I often wonder about the torrent of statistics that assail us on every issue today. So many, in fact,  that we have to look to ‘fact checkers’ to verify which can be believed or, more accurately, which fit the current narrative.  Some time ago I saw a headline which printed the following quote, “97% of scientists agree climate change is real.” Now I know that is not the full quote and often there is a slightly different wording but it is often abbreviated to the above mentioned headline.  My first thought was, where were the other 3%? Fallen asleep in the back row when the question was put? Skipped out for a quick smoke or, to get first in line for Lunch? I think, although I cannot prove it, that 97% of scientists agree that the climate changes, otherwise we would be in the middle of a world of molten rock. Following this line of thought, I wondered who were these scientists? Were they all climatologists or did anyone in a white coat in a laboratory qualify? What about those social scientists that are so desperate to prove that Social Science is a real science, do they qualify? Here we get into the weeds and ask how this data was collected. Was there a global meeting of climatologists weighted in some way to represent scientific opinion? I could go on and I often do but I think that we have done enough to illustrate that we should view all such claims with healthy scepticism. Am I being fair in only discussing the abbreviated form of the quote? Partly yes and no.  Partly yes because all the above is valid when the abbreviated quote is most often used by the media and others to support a particular view on climate change. Partly no, because the full quote expands on the short format to make a statement, as follows:.

97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global
warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that
is, that we are over 50% responsible. (Fox News, 28/07/15)

Now that we have the full statement does it change our level of scepticism? Well no. In addition to our original questions  we now add the requirement that the authors prove that human beings are the main reason for climate change. At this stage I must say that the point of this essay is not to prove or, disprove the issue of global warming  but to examine how science is used to support a political ideology. The origin of the 97% claim was a study conducted by John Cook who surveyed papers by various scientists and sought to classify them by adjudicating whether they supported the climate change statement or not. To say that this was a subjective process is an understatement, with Richard Tol saying that, “The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted.”  The 97% figure seems to have stuck, with the likes of President Obama and others repeating it, whilst others saying that it is a blunt instrument that doesn’t account for a sliding scale of support for the claim. Most people seem to agree that there is some anthropogenic effect but disagree to the extent of the impact on global warming.

Whilst the public may not understand the basis of the statistics being forced on to them from every media outlet, after Covid, they saw the extent of government and Corporate control over the scientific community. David Robert Grimes wrote an interesting piece in The Guardian (27/08/23), entitled, “One scientist can be wrong. But deny the scientific consensus at your peril”. In it he differentiates between ‘The Science‘ and the opinion of individual scientists. Up to a point, I can agree with his definition of Science as he describes it in his article.

Science is not an arcane collection of dogma but an active and systematic method of inquiry. Science pivots on making testable predictions, which are updated as new findings emerge, to reflect the totality of evidence.

Where we differ is when he describes the scientist who dares to challenge the scientific consensus. He immediately pivots  to the stereotype of the “Covid conspirator; the “vaccine denier”, even raising the ghost of Andrew Wakefield. No room for an Einstein or a Darwin here. He and the legacy media would use terms like spreading misinformation, climate or, science denier, tin  hat scientist so that the established science would be defended against any heretic challenging the established dogma.  The problem with his argument is that he acknowledges the fact that, “Scientific positions are always transient,  subject to revision when stronger evidence emerges” What he doesn’t explain is how that dynamic works. In his example of how science was presented to the public during the Covid  epidemic he offers the WHO and the likes of the CDC as representing the best repository of scientific knowledge. He makes no reference  to the abject failure of the WHO to pursue science and truth and challenge the lies from China at the beginning of the epidemic. He ignores the relationship between government funded research, the drug companies and the scientific community which was ruthlessly weaponised against those who supported the Great Barrington Declaration for example. Would he agree that the behaviour of Dr Fauci looked more like someone defending dogma than being open to new research to add to the  totality of evidence? Would he agree with Dr Fauci’s response to criticism, “So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science”?  At this point we should perhaps remind ourselves about the relationship between the individual scientist and the established scientific consensus, from a non scientific establishment source:

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” (Michael Crichton)

In a paper summarising the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on the topic of climate  change, Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens discussed the polarisation and politicisation of scientific debate. They described a scientific world where there are only two possible positions, that you are either for us or against us, where there is no middle ground, no room for debate. They refer to the tendency to ‘circle the wagons‘ against anyone expressing doubt or, anyone challenging the underlying assumptions of a  paper. Whilst Palmer and Stevens are for the climate change proposition, they are frustrated by the lack of debate to tease out the complexities of the climate model and the absence of quality research that would inform society.

In our view, the political situation, whereby some influential people and institutions misrepresent doubt about anything to insinuate doubt about everything, certainly contributes to a reluctance to be too openly critical of our models. ( Palmer and Stevens, PNAS)

I wonder what Palmer and Stevens would have made of the latest outburst from the UN Secretary General.

“At a news conference a few days ago, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres … said, “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning.” ….  “The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.”(Skeptical Science, 12/08/23) Here we have an example of the “influential people and institutions”  who would claim to represent science but clearly only offer escalating scare tactics that have diminishing returns on a weary public. A public that might question why the UN Secretary has so little to say to the two biggest polluting countries, whose representatives he must meet on a weekly basis (You know who we mean, Mr SecGen).  The public has also seen Mr. “I represent the science” backtracking on mask mandates, having to admit that the data on masks preventing the spread of Covid is less strong than he previously claimed. The ordinary citizen, who had to suffer the resulting mask mandates based on the recommendations of Mr. “I represent the science”,  hasn’t forgotten those that ignored the mask mandates without consequence.  Muriel Bowser, Bill de Blasio, Lori Lightfoot, Ralph Northam, Andrew Cuomo, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Dianne Feinstein, Gretchen Whitmer and the entire BLM army to mention a few. Do we sense a theme here? Perhaps it would help  if I add in the globe trotting White House climate czar John Kerry and his reply to a question on his travelling to Iceland by private jet in 2019 to accept an environmental award. (Mairead McArdle, 03/02/21)

His response? “the only choice for somebody like me.” and there we have it!

So now we have the final and all embracing ingredient that makes up the scientific community stew. When David Robert Grimes wrote his Guardian article, he described the theoretic model of scientific progress. It was the Greek idea of thesis, antithesis and synthesis but he failed to observe the model in actual practise. He obviously hadn’t heard the Bernard Shaw quote that, “All great truths begin as blasphemies” or, Max Planck saying, “science progresses funeral by funeral”. In other words, scientists are no different from any other professional group. They form associations and recruit like minded people, to misquote John Kerry, ‘people like us’. They then ‘circle the wagons’ and defend the group think against those who travel in economy. When you extend this group to friends and contacts in government, the universities, big pharma and the legacy press, you see the extent of the scientific, corporate, academic and bureaucratic nexus that controls the money that controls what is the approved  science.  Finally, to summarise why David Robert Grimes article missed the point, I would take liberties with the title of  his article and change one word, as follows.

One scientist can be wrong right. But deny the scientific consensus at your peril

Sources

Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens, 02/12/19, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), The scientific challenge of understanding and estimating climate change, www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1906691116

John Hartz, Skeptical Science, 12/08/23,Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation , //skepticalscience.com

Alex Epstein, Forbes, 06/01/15, ‘97% Of Climate Scientists
Agree’ Is 100% Wrong, www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=12295c383f9f

Richard Tol , Fox News Opinion, 28/05/15, Climate change: Mr. Obama, 97 percent of experts is a bogus number, www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

Mairead McArdle, 03/02/21, National Review, Kerry Defended Taking Private Jet to Iceland for Environmental Award: ‘the Only Choice for Somebody Like Me’, news.yahoo.com/kerry-defended-taking-private-jet-171410846.html

 

I have to say that the World Cup sort of crept up on me and as a consequence I haven’t been able to work up the same enthusiasm as in the past. That is partly due to it appearing in the middle of the Premier League season, partly the playing conditions and partly the corruption associated with FIFA. After the FBI and Swiss authorities’ investigations into FIFA and the subsequent prosecutions it was hoped that the reputation of the worldwide football association would be restored. However, in the opinion of Mark Pieth, who was tasked to improve governance in the organisation, “the supposed modernization under current FIFA head Gianni Infantino has “plunged it into the Dark Ages of [former FIFA president Sepp] Blatter.” As Pieth notes, “they’re simply not up to regulating themselves.” Washinton Post 20/11/22. Which brings me to the reason for this essay. Not so much the question of corruption but the mention of the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino.

Gianni Infantino had taken on the responsibility of locating the 2022 World Cup to a venue that had no or, very little football infrastructure and a reputation for enforcing strict Sharia law. Knowing that this created issues for the ever-present alphabet soup community he received assurances that Sharia law enforcement would be relaxed for the period of the World Cup in Qatar. There was also the problem of migrant labour that was imported to build the football stadiums and associated facilities. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and the Guardian, amongst others, have focussed on pay and conditions of these exploited workers. It is against this long-tailed background of complaints that my attention was drawn to the FIFA presidents inaugural address to open the competition. First of all, I must disclose that I didn’t listen to the full 57-minute speech. I don’t know anyone who did. Infantino started his speech in the manner of an inebriated father of the bride who, ignoring all the frozen stares of his family, made the occasion all about himself.

“Today I feel Qatari,” he said. “Today I feel Arabic. Today I feel African. Today I feel gay. Today I feel disabled. Today I feel [like] a migrant worker.” He added: “Of course I am not Qatari, I am not an Arab, I am not African, I am not gay, I am not disabled. But I feel like it, because I know what it means to be discriminated [against], to be bullied, as a foreigner in a foreign country. As a child I was bullied – because I had red hair and freckles, plus I was Italian, so imagine.” The Guardian, 19/11/22

 

Just a couple of points. Whilst not diminishing the effects of his early experience, hopping across the border from one western European country to another, bears no resemblance to the hardships suffered by foreign labourers working in Qatar. There is one ‘oppressed’ group that he missed, possibly because it is not recognised in the LGBTQ+ acronym, and that is, women. He hastily rectified this by adding this half of the population to the list of people he ‘feels like’ at least sparing us from describing women as ‘birthing people’. Was his empathy for everyone, other than white men, a criticism of his hosts anti gay laws, the hardship suffered by foreign workers and the restriction on women’s rights? From the excerpts of  his speech that have surfaced, seemingly not. Like the drunken fathers speech, it is difficult to see what he did mean. By mentioning all the progressive shibboleths he must have known that this would highlight the cultural differences between the West and the hosts. In a further twist he had complained about some of the criticism he had received from Human Rights groups and he defended himself as follows

Infantino had suggested critics were “handing out moral lessons to the rest of the world” and said nations should “not allow football to be dragged into every ideological or political battle that exists”. The Guardian, 13/11/22

Does he not see the hypocrisy between his speech cataloguing all the groups  driven by Western progressive ideology that he feels part of  and his demand that Football be kept free of  ideology and politics? To give him the benefit of the doubt I don’t think that he does. I think that he his so focussed on shameless and pathetic virtue signalling that it blinds him to the obvious contradictions in his position.

I could continue the drunken father analogy further but drinking in stadiums were suddenly forbidden two days before the start of the matches. However, that was not the only thing that seemed to break the peace negotiated with the Qatar authorities. Plans by European teams to display the LGBTQ+ rainbow colours came under attack and players who wore these emblems were threatened with punishment if they did not conform. Flags and emblems were also taken from supporters entering the stadium and FIFA seemed to be compliant with this. Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said, “FIFA is now little more than a mouthpiece for the Qatari despots. It is giving cover for a sexist. Homophobic and racist dictatorship.’ Daily Mail 18/12/22.  Infantino, who I believe expected applause from the progressives, was stung by the criticism and reacted with the racist card saying that Europeans should apologise for the past 3000 years history. Not withstanding the fact that there wasn’t a Europe at that time he defended the Qatar government and FIFA by charging opponents with Hypocrisy.

The view from Qatar was, you knew what you were getting into when you first took the money. You knew that we maintain a strict religious theocracy under Sharia law  and you knew that we would defend our beliefs against Western decadence. They also, pointed out that, “Many here in Qatar are asking why there wasn’t a similar uproar when Russia hosted the World Cup in 2018 or when China hosted the Olympics in 2008; both countries with their own human rights issues.” (BBC News 23/11/22). It is a hard question to answer especially when you consider the questionable  FIFA bidding process. There was another group of less than heroic’ standing, defending the rights of the alphabet soup community, who caved in to the pressure from the Qatar Government. As reported by Forbes, “The national soccer federations of the Netherlands, England, Wales, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and Denmark issued a joint statement announcing they are backing off, stating they did not want to put their players “ in a position where they could face sporting sanctions.” (Forbes 21/11/22) Meanwhile the families of the Iranian Team were reportedly under threat because the team didn’t sing the national anthem in protest against the death of Mahsa Amini.  The lesson to take away from this is that it is easy to ‘take the knee’ in a Western country where there is no consequence for doing so, than in countries like Qatar and Iran.

What do we take from the speech and events surrounding the World Cup. First of all, the very bad news is that Infantino is making a bid to remain as FIFA President until 2031. That means a constant flow of corruption, contradictory policies and meaningless self congratulatory virtue signalling. Secondly, this will be matched by sporting administrators and over paid sports men and women. (Assuming we still recognise biological men and women in 2031). Infantino is your quintessential example of someone who see’s a role beyond that in the job description. He see’s himself as a major political force and is prepared to compromise his responsibilities to football to further his ambition. This is a modern trend and is borne out of lack of a sense of duty toward those for whom you are responsible and a lack of humility. Three thousand years ago, Infantino would know that the Greeks had a god named Hubris who represented arrogance, lack of humility, wanton violence etc. What he seems to have forgotten is that this god is followed by another called Nemesis, the goddess of fate and retribution. Perhaps, the goddess Nemesis would save us from an extended term  of President  Infantino and allow him to be replaced by someone who has the best interests of the game at heart instead of the corruption, arrogance and virtue signalling of  Gianni Infantino.

Sources

Dan Hough, 20/11/22, The Washington Post, Qatar is taking the heat for FIFA corruption, washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/20/fifa-qatar-world-cup-corruption/

Sean Ingle, 19/11/22, The Guardian, ‘I feel gay, disabled … like a woman too!’: Infantino makes bizarre attack on critics, theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/19/fifa-gianni-infantino-world-cup-qatar

Shanti Das, 13/11/22, The Guardian, Anger over Fifa president’s ‘stick to football’ letter to World Cup teams, theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/13/anger-over-fifa-presidents-stick-to-football-letter-to-world-cup-teams

Shaimaa Khalil, 23/11/22, BBC News, World Cup 2022 armband row: ‘Two parallel universes on human rights controversies’, bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63718164

Siladitya Ray, 21/11/22, Forbes Business, World Cup: Teams Will Not Wear Rainbow Armbands After FIFA Threatens Yellow Cards, www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/11/21/world-cup-teams-will-not-wear-rainbow-armbands-after-fifa-threatens-yellow-cards/?sh=511d320e4bd3

Very recently I wrote an essay on ESG and the attempt to politicise the business community using investors funds as a weapon. (E.S.G.) In that essay I exhorted everyone to use common sense, with a dash of scepticism, when receiving information on important issues. My woke sensors were activated when I heard of an article entitled, What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures and they were fully deployed when I heard it was sourced from The Guardian. I looked up the article and the first thing I noticed was a curiously worded subtitle. See if you can spot what caught my eye. “In 13 US states, abortion is banned even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But we rarely see what such tissue really looks like.” (The Guardian 19/10/22) I will come back to that or, ‘circle back’ as the late Jen Psaki would often say. Reading on, I was struck by a number of photographs which showed a cotton wool like substance in Petrie dishes, an example and explanation below.

“This image shows the gestational sac of a nine-week pregnancy. This is everything that would be removed during an abortion and includes the nascent embryo, which is not easily discernible to the naked eye.” Dr. Joan Fleischman

For clarity, I should advise that Dr Joan Fleischman is part of a pro-abortion group called the MYA Network, ‘which is made up of a network of clinicians and activists, who show what tissue in the first nine weeks of pregnancy actually looks like.’ (The Guardian 19/10/22)

The thing that struck me about the subtitle and large parts of the MYA supplied data was the constant reference to ’tissue’ when we would normally be talking about the embryo or, the foetus.  To be fair there is a reference to the aborted embryo in the above picture but it, ” … is not easily discernible to the naked eye” I don’t understand why that means it can’t be shown in the photograph by enlarging it to scale. This is important because the thrust of the article is to depersonalise and dehumanise the foetus. What we are shown is not, “everything that would be removed during an abortion” but some innocuous cotton wool like material that has no potential for life.  There is no attempt to argue against the above chart which shows the development of a child but by using the artifice of showing only, the tissue, seeks to persuade people that there is no moral or, criminal argument to be made against them.

It might be argued by MYA that the pictures showing the foetal development and the one opposite are misleading but on the basis of the contrived Guardian article I would prefer to take my information from the National Health Service. (NHS)

Your baby at 10 weeks: The ears are starting to develop on the sides of your baby’s head, and the ear canals are forming inside the head. If you could look at your baby’s face, you’d be able to see an upper lip and 2 tiny nostrils in the nose. The jawbones are developing and already contain all the future milk teeth. The heart is now fully formed. It beats 180 times a minute – that’s 2 to 3 times faster than your own heart. The baby is making small, jerky movements that can be seen on an ultrasound scan. NHS

In addition to the words that are absent from the article we need to look at the ones that are used. In the picture that purports to show ‘everything that would be removed during an abortion’ the invisible embryo is described as ‘nascent’. I will leave you to look up your own definition but one that will serve for this article is as follows: nascent, coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential. Is Dr Fleischman arguing that there is no potential for life before nine weeks? If so, she seems to be in dispute with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists who, in their Seventh Edition of Your Pregnancy and Childbirth book, ACOG states that, “The first eight weeks of pregnancy are a time of rapid growth for your baby. Most of the organs have begun to form during these weeks. By the end of the eighth week, the baby – called an embryo at this stage – is about half an inch long.” 

The main part of my criticism of this article is not that it is pro-abortion but that it is basically dishonest. There are arguments for both sides of the debate, but they should strive to be factual and honest. In this case, meanings are hidden, and facts distorted by slight of hand. If the intention was to reduce the stress of a mother seeking advice, she shouldn’t have to pick her way through this article like a lawyer vetting a contract.  I had thought of entitling this piece ‘Lies, Dam Lies and the Guardian but I think that the title I chose reflects the modern trend of redefining direct language with obscure words, the meaning of which can be changed at will. With this in mind, I will leave you with the same sentence and sentiment with which I closed my essay on ESG. I am not saying that we should review the arguments promoted by the Flat Earth Society, but we should apply the same level of scepticism to those that make decisions, on our behalf, in the name of the experts. 

Sources

Poppy Noor, 19/10/22, The Guardian, What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures, .theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue

nhs.uk/pregnancy/week-by-week/1-to-12/10-weeks/

American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Your Pregnancy and Childbirth book, 7th edition

 

I had heard about the so-called sustainable investment ratings, otherwise referred to as the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating, in general discussions about investment strategy. However, I had assumed that this was something that the Americans had invented to make their pensioners even more miserable amongst rising prices, rising crime and woke policies. Imagine my concern when I came across an article in the London FT headed, ESG Ratings Face Examination in Fight Against Greenwashing ( FT 28/05/22). It seems that it is not just an American phenomenon after all. In essence, the aim of an ESG investment is not to maximise shareholders returns but to take a more holistic view and to invest in companies that maximise stakeholders returns.

The ESG strategy means investing in companies that score highly on environmental and societal responsibility scales as determined by third-party, independent companies and research groups. “At its core, ESG investing is about influencing positive changes in society by being a better investor,” says Hank Smith, Head of Investment Strategy at The Haverford Trust Company. (Forbes Advisor)

If we lay aside the aims of ESG, as stated by Hank Smith, the thrust of the FT article was to look at the question of the quality and integrity of the ‘third-party, independent companies and research groups’ as mentioned above. The concern is that some rating agencies are providing false or, suspect data to promote companies with ratings that are misleading to investors. This is known as greenwashing. As Sacha Sadan says, “People do get surprised when they see certain stocks (such as oil and gas) in a portfolio that’s an ESG best in class … and that’s why, as a consumer regulator looking after people, we have to make sure that is correct.” (FT 28/05/22) Various government agencies and the EU are getting involved to put some standards and structure into this unregulated area with particular focus on ‘transparency, conflicts of interest and requirements to demonstrate the validity of metrics’.  Before we get carried away with even more regulation, perhaps we should take note of Klasa’s observation about rating agencies in her article.

Rating agencies attracted controversy in the aftermath of the 2009 financial crisis when they gave prime ratings to highly risky mortgage-backed securities that ultimately blew up and tanked global markets. A 2011 US government enquiry concluded that the leading, “credit rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. (FT 28/05/22)

What the FT article is saying is that everyone’s definition on what is an acceptable ESG rating, is a matter of the agencies or in house departments own world view. Given that amount of ambiguity, would you buy a used car from these people?

What are the basic factors that rating agencies take into account to produce an ESG score. In the first instance we have already mentioned the transition from shareholder to stakeholders return as a measure of a company’s success. According to Forbes, the stakeholders are ‘workers, communities, customers, shareholders and the environment.’ ESG proponents would argue that a positive drive to satisfy stakeholders in a company would show that it is well run and a good bet for investors. To assist in this evaluation Forbes has defined the objectives that would promote a good ESG score in the three categories. In summary, under the Environmental heading the question is, what environmental impact does the company have.  This may be measured by its carbon footprint, pollution or practises that may impact on the climate. On the Social front, the company is measured on its social impact both within and outside of the company. Therefore, are it’s hiring policies diverse and inclusive. Does it support progressive groups like BLM and LGBQIA within its employees and the broader community. Governance looks at how the management is structured. Is it diverse and representative? Does it drive progressive change? I am sure that my summary can be improved on by those promoting the ESG approach but it must be obvious that, in the main, these are political objectives.  The assumption is that by driving companies to achieve these social goals then you achieve the twin objectives of a more progressive community and a more profitable business. To say that most of these objectives are subjective understates the case and to assume that becoming a good ESG rated company makes you a profitable investment lacks logic. One of the biggest supporters of ESG is Blackrock and I mention it not because it is the only company promoting ESG but because its CEO, Larry Fink, is the most vocal.  Mr Fink has been very vocal in his opposition to fossil fuels but has made a huge wager on the Chinese economy by investing in China’s Mutual

Fund Industry. The graph to the left shows that China’s Greenhouse Gas emissions exceed that of all developed nations combined (BBC 07/05/21). Does this not conflict with the E for Environmental part of the ESG policy he promotes? Does the fate of Muslims under the Chinese regime fit with the S for Social inclusiveness and equity segment? As for G for Governance, who knows how the Mutual Funds are managed in this respect. As reported in the Times, “BlackRock’s silence on China’s regime is particularly jarring because of its evangelical promotion of environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards. “A company cannot achieve long-term profits without embracing purpose and considering the needs of a broad range of stakeholders,” Fink said in his latest annual letter to chief executives. (The Times, 30/08/20) So far, we have a political progressive policy, that cannot be universally defined, which is hugely subjective and as we have seen, very selective and open to corruption. But is it successful as an investment strategy? To be fair, it is a little too early to evaluate with any certainty. However, logic would suggest that if our only objective was shareholder return, then it would seem that by excluding non-progressive companies, that the pool of potential profitable investments is reduced. It may be a little mischievous of me to note that the people who would make investment choices on your behalf have just achieved a new investment record. As reported by Bloomberg, Blackrock managed funds lost $1.7 trillion of its clients’ money since the beginning of the year — the largest sum ever lost by a single firm over a six-month period. Another casualty was the investment company that manages Harvard University’s portfolio which made a loss last year. In a response to questions about the loss, one of the points made by HMC was that it restricted the type of investment it made and thus reduced the possibility of a positive return.  “A number of institutional investors leaned into the conventional energy sector, through either equities or commodity futures, adding materially to their total return. HMC did not participate in these returns given the University’s commitment to tackling the impacts of climate change, supporting sustainable solutions, and achieving our stated net Zero goals.” (HMC, October2022) The concept of shareholder returns is a simple and well-established concept and is easily measured. Public policy is made by elected governments and is enforced by law where interested parties can make their case. Thus, there is a large volume of employment, environmental and social law which a company must abide by. What ESG attempts to do is push a social and political policy on companies by using investors funds to vote progressive policies at AGM’s and bar access to investment by downgrading ESG scores for non-favoured companies. By doing this, Blackrock and its associates by passes public review and attempt to effect political change by the back door. If we return to the attempts to regulate this train wreck, we might extend the list of actors of whom we should be nervous. As Klas pointed out in her article, the rating agencies have a very poor record on ‘transparency, conflicts of interest and requirements to demonstrate the validity of metrics.’ The same complaint can be made of the ideologically driven green decisions made by western governments which has resulted in the energy crisis. Neither big investment companies nor governments can be trusted to regulate in favour of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

I hope that I have brought the discussion up to date but even though I have described my problems with the actors promoting this ideology I have not stated my basic opposition to it in principle. The current status of this debate is how do we regulate the ESG policy, but I take issue with it at a more fundamental level.  In my own case I have invested in a private pension after agreeing a risk factor, targeted net income and an appropriate portfolio with my pension advisor. As far as I am concerned the objective is to give me the highest income possible commensurate with the agreed parameters.  I have no contact or contract with Blackrock or with any other investment vehicle and yet they use my funds to promote progressive policy. How can that be legal? Rather belatedly, this challenge has been taken up in the US.

Nineteen state attorneys general wrote a letter last month to BlackRock CEO Laurence D. Fink. They warned that BlackRock’s environmental, social and governance investment policies appear to involve “rampant violations” of the sole interest rule, a well-established legal principle. The sole interest rule requires investment fiduciaries to act to maximize financial returns, not to promote social or political objectives. (WSJ 6/09/22)

We have become so used to everyone else resolving our perceived problems that we have surrendered our rights and responsibilities as individuals. We listen to that seductive voice that says, don’t worry we are the experts, and we know what’s best for you.  However, the reputation of ‘experts ‘as a class has suffered some damage over the past few years. For example, those experts who didn’t see or, benefited from, the 2009 crash. Those experts who claimed to be ‘the science’ but closed down opposing opinions during Covid. Those who supported the Tavistock Institute and their like, supplanting ideology for science and in the process doing great harm to children. We have the prospect of a cold winter and sky-high energy prices due to governments lack of any common-sense strategy in relation to green policies. The list goes on, but the message is the same. Perhaps the experts and professional classes are not so expert in matters that exist in the real world.

ESG is one example where an unpopular social change is introduced via the backdoor and suddenly, we are financing something that we fundamentally disagree with. What can we do about it? The first thing to do is to recognise that it is happening all around us. I used to be very sceptical about conspiracy theories, but lately they have an unfortunate habit of being wholly or partly true. We only need to think of the origins of Covid and how the idea that it began in the Wuhan Institute of Virology was fiercely contended for so long. I am not saying that we should review the arguments promoted by the Flat Earth Society, but we should apply the same level of scepticism to those that make decisions on our behalf in the name of the experts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources

Adrienne Klasa, 28/05/22, Financial Times, ESG Ratings Face Examination in Fight Against Greenwashing, p15

E. Napoletano, Benjamin Curry, no date, Forbes Advisor, www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/esg-investing/

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined, 07/05/21, BBC, bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57018837

Jed Rubenfeld and William P. Barr, 6/09/22, Wall Street Journal Opinion, ESG Can’t Square With Fiduciary Duty

,N.P. “Narv” Narvekar,October 2022,Harvard Management Company,/finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy22_hmc_letter.pdf

Emma Dunkley, 30/08/20, The Times, Larry Fink, thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-fink-blackrocks-ethical-investment-evangelist-kowtows-to-beijing-wqt6hs3jp

 

I had been following the case of the January 6th rioters/protesters in the US who had been arrested but held on remand for, in some cases, over seven months in conditions that would not be accepted for convicted criminals. In this case the presumption of innocence seems to have been suspended for purely political reasons. It was with these thoughts in mind that I saw that a conviction for rape had been quashed in the High Court, in the UK, after the discovery of new evidence that was not put before the Jury at the original Trial in 2013.  The reason for my interest was that the  issue of consent was at the centre of the prosecution’s case which meant that the Jury had to make it’s decision on whose evidence it found more believable. The accuser presented an edited number of posts which supported her claim that there was little contact between her and the accused after sex. The accused, Danny Kay, asked the prosecution to assist in recovering the deleted messages but this wasn’t done and he was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. It was his sister-in-law who discovered the backup files which were the basis for his successful appeal. The Appeal Judge, Mr Justice James Goss said: “We have come to the conclusion that, in a case of one word against another, the full Facebook message exchange provides very cogent evidence both in relation to the truthfulness and reliability of (the woman) … and the reliability of (Mr Kay’s) account and his truthfulness.” (BBC 22/12/20)  Mr Kay was released from prison after serving two years of his sentence. Before we get to the question of presumption of innocence I would like to comment on the police and prosecution’s lack of competence in this case. Mr Kay had warned them that the evidence on which they based their case was misleading and edited but with all the technical expertise at their disposal it was the defendants sister-in-law who found the  evidence that was so compelling to the Court of Appeal. Mr Kay’s lawyer said, “Danny’s case is slightly unusual because all reasonable lines of inquiry don’t necessarily seem to have been followed,” (BBC 5/1/18). You don’t say!

Derbyshire Police said it has referred its investigation to an independent regional review team to “ensure lessons are learned” and “would welcome the opportunity to discuss the situation with Mr Kay.”

The concept of presumed innocence goes far back into history and has many sources. In it’s widest sense François Quintard-Morénas can see elements of the doctrine as far back as the  ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi ; the ancient Greeks and Roman Law but he claims that it was the 14th. Century French jurist, Johannes Monachus, who first coined the phrase, “innocent until proved guilty.” This concept has made it into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as follows.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

Having served prison time and with his reputation permanently damaged Mr. Kay sought compensation for the unsound verdict. As his lawyer pointed out, “the government had not properly considered how the woman’s manipulation of the messages undermined her credibility and the context of the discussions.” (BBC 01/08/21) As an aside I would have said that his conviction was also partly due to the prosecution not doing it’s job. This was turned down and the reasoning is interesting and I have copied the rationale from the BBC report as follows.

Lady Justice Macur said the retrieved messages “did not explicitly or implicitly discuss the act of sexual intercourse or the issue of consent, nor establish that the nature of the ongoing interaction was inconsistent with an offence of rape”. While noting Mr Kay “has suffered greatly because of his conviction and imprisonment”, she said his case did not meet the requirements for an award to be made. “For compensation to be payable, the newly discovered fact admitted into the appeal proceedings must positively disprove the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and not merely undermine the safety of the conviction,” she said. BBC 1/08/21

What Lady Justice Macur is saying is that the original case was found to be unsafe because evidence undermining the credibility of the accuser was withheld. In this case the question of whether consent was given was the central issue and it was decided on the basis of who the Jury believed. However, to receive compensation a new and higher bar has to be met. Not only has Mr Kay to prove that the prosecution did not prove it’s case but Mr Kay has to prove his innocence. 

If we believe that an accused is innocent until proved guilty we must believe that Mr Kay is innocent. It is for the prosecution to prove his guilt not for him to prove his innocence. The finding of Lady Justice Macur might lead others to say that he only got off on a technicality, the ‘no smoke without fire’ argument. The reality in this case was that the person making the accusation, knowingly doctored evidence and lacked credibility yet, it is Mr Kays name that is in the news. It is Mr Kay who served prison time on the basis of the accusers tainted evidence and the incompetence of  the authorities. It is Mr Kay who has to prove his innocence, even though validated by the Court of Appeal, to obtain compensation.

There are principals in law and civilisation that are self evidentially right and fair yet they are constantly under threat, never more so than now. They are being eroded everyday and Mr Kay’s experience is a case in point. He is innocent of the crime of rape but  still guilty in Lady  Justice Macur’s court room and his good name has suffered by her decision. His accuser doesn’t have these problems as she is protected by law from being identified. I can understand the reasons for this but shouldn’t presumption of innocence mean that he should have the same protection? We could also take the case of Zachary Benn who was held on remand in prison for six months on the charges of rape, sexual assault, blackmail, robbery, and possession of a bladed article. A desperate character indeed but the prosecution offered no evidence when it went for trial. The Recorder observed that it was unsatisfactory for the authorities to enter a plea of nolle prosequi on the date of the trial whilst the defendant was held in prison for six months. According to the Manchester Evening News “the complainant had admitted to telling untruths and further enquiries by the police and fire service had uncovered more untruths.” Even though the claimant held to her story, the police couldn’t support a prosecution. Note the language in the context of this essay. The claimant told “untruths”, otherwise know as lies and,” …it was deemed there was not a realistic chance of a conviction.” rather than, Mr Benn had been falsely accused and he is innocent under the legal concept of presumption of innocence.

The two examples given above relate to accusations of rape where there is no neutral witness or, forensic evidence to support a charge either way. It is not intended to be an assault on the #Me To movement or to be a deterrent to men or women bringing such cases to law. What I am trying to demonstrate is that there is a fundamental principle of law that you expect to be the guiding principle in any case where someone makes an accusation against you or someone you care for.

Mr Kay expressed his shock at the proceedings which led to his imprisonment, “It was devastating for a system that you trust to let you down like that … I had complete faith in it, I trusted that the truth would come out in the trial and it didn’t.” (BBC 05/01/18)

 You might take the view that mistakes happen that these cases are rare and it is better for the community to call out the many and suffer a small number of casualties than the other way around. The problem is that these are everyone’s protection and in these days of partisanship you too might find yourself condemned in the court of  public opinion and subsequent conviction in a court of law. The Crown Prosecution Service conducted a review of rape cases current in 2018 and found that in 47 cases the prosecution had withheld or, disclosed late, exculpatory evidence which could aid the defence.  Perhaps not so few casualties after all. Meanwhile, in the ‘Land of the Free’ at the Senate hearing to approve President Biden’s nomination for the position of Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, Ms Lhamon was asked whether she had tweeted that enforcing presumption of innocence and due process on college campus’s would result in more sexual abuse? She replied, “I think what I said in the tweet, so, the regulation permits students to rape and sexually harass with impunity.” (Newsmax 4/08/21) Ms Lhamon co authored the ‘Dear Colleague Letter’ which forced over 500 colleges to reduce defendant student rights when accused of discriminatory harassment purportedly forbidden under Title IX. This resulted in over 700 civil actions brought by students who were refused basic constitutional and Human Rights by the college equivalents of the the 17th. century Star Chamber.

As mentioned in my opening paragraph, the erosion of rights are not limited to sexual crimes but to those involved in the January 6th. riots and many other cases. Once basic rights are seen as expendable in one case then infection soon spreads to the extent that the President of the US can issue an executive order that he knows is unconstitutional. Doesn’t the end justify the means? Yes there is always collateral damage but you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, can you? Even if you don’t see the inherent unfairness and injustice of this position the expansion of this attack on basic human rights will eventually engulf you and yours.

“It does not feel real to me and I don’t have closure. My life will not be the same again. … When I leave here I will not get my life back.” MEN 21/6/21

The above statement could have been made by any number of victims of crime but it was made by Mr Benn, who had spent six months in prison, falsely accused of rape.

Sources

Rape conviction quashed over new Facebook evidence – BBC News 22/12/20

Danny Kay: Rape conviction man ‘let down’ by system – BBC News 5/01/18

Danny Kay: Man cleared of rape loses High Court compensation bid – BBC News   1/08/21

Kavanaugh, Ford and the History of Being ‘Presumed Innocent’ | Time 5/10/18

Man charged with rape is found not guilty and walks free from court – Manchester Evening News 21/06/21

Catherine Lhamon’s Nomination to Lead Civil Rights in the Department of Education Is Dead | Newsmax.com 4/08/21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was struggling with a blog concerning the General Flynn case in the  US, the main problem being, how do you encapsulate this complex story and convey the absolute scandal that it is. It is basically a story that contrast the naive but honourable soldier with the actions of a political class who corrupted the organs of the State to ‘nail’ their man. This feeds into the whole Russiagate story which was unbelievable from it’s beginning and became more sinister as it played out, driven by a compliant press and desperate opposition. The trouble is that if you control the establishment media then any criticism is treated as a conspiracy  but any conspiracy imagined by the media is impartial reporting. So for three years we were told that Meuller will expose the conspiracy and Adam Schiff claimed that he had confidential information that will sink Trump. Well we all know where that went! However, there are still those that believe the lie, how can that be? The answer is that if you control the mainstream media you can follow the advice of someone else who also wanted to promote an ideology that changed the culture of his day, Joseph Goebbels.

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” ~ Joseph Goebbels

Still trying to find a way of telling the Flynn story I read two articles in the Times which might bring  together the title of this essay, Goebbels, General Flynn and the full stop.

The first piece was by Deborah Ross, entitled ‘I’m writing this with no full stops so as not to seem aggressive.’  It does what it says on the tin, a humorous piece written with only one full stop at the end. Apparently,  she was responding to a new wave of protest that determined that the full stop was, “‘aggressive‘ …’not sincere and marked you out as ‘old‘”. Quite a lot of sub text for such a small piece of punctuation. The criticism appears to be from the young to the old and I can see that it reflects the change in technology, over time. We don’t write letters anymore but text abbreviated messages in a constant stream of the mundane. In business, we rarely write full reports but substitute with visual aids and bullet points. I personally think that we have lost something on the way  but can accept that if you are sending a one line text, then if you don’t want to finish with a full stop, then don’t. Having said that I must pause for a second and listen. Do I hear the world collapsing, rioting in the streets (If you are reading this in the US, you can skip this one) sounds of old ladies and gentlemen expiring? Nothing, …. nobody cares. I think that this lack of response prompted the addition of  aggression and lack of sincerity to the offense. I haven’t seen the logic behind this but I think that there are those who are determined to be offended and an attack on the poor full stop means that they are really scraping the barrel.

Do you sense a theme yet? Perhaps if I say that the second article is by Matthew  Moore and entitled Rule, Britannia! row: Proms decision a ghastly error, says former BBC chairman (sic)  you will start to see the connection. Poor old Aunty BBC is all about  providing what the BBC thinks is good for the populous and rushing to ensure that no minority can be offended by anything it produces. In doing this it tramples on the culture,  history and identity of the majority without a second thought and is constantly surprised by the reaction it provokes. The latest tangle was the suggestion that they were going to drop Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory from the final night of the Proms this year. Their reason for doing this was the difficulty of staging them and meeting the challenges of COVID 19 in performance and if it was anyone other than Aunty I would cut them some slack. However, I think that in the recent past the top floor has been uneasy about all the flag waving and expressions of joyful nationalism  that didn’t fit into their view of Britain as a European country. What is more likely to have happened is as reported in the Sunday Times. “They have been meeting regularly over Zoom but have yet to agree the Last Night programme, which is on September 12. They are also concerned about how to strike a sombre tone during a global pandemic and how to respond to the ongoing debates over race equality.” (The Sunday Times, 23/08/20) This is more the BBC I know that spends it’s time deciding how I should deal with the virus and what my position should be on the racial controversy which they are promoting.  I take a different view on the words and sentiment of the songs. I think that those who sang Rule Britania in 1807 and 1833 would have a different take on them than post Brexit BBC Management. I think that my parents generation singing the words of Land of Hope and Glory, as they stood alone in 1940 would have had another interpretation and the fact that the Vera Lynn versions sits at the top of the itunes charts, speak to this. I think that the modern promenaders would take their own message of joy and inspiration from the songs focussing on the present and the future.

I think that the 2019 General Election was less about the economic arguments about membership of the EU and more about a clash of cultures. It revealed a political class that knew what was best for everyone else and a large section of the community that was just tired of the constant attacks on normal life. Both sides crossed traditional political and class divides but the extent to which the old voting blocks were upended came as a big surprise to the progressive elites. People were frustrated by the Parliamentary games that were being played to defeat the Brexit vote and in the US to corrupt the FBI and Justice system. They are tired of hearing endless lectures about how a man can become a woman and how they want to be addressed. As referred to above, even punctuation becomes fraught with meaning and consequences if you make the wrong choice. As for the BBC,  we need only to look at the following extract of the Mission part of the BBC Charter to question how far they have drifted from the original promise.

The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain. extract from the BBC Charter

In the case of the two songs, we understand the technical problems and perhaps Gareth Malone could have done something imaginative to raise spirits during the Covid crisis. Instead of lifting spirits Aunty chose to look for the dark side to reflect the virus and the progressive obsession with race. It seems that the strategy of these elites are to wear the rest of us down, They took a bloody nose in the last election  but using the loose confederation of sympathetic causes they are prepared to push progressivism at every level, every minute. So from corrupting the organs of state, to politicising the language and trying to rewrite history you can see how they work against us. On that note i think that I just about linked General Flynn, Goebbels, punctuation and patriotic songs in a theme that reflected the title of this piece, Land of Hope and Glory … are we sure?

 

 

References 

https://www.azquotes.com/author/5626-Joseph_Goebbels

The Times, 27/08/20, Deborah Ross, I’m writing this with no full stops so as not to seem aggressive. 

The Times, 27/08/20, Matthew  Moore , Rule, Britannia! row: Proms decision a ghastly error, says former BBC chairman 

The Times, 23/08/20, Grant Tucker/ Rosamund Urwin, Rule Britannia faces axe in BBC’s ‘Black Lives Matter Proms.

 

Language is a very powerful thing, we understand the functionality of it but really don’t think much about it until we encounter a problem. A rather tired analogy is to compare it to the air we breath, it is necessary for life and is all around us but we take it for granted until it disappears. Todays essay is not about anything so important and central to life but rather a look at the periphery, the small changes that continuously happen around the edges that betray great adventures with language.

I regularly receive a Newsletter which I scan and then consign to the bin. I have written before about that awareness  you get when you finish reading  but your instincts tell  you that you  have missed something important. I got the same feeling after reading the current edition. I retrieved it from the recycling bin and re read it. I just couldn’t get rid of that feeling that on the periphery of my vision I had missed something. Then it hit me! Instead of referring to ‘men and women’ in the editorial the writer referred to ‘women and men’. If you don’t instantly understand my interest then I am not sure that I can explain it to you. Perhaps, if I start by saying that in most written description of the two sexes, prior to twenty years ago, the format would have been men and women. Just in that simple sentence there is a whole world of debate but in the latest edition of my newsletter the sexes had been reversed. I checked on line to see whether this was a one off occurrence but it seems that over the last three editions the the format had been consistent ‘women and men’. Therefore the change was as a result of editorial policy.

Why does this matter? You could say that it doesn’t matter at all but then why go to the trouble of consistently making this  change? The more likely explanation is that it is in response to the idea that all things stem from a Paternalistic culture and that the reversal of male and female, in this context, is in response to this. If that is the case then I see some logic but little merit  in the policy. However, it has succeeded in tweaking my interest but I don’t  think that is the intention. Throughout history language has not just been about facilitating normal life but also in encapsulating a culture. At the time of the Roman empire you had the concept of the Pax Romana which exemplified the benefits of being a Roman and was evidenced by the universality of Latin as the language of the ruling classes. To some degree this applied to the Norman invasion of Britain and Ireland with the imposition of Norman French; the imposition of English as the language of the British Empire and of American English reflecting the current empire of the U.S. This can also apply to ideologies, for example, the pronoun ‘they’ and ‘them’ has been pushed as the preferred gender neutral address to trans people. The changes do not have to become all embracing but introduced a little at a time, to be effective. Currently, there is a challenge to the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) over the inclusion of two male swimmers, who declared as female  and  won first and second place in women’s races. The case has been filed in the Federal Court under a Title IX discrimination  claim that women athletes have been deprived of   of 15 state championship titles and more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher-level competitions since the CIAT allowed the two men to compete.

The Connecticut case highlights the argument that small changes can hide significant cultural shifts. Ten years ago, who would have needed a court to decide who was a  woman and who was  a man (right way around?).  I would be interested to see how the Editor of my newsletter would view the case as I assume that ‘they’ are  arguing that woman and men are very different whereas, the CIAC is saying that it is merely a matter of self identification. The reason that we should challenge these changes is that they are insidious and constant usage breeds a familiarity that blunts the normal common sense filter that is even more vital in these times. I hope that I have persuaded you to be ever more vigilant and seek out and challenge things that just do not make sense and perhaps we might have a more open and honest discussion about change as a result.

One of the objectives of this blog is sometimes to put another view to an issue under discussion. Indeed, you will see it in the, “on the other hand…” subtitle on the Homepage which you might call a mission statement or, just an ordinary statement of intent. With this in mind, I was reading Caitlin Moran’s column in the Times Colour Magazine and was surprised to find that she was so effected by a statement from the BBC that she had “tears in her eyes”. (The Times, 23/02/19) What on earth could Aunty BBC have done to bring on this reaction from Caitlin? Well, it appears that there had been an episode of Call the Midwife which featured abortion in the bad old days of the 1950’s. According to Caitlin, programs featuring complex issues are normally followed by advertising a Helpline for anyone effected by the content of the program. In this case, the BBC did not do this and when pressed, apparently, said that the abortion issue was too contentious. Caitlin reported the BBC response as, “It isn’t possible for the BBC Action Line to offer support for abortion and similarly contentious issues … Doing so could imply the BBC supporting one side or another.” (sic) Caitlin’s problem with the statement was that a ‘progressive public service’ like the BBC has no business describing the abortion issue as contentious. She makes an odd distinction between the discussion about abortion being possibly contentious and the medical act of committing abortion being beyond any controversy. I can only guess that she is making the point that there is only one argument and that is  between 1950’s back street abortions, with all the inherent risks, compared to an abortion carried out by properly qualified medical staff.

If I have understood her correctly, this is the same as comparing medieval executions to those carried out by Pierrepoint who used scientific methods to make hanging more efficient. Hanging was legal in the 1950’s and carried out under medical supervision as is abortion now but both activities are contentious in that they ignore the sanctity of life.

Am I putting forward the case against abortion? The answer is no. However, I am making the point that this is a controversial issue.  It continues to be a controversial issue despite the number of Caitlins ‘aunts, bosses and teachers’  mentioned in the article as having had abortions. We see it in the US where they are pushing for full term abortions (Reproductive Health Act. New York) and so I wonder whether Caitlin is being deliberately disingenuous or engaged in sophistry when she attacks the BBC in her column. The clue is in the small things that she says. In the first place she very interestingly describes the BBC as a, “… progressive, public service broadcaster.” What does she mean by progressive? I doubt very much whether you will find this term in the BBC Charter. What it has come to mean is a belief in a certain liberal idealogy that in the context of the BBC Charter would be described as bias.

Caitlin then shifts her argument as adroitly as any Premier league footballer trying to wrong foot the defence.  She claims that because the BBC did not offer the helpline at the end of the program they have created. “A problem that isolates women from the rest of society – something that women must fix on their own.” Well, possibly in 1950. I remember the introduction of the Act in 1968 and can remember little else on television, with the BBC taking the lead. I think that we can agree that the rate of abortion in the UK will not decrease because of the BBC decision. I understand from her article that Caitlin has had an abortion and that the above quote might have described her own experience but it is difficult to believe she would be unaware that rightly or wrongly,  there are other strongly held views opposing abortion.

I am in unfamiliar territory defending the BBC. Normally, I would be manning the barricades alongside Caitlin calling out BBC bias but not on this issue.

I think that Caitlin has been a bit devious in her line of argument. The issue of abortion is contentious in a way that support for suicides and all of the other good causes mentioned in her article are not. Abortion services are well known and distributed throughout Health services and the wider community, the BBC action will have no effect on access. I would guess that the most effective conduit is provided informally by the 8.7 million women and families who have availed of the service. The real issue is that Caitlin and ”every woman she knows’ believe that there is only one truth and that there can be no other opinion. Both Caitlin and myself are surprised that the BBC has tried to demonstrate some little bit of independence but herself, every woman she knows and the feminist groups she referred to will hunt out the offending spokesperson and make sure that they are re-educated to understand that a ‘progressive, public service broadcaster’ cannot suggest that there may be an alternative to the one progressive truth..

 

Reference : The Times Magazine, Caitlin Moran, 23/02/19, Abortion is not Contentious…