rebuild their lives. Only then will they feel they have any power to help put an end to this horrific crime.
Jakki Moxham
Chief executive, Housing for Women, London W9

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • tjamesjones

    Strange scientism from the BBC. “Science” has a role in both diagnosing and addressing changes in global climate, but the debate hosted by the BBC was undoubtedly not a debate on the details of any particular piece of research (which would constitute a scientific debate).

    The challenge of the global warming debate is not to find the expert with the most expert view, it is a political challenge to weigh up different interests, uncertain and contentious information and finite resources. And it might be said that on that score, that Lord Lawson has more expertise than Sir Brian.

    Don’tcha hate the bbc.

    • ilPugliese

      I really don’t see the problem here. I am a climate change skeptic, but I accept that many scientists either believe in it or pretend to for the sake of their careers. BBC’s Today had a perfectly reasonable exchange which was met with complaints from climate changeists, but the BBC rejected those complaints. What else is there to say?

  • Arthur Thistlewood

    Mr Williams is generalising from too few examples – actually, just his own! – when writing about Wales. It is generally a perfect expression of what happens to a country subjected to prolonged state bureaucracy, as is shown by its comparative, general performance in economic, social, health, environmental and educational matters. This is all bad enough but its tragedy is that it has no critical and competent national press to call the Welsh Assembly to account. The ‘Western Mail’ is a passive, supine, indolent paper which appears to equate criticism of a governing body with dislike of Wales as a country. The piece in the ‘Spectator’ was welcome and, though of apparently odd provenance, accurate. I have never understood why the Conservatives don’t use Wales as a continual reminder of what will happen if Miliband wins – it’s a real time experiment in the horrors of socialist government.

  • Dodgy Geezer

    …It found fault with the way the Today item was handled in two respects: firstly that it presented Lord Lawson’s views on the science of global warning as if they stood on the same footing as those of Sir Brian Hoskins, and secondly that it didn’t make clear to listeners that Lord Lawson represented a minority view. ..

    There is a big problem with this statement. At the time, Lawson was quoting from the IPCC, the world authoritative body for making statements on global warming. While Hoskins was not actually presenting any science at all – simply repeating green activist scares.

    However, the BBC know that Lawson is BAD, and must be suppressed. Their green friends have told them so.

  • Dodgy Geezer

    …we accept that there is broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly…

    Wouldn’t it be LOVELY to have a program which covered exactly WHAT bits of ‘climate change’ there was ‘broad agreement’ on?

    But if the BBC did that, they would find that there was broad agreement that the climate changes, and that man may be able to influence it a bit – certainly on a micro scale.

    There is extensive scientific DISAGREEMENT over the amount man can influence climate, whether that influence might be dangerous in any way, and whether the current proposals to curb CO2 emissions will have any effect at all on the climate, even supposing they were to be strictly adhered to.

    The BBC are simply equivocating here to remain supporting a propaganda position fro their activist friends for as long as possible.

  • ilPugliese

    Jakki Moxham, is your motto “Send us your problems because we don’t have enough of our own and we like to spend our population’s money on yours”? If not, then why don’t you campaign for the countries of origin to hand over the required funds, and why would it be wrong to send the victims to their home countries?

Close