Wayback Machine Trumps FOI Tribunal 401
New submitter calder123 writes "Last week, the BBC won an FOIA tribunal ruling that they didn't have to reveal the names of attendees at a seminar in 2006, designed to shape the BBC's coverage of climate change issues. The document, uncovered by Maurizio Morabito, puts comments by the BBC that the meeting was held under Chatham House rules, and that the seminar drew on top scientific advice in an interesting light. In a bizarre coincidence, four of the BBC's attendees at the seminar have resigned in the last few days."
Re:Must be nice (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't that kind of semantic? They have the power to tax. They "own" all of the airwaves. It may not be government by some technicality in law, but to a citizen the effect is the same.
Disruption (Score:2, Interesting)
This FOI request, like so many others, is another polluters attempt to disrupt those who are telling them they must stop polluting.
yawn.
I have a message for these denialist children: Please grow up and stop helping the greedy pollute our planet.
Re:Disruption (Score:4, Interesting)
Uhh, sounds like a tax to me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets see, if you live in the UK and have a TV you have to pay it, and if you don't its a criminal offense.
Sounds like a tax to me [wikipedia.org]
Re:Must be nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that kind of semantic? They have the power to tax. They "own" all of the airwaves. It may not be government by some technicality in law, but to a citizen the effect is the same.
No, speaking as a citizen, the effect is more or less the opposite. The BBC is (or should be, when it's brave enough) a bulwark against the government. For example the judiciary, in the US system, is also paid for out of taxes, but is independent and acts to limit the power of the executive. The BBC is intended (in part) to act analogously, but with an investigatory role rather than a judicial one. Sometimes (for example over the non-existent 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' [bbc.co.uk]) the BBC has fulfilled that role magnificently - although following their cave-in over the Kelly affair [wikipedia.org] they've been disappointingly timid.
Re:Disruption (Score:4, Interesting)
Before this, the BBC gave equal airtime to pro and anti climate change viewpoints. This was despite the fact that the vast majority by far of scientists (especially those in the field of climate science) agreed that climate change, and man-made climate change, are real. Science is not impartial.
This was the equivalent of demanding that the BNP or Monster Raving Loonies (or whatever 1% political parties the US has) get equal airtime to the main parties in an election, in all respects.
So they changed it to reasonably match what the current reality on the science was, so that they weren't misrepresenting the issues to the viewers.
Since then, it appears that certain people have been continually trolling the BBC because their platform for spreading misinformation has gone away. Aww diddums.