Charles Flynn

Ring out the old, ring in the new; Ring, happy bells, across the snow; The year is going, let him go; Ring out the false, ring in the true. The peace of God on us all. Sheeyee orryn-pene. With every good wish for the New Year.

Hear The Christmas Gospel from John 1, 1-14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Father God, help us to accept, like Mary, the challenge to serve you, whether the task you give is great or small. May our lives bring glory to Christ, our Saviour and King. And the blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit be with us now and for evermore. Amen. May the light and peace of God be with you. Happy Christmas everyone.

The Bishop of Kensington has launched an Internet Advent Calendar for the run up to Christmas. The new calendar will uncover a different video for each day in December, right up to Christmas Day. The calendar, produced by Jerusalem Productions of London, is a new initiative introduced by the Kensington Area to create more joy and expectancy as we prepare for Christmas. The Advent Calendar is intended to have a similar effect as a Christmas card and each video proposes to provoke thought in the receiver. The Internet Advent Calendar consists of a matrix of 25 boxes. Users can simply click on the link and then click on a box to open it on its relevant date. A short video, with various themes, will then be revealed – jokes, vox pops, bible texts and computer generated graphics. The other boxes can be opened day-by-day throughout December. The Bishop of Kensington said: “The idea is to spark a simple video-delivered idea which can then be carried through each Advent day. It is particularly suitable for people who believe in Christmas but may have drifted away from churchgoing and is a fine example of one of the many ways in which the Diocese of London is reaching out to such people. “Some of the video clips will make us laugh and some will make us think. I have already heard of schools that will use it daily and there are already many people who have been busy bookmarking it.” The link is: www.bok.paperlesschristmas.org.

Look after the World

This came out in 1936. It's my all time favourite Christmas cartoon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gW3rznLI_g

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Prayer for Peace Pope John Paul II To you, Creator of nature and humanity, of truth and beauty, I pray: Hear my voice, for it is the voice of the victims of all wars and violence among individuals and nations. Hear my voice, for it is the voice of all children who suffer and will suffer when people put their faith in weapons and war. Hear my voice, when I beg you to instil into the hearts of all human beings the wisdom of peace, the strength of justice and the joy of fellowship. Hear my voice, for I speak for the multitudes in every country and every period of history who do not want war and are ready to walk the road of peace. Hear my voice, and grant insight and strength so that we may always respond to hatred with love, to injustice with total dedication to justice, to need with sharing of self, to war with peace. O God, hear my voice, and grant unto the world your everlasting peace We thank you Lord, for all those who have died for their nation. Almighty God in whose hand are the living and the dead: we give you thanks for all your servants who have laid down their lives in the service of their country. Grant to them your mercy, and the light of your presence, that the good work you have begun in them may be perfected, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Most gracious God and Father, in whose will is our peace: turn our hearts and the hearts of all people to yourself, that by the power of your spirit, the peace which is founded on righteousness may be established throughout the world. Through Jesus Christ our lord. Amen. Poem They went with songs to the battle, they were young, Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow, They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted, They fell with their faces to the foe. They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them. For the Fallen by Laurence Binyon IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place, and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. In Flanders Fields By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army Published by Punch 8 December 1915

"Please wear a poppy," the lady said, And held one forth, but I shook my head, Then I stopped and watched as she offered them there, And her face was old and lined with care; But beneath the scars the years had made There remained a smile that refused to fade. A boy came whistling down the street, Bouncing along on care-free feet. His smile was full of joy and fun, "Lady," said he, "may I have one?" When she'd pinned it on, he turned to say; "Why do we wear a poppy today?" The lady smiled in her wistful way And answered; "This is Remembrance Day. And the poppy there is a symbol for The gallant men who died in war. And because they did, you and I are free - That's why we wear a poppy, you see. I had a boy about your size, With golden hair and big blue eyes. He loved to play and jump and shout, Free as a bird, he would race about. As the years went by, he learned and grew, And became a man - as you will, too. He was fine and strong, with a boyish smile, But he'd seemed with us such a little while When war broke out and he went away. I still remember his face that day. When he smiled at me and said, 'Goodbye, I'll be back soon, Mum, please don't cry.' But the war went on and he had to stay, And all I could do was wait and pray. His letters told of the awful fight (I can see it still in my dreams at night), With the tanks and guns and cruel barbed wire, And the mines and bullets, the bombs and fire. Till at last, at last, the war was won - And that's why we wear a poppy, son." The small boy turned as if to go, Then said: "Thanks, lady, I'm glad to know. I slunk away in a sort of shame, And if you were me, you'd have done the same: For our thanks, in giving, if oft delayed, Though our freedom was bought - and thousands paid! And so, when we see a poppy worn, Let us reflect on the burden borne By those who gave their very all When asked to answer their country's call That we at home in peace might live. Then wear a poppy! Remember - and Give! by Don Crawford

Below is an article from the Washington Post which sums up Bjorn Lomborg views on how Global Warming should be tackled not by a revised Kyoto agreement but by much less expensive methods. I support CO2 reduction policies but I believe we must not ignore the alternatives such as these propounded by the "Skeptical Environmentalist" Stop fighting over global warming — here’s the smart way to attack it. By Bjorn Lomborg Sunday, October 7, 2007 COPENHAGEN All eyes are on Greenland’s melting glaciers as alarm about global warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change unfolding before their eyes. Curiously, something that’s rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat — perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing. I point this out not to challenge the reality of global warming or the fact that it’s caused in large part by humans, but because the discussion about climate change has turned into a nasty dustup, with one side arguing that we’re headed for catastrophe and the other maintaining that it’s all a hoax. I say that neither is right. It’s wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we’re causing it. But that’s not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just don’t stack up. We have to rediscover the middle ground, where we can have a sensible conversation. We shouldn’t ignore climate change or the policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits. Environmental groups say that the only way to deal with the effects of global warming is to make drastic cuts in carbon emissions — a project that will cost the world trillions (the Kyoto Protocol alone would cost $180 billion annually). The research I’ve done over the last decade, beginning with my first book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” has convinced me that this approach is unsound; it means spending an awful lot to achieve very little. Instead, we should be thinking creatively and pragmatically about how we could combat the much larger challenges facing our planet. Nobody knows for certain how climate change will play out. But we should deal with the most widely accepted estimates. According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ocean levels will rise between half a foot and two feet, with the best expectation being about one foot, in this century, mainly because of water expanding as it warms. That’s similar to what the world experienced in the past 150 years. Some individuals and environmental organizations scoff that the IPCC has severely underestimated the melting of glaciers, especially in Greenland. In fact, the IPCC has factored in the likely melt-off from Greenland (contributing a bit over an inch to sea levels in this century) and Antarctica (which, because global warming also generally produces more precipitation, will actually accumulate ice rather than shedding it, making sea levels two inches lower by 2100). At the moment, people are alarmed by a dramatic increase in Greenland’s melting. This high level seems transitory, but if sustained it would add three inches, instead of one, to the sea level rise by the end of the century. A one-foot rise in sea level isn’t a catastrophe, though it will pose a problem, particularly for small island nations. But let’s remember that very little land was lost when sea levels rose last century. It costs relatively little to protect the land from rising tides: We can drain wetlands, build levees and divert waterways. As nations become richer and land becomes a scarcer commodity, this process makes ever more sense: Like our parents and grandparents, our generation will ensure that the water doesn’t claim valuable land. The IPCC tells us two things: If we focus on economic development and ignore global warming, we’re likely to see a 13-inch rise in sea levels by 2100. If we focus instead on environmental concerns and, for instance, adopt the hefty cuts in carbon emissions many environmental groups promote, this could reduce the rise by about five inches. But cutting emissions comes at a cost: Everybody would be poorer in 2100. With less money around to protect land from the sea, cutting carbon emissions would mean that more dry land would be lost, especially in vulnerable regions such as Micronesia, Tuvalu, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Maldives. As sea levels rise, so will temperatures. It seems logical to expect more heat waves and therefore more deaths. But though this fact gets much less billing, rising temperatures will also reduce the number of cold spells. This is important because research shows that the cold is a much bigger killer than the heat. According to the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate change’s health effects, global warming will actually save lives. It’s estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold. The Kyoto Protocol, with its drastic emissions cuts, is not a sensible way to stop people from dying in future heat waves. At a much lower cost, urban designers and politicians could lower temperatures more effectively by planting trees, adding water features and reducing the amount of asphalt in at-risk cities. Estimates show that this could reduce the peak temperatures in cities by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Global warming will claim lives in another way: by increasing the number of people at risk of catching malaria by about 3 percent over this century. According to scientific models, implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the rest of this century would reduce the malaria risk by just 0.2 percent. Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. On the other hand, we could spend $3 billion annually — 2 percent of the protocol’s cost — on mosquito nets and medication and cut malaria incidence almost in half within a decade. Malaria death rates are rising in sub-Saharan Africa, but this has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with poverty: Poor and corrupt governments find it hard to implement and fund the spraying and the provision of mosquito nets that would help eradicate the disease. Yet for every dollar we spend saving one person through policies like the Kyoto Protocol, we could save 36,000 through direct intervention. Of course, it’s not just humans we care about. Environmentalists point out that magnificent creatures such as polar bears will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts. Kyoto would save just one bear a year. Yet every year, hunters kill 300 to 500 polar bears, according to the World Conservation Union. Outlawing this slaughter would be cheap and easy — and much more effective than a worldwide pact on carbon emissions. Wherever you look, the inescapable conclusion is the same: Reducing carbon emissions is not the best way to help the world. I don’t point this out merely to be contrarian. We do need to fix global warming in the long run. But I’m frustrated at our blinkered focus on policies that won’t achieve it. In 1992, wealthy nations promised to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Instead, emissions grew by 12 percent. In 1997, they promised to cut emissions to about 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Yet levels will likely be 25 percent higher than hoped for. The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. U.N. members will be negotiating its replacement in Copenhagen by the end of 2009. Politicians insist that the “next Kyoto” should be even tougher. But after two spectacular failures, we have to ask whether “let’s try again, and this time let’s aim for much higher reductions” is the right approach. Even if the policymakers’ earlier promises had been met, they would have done virtually no good, but would have cost us a small fortune. The climate models show that Kyoto would have postponed the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the century. Even if the United States and Australia had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for this entire century, we would postpone the effects of global warming by only five years. Proponents of pacts such as Kyoto want us to spend enormous sums of money doing very little good for the planet a hundred years from now. We need to find a smarter way. The first step is to start focusing our resources on making carbon emissions cuts much easier. The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2 is currently about $20. Yet, according to a wealth of scientific literature, the damage from a ton of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2. Spending $20 to do $2 worth of good is not smart policy. It may make you feel good, but it’s not going to stop global warming. We need to reduce the cost of cutting emissions from $20 a ton to, say, $2. That would mean that really helping the environment wouldn’t just be the preserve of the rich but could be opened up to everyone else — including China and India, which are expected to be the main emitters of the 21st century but have many more pressing issues to deal with first. The way to achieve this is to dramatically increase spending on research and development of low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, be they wind, wave or solar power, or capturing CO2emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion per year but would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol and would increase global R&D tenfold. All nations would be involved, yet the richer ones would pay the larger share. We must accept that climate change is real and that we’ve helped cause it. There is no hoax. But neither is there a looming apocalypse. To some people, cutting carbon emissions has become the answer, regardless of the question. Cutting emissions is said to be our “generational mission.” But don’t we want to implement the most efficient policies first? Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Combating the real climate challenges facing the planet — malaria, more heat deaths, declining polar bear populations — often requires simpler, less glamorous policies than carbon cuts. We also need to remember that the 21st century will hold many other challenges, for which we need low-cost, durable solutions. I formed the Copenhagen Consensus in 2004 so that some of the world’s top economists could come together to ask not only where we can do good, but at what cost, and to rank the best things for the world to do first. The top priorities they’ve come up with are dealing with infectious diseases, malnutrition, agricultural research and first-world access to third-world agriculture. For less than a fifth of Kyoto’s price tag, we could tackle all these issues. Obviously we should also work on a long-term solution to climate change. Solving it will take the better part of a century and will require a political will spanning political parties, continents and generations. If we invest in research and development, we’ll do some real good in the long run, rather than just making ourselves feel good today. But embracing the best response to global warming is difficult in the midst of bitter fighting that shuts out sensible dialogue. So first, we really need to cool our debate. Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is the author, most recently, of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”

The world breathes and is alive! If you access: www.breathingearth.net the whole concept will come alive for you. Listen to the sounds and look at all the CO2 being emitted around the world. Perhaps it will bring home to you the major issues which we face in our world today.

Today the wmf - a campaigning forum - closes. I have put this prayer on the site for members who will now find a new home, hopefully some on here. May God bless you with discomfort at easy answers, half truths, and superficial relationships so that you may live deep within your heart May God bless you with anger at injustice, oppression and exploitation of people so that you may work for justice, freedom and peace May God bless you with tears to shed for those who suffer pain, rejection, hunger and war so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and to turn their pain into joy And may God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you can make a difference in the world so that you can do what others claim cannot be done to bring justice and kindness to all our children and the poor

GOOGLE HUMOUR This message is to all the Forum and internet addicts from Google: The End of the Internet Congratulations! This is the last page. Thank you for visiting the End of the Internet. There are no more links. You must now turn off your computer and go do something productive. Go read a book, for pete's sake.

Sleep my child and peace attend thee, All through the night Guardian angels God will send thee, All through the night Soft the drowsy hours are creeping Hill and vale in slumber sleeping, I my loving vigil keeping All through the night. While the moon her watch is keeping All through the night While the weary world is sleeping All through the night O'er they spirit gently stealing Visions of delight revealing Breathes a pure and holy feeling All through the night. Love, to thee my thoughts are turning All through the night All for thee my heart is yearning, All through the night. Though sad fate our lives may sever Parting will not last forever, There's a hope that leaves me never, All through the night.

In defence of shopping .... This week is One World Week and the One World Centre working in conjunction with Amnesty International IoM, are asking for your help them to weave a giant shopping basket as part of their new campaign “shop to make a difference”! During this year of the Bi-centenary of the abolition of the slave trade they have been raising awareness that slavery still exists today, and that we still play a part in it. “Shop to make a difference” is a new initiative asking people to think about what they are really buying. This campaign seeks to raises awareness that millions of people around the world are working in slave like conditions, not earning enough to house and feed their families, often to fuel our demand for cheap products. No high street company in the fashion industry has made a serious commitment to ensure that all workers in its supply chain receive a living wage. Few companies ensure workers have access to their trade union rights. Of the companies that have signed up to the Ethical Trading Initiative almost non are close to ratifying the agreement. The One World Centre are asking for people to make personal pledges to help those working in slave like conditions, encouraging people to speak out against the social injustice that creates slavery today. Small changes in shopping habits can make a big difference. The personal pledges can be as simple as pledging to shop ethically, buying Fairtrade or BAFTs labelled products, pledging to ask retailers about their trading standards, whether they can guarantee that they don’t use sweatshop labour in the manufacture of their products, or whether they know if their suppliers are receiving a living wage. Send a personal pledge written on strips of paper ( recycled preferably!) the length of an A4 sheet or a piece of fabric, spelling out the commitment you will make to help tackle slavery today. Send pledges to The One World Centre, Derby House, Castle Street, Castletown, IM9 1LA Or, go to the Strand shopping centre on Saturday 27the October and weave your strips into the giant shopping basket to remind people as the Christmas shopping bonanza begins to” shop to make a difference”! If you would like more information about this campaign or how to get involved with the work of the One World Centre see www.oneworldcentre.iom

This is a poem from one of my favorites - Benjamin Zepahaniah. He was born in Birmingham, lives in London and is heavilyinfluenced by Jamaica. He has travelled the world many times accumulating loads of honorary doctorates but turned down an OBE in 2003 - no "Empire" for him. He has campaigned for human and animal rights since forever. Nature Trail from "The Little Book of Vegan Poems" At the bottom of my garden There's a hedgehog and a frog And a lot of creepy-crawlies Living underneath a log, There's a baby daddy long legs And an easy-going snail And a family of woodlice, All are on my nature trail. There are caterpillars waiting For their time to come to fly, There are worms turning the earth over As ladybirds fly by, Birds will visit, cats will visit But they always chose their time And I've even seen a fox visit This wild garden of mine. Squirrels come to nick my nuts And busy bees come buzzing And when the night time comes Sometimes some dragonflies come humming, My garden mice are very shy And I've seen bats that growl And in my garden I have seen A very wise old owl. My garden is a lively place There's always something happening, There's this constant search for food And then there's all that flowering, When you have a garden You will never be alone And I believe we all deserve A garden of our own. The Little Book of Vegan Poems 22 new poems from the radical rapper and people's laureate. For the caring, dedicated young vegans of the world....

I received this by email this morning: MEDIA ALERT: "RED HERRING" - Al Gore, The Climate Sceptics And The BBC >>> >>> On October 10, the BBC's Ten O'Clock News led with the story that a High >>> Court Judge had found nine "errors" in Al Gore's climate film, 'An >>> Inconvenient Truth', which the UK government has been sending to schools >>> around the country. As a result, by way of "balance", the government will >>> now be required to include "guidance notes" with the film. (BBC news >>> online, 'Gore climate film's "nine errors",' October 11, 2007; >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm) >>> >>> The case had been brought by Stuart Dimmock, a lorry driver and school >>> governor who says he objects to the film's "brainwashing" of >>> schoolchildren. Although Dimmock's lawyers branded the judgement a >>> "landmark victory", they failed in their attempt to ban the film from >>> secondary schools. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm) >>> >>> Also on October 10, BBC Radio 4's 'The World Tonight' featured an >>> extended report on the story including an interview with Dimmock. The >>> following exchange was of particular interest: >>> >>> Stuart Dimmock (SD): It's a political shockumentary, it's not a >>> scientific documentary. >>> >>> BBC presenter Robin Lustig (RL): But you're not a scientist yourself, are >>> you? >>> >>> SD: No. >>> >>> RL: Some people might wonder why you felt so strongly about this that you >>> were prepared to take it all the way to the High Court, whether you have >>> an agenda of some kind - do you? >>> >>> SD: I have two young children. In my mind it's wrong that we push >>> politics into the classroom. >>> >>> RL: Could I ask you one other question, Mr Dimmock? It's not cheap taking >>> a case to the High Court [The case cost £200,000]. >>> >>> SD: No, it's not. >>> >>> RL: Were you helped financially to do this? >>> >>> SD: The government have been ordered to pay my costs. [unclear] £60,000 >>> upfront payment. >>> >>> RL: But you didn't know that that was going to be the order until today, >>> did you? >>> >>> SD: No, I didn't. >>> >>> RL: Who took the risk? >>> >>> SD: [Long, five-second pause]. Mmmm, I've had pledges of support. >>> >>> RL: May I ask you from whom? >>> >>> SD: You can ask from whom but I'm sorry I can't tell you because I >>> haven't got the names of the people that have pledged their support. It's >>> through a website. (BBC R4 'The World Tonight', October 10, 2007, our >>> transcript; whole item can be heard here: >>> http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214...nt%20Truth.mp3) >>> >>> Although Dimmock claimed not to know who had provided financial support, >>> the website of the New Party, of which he is a member, had declared two >>> weeks earlier, on September 27: >>> >>> "The New Party is backing a legal challenge by one of its members against >>> a government decision to circulate Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, >>> to all 3,850 English secondary schools." >>> (http://www.newparty.co.uk/news/september2007/high-court-to-judge-al-gore-film.html) >>> >>> Perhaps the backing was moral rather than financial. >>> >>> The BBC's Robin Lustig did not press the issue further: Which website? >>> Who was funding it? Instead, he moved on to discuss the issue with BBC >>> environment reporter Roger Harrabin. In 'balanced' BBC fashion, Harrabin >>> declared of the Al Gore film: "it was not made to show to children and I >>> think, you know, fair cop". >>> >>> Also remarkable in 'balanced' news coverage, the BBC's framing of the >>> judicial process and decision suggested that it was entirely reasonable >>> for a judge to sit in judgement on climate science. It was left to Oxford >>> climate scientist Myles Allen to point out to the BBC: "The judge has set >>> himself to adjudicate on the scientific consensus," the implication being >>> that this was questionable (Allen, The World Tonight, op. cit.). In our >>> view the adjudication was as absurd as the idea that a judge should >>> pronounce on whether a journalist's report was "unfounded", as happened >>> in the 2003-2004 Hutton Inquiry. >>> >>> It was also left to Dr. Allen to point out that some of the judge's nine >>> assertions of 'error' were "just plain wrong". Unfortunately, as far as >>> we are aware, the BBC headline reports had no balancing quotes from >>> climate scientists disputing the judge's claims. (Note: Judge Burton's >>> judgement actually has the word "error" in quote marks, recognising that >>> there might indeed be scientific justification for these arguments - a >>> subtle but vital point missed by the media) >>> >>> Later, in an online piece, Roger Harrabin did take a somewhat more >>> sceptical view of the judge's findings. On Arctic melting, which is >>> proceeding faster than the most recent IPCC report had expected, Harrabin >>> noted, "the judge is on slightly more contentious ground". (Harrabin, BBC >>> news online, 'The heat and light in global warming,' October 11, 2007; >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm) >>> >>> Of Dimmock, the lorry driver who brought the case to court, Harrabin >>> noted in a single tantalising, but ultimately mysterious, sentence: >>> >>> "Mr Dimmock is a member of the 'New Party', apparently funded by a >>> businessman with a strong dislike of environmentalists and drink-drive >>> laws." >>> >>> Fascinating, but what did this signify? The reader was left dangling at >>> the end of this one sentence, to wait in vain for further clarification. >>> >>> >>> Hidden Links - "A Red Herring"? >>> >>> There was worse to come from the BBC. The day after the High Court >>> decision, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to the UN's >>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. Suddenly to be >>> seen making multiple appearances in BBC studios was Martin Livermore, >>> director of a group called the Scientific Alliance. >>> >>> Livermore was interviewed on BBC R4's 'The World At One' by presenter >>> Shaun Ley, who asserted that the Scientific Alliance "campaigns to >>> improve the quality of debate about science". (The World At One, BBC R4, >>> Friday, October 12, 2007). Livermore proceeded to lampoon efforts to >>> combat climate change as a "fashionable cause", and expressed "concern" >>> that the Nobel award "will tend to close down the debate even further". >>> He added: >>> >>> "There is a view from a lot of people that this is such a serious issue >>> that even though things are uncertain we shouldn't allow a debate, we >>> should push ahead with trying to do something about it, and that any >>> person who questions the perceived wisdom should actually be censored, >>> effectively. So I think this will push us further down that path, which >>> is not healthy." >>> >>> Contrary to the BBC's naive description, the Scientific Alliance was >>> founded with the financial backing of wealthy businessman Robert Durward, >>> who owns Cloburn Quarry in Lanarkshire and is director of the British >>> Aggregates Association which defends the interests of the quarrying >>> industry. The Scientific Alliance also has deep links to a network that >>> has long been pursuing a "sceptical" agenda on environmental issues. >>> Livermore, for example, was the "scientific consultant" behind Martin >>> Durkin's deeply flawed and much criticised Channel 4 'documentary', 'The >>> Great Global Warming Swindle'. (George Marshall, 'The Great Channel 4 >>> Swindle,' March 9, 2007; >>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-gr...l-four-swindle) >>> >>> Durward is also a financial backer and member of the National Policy >>> Committee of the New Party, a group so right-wing that Scottish Tories >>> described them as "fascist". On its website, the New Party states: >>> >>> "The National Policy Committee (NPC) consists of ordinary people from all >>> walks of life and is in overall charge of the creation and development of >>> our policies." >>> >>> Committee members include Alex Black, "a self employed Road Transport >>> Contractor"; Mike Clarke, "for most of his career he applied his >>> knowledge of chemistry in oilfield systems, working, training and >>> advising on corrosion management and chemical treatments in the North Sea >>> and many overseas count [sic]"; Robert Durward, "involved in the >>> agricultural, haulage, plant and minerals industries", and so on. Just >>> "ordinary people from all walks of life", in other words. >>> (http://www.newparty.co.uk/about/nationalcommittee.html) >>> >>> Both the New Party and Scientific Alliance work closely with the PR >>> company Foresight Communications founded by Mark Adams OBE, who was a >>> private secretary for parliamentary affairs at No. 10 for nearly four >>> years. He also worked as private secretary to Tony Blair for six months >>> after the 1997 election. Adams set up the Scientific Alliance with >>> Durward in 2001. >>> >>> The jigsaw pieces fall into place when we recall that Stuart Dimmock, who >>> brought the High Court Case, is also a member of the New Party. Rather >>> than being a solitary 'David' fighting the government 'Goliath', it >>> appears Dimmock fought the case with considerable business backing. >>> >>> When challenged by Media Lens on his radio programme's failure to explore >>> these connections, Marc Settle, the editor of BBC R4's 'The World At >>> One', responded: >>> >>> "I agree that the programme could have been clearer about the connection >>> between the New Party and the Scientific Alliance, and in future I will >>> ensure that editions I am involved with will make the relationship >>> clear." (Settle, Email, October 14, 2007) >>> >>> Andy Rowell, author of 'Green Backlash' and co-editor of SpinWatch.org, >>> put the BBC to shame by publishing a powerful blog exposing these links >>> the day after the court decision. ('Revealed: The hidden agenda behind >>> Gore film attack,' October 11, 2007; >>> http://priceofoil.org/2007/10/11/revealed-...e-film-attack/) >>> >>> We communicated some of Rowell's findings to the BBC's Roger Harrabin. >>> This was vital material, was it not? No, Harrabin replied, the network of >>> links was "a red herring". After Rowell discussed the issues with him in >>> a telephone conversation, Harrabin told us he was pursuing the links and >>> that we should "watch this space" with regard to that day's Ten O'Clock >>> News (Friday, October 12, 2007). >>> >>> We watched that "space" - a climate-related item by Harrabin which >>> appeared on the "Ten" about Gore sharing the Nobel Prize with the IPCC. >>> Harrabin even had an interview with the near-ubiquitous Martin Livermore >>> of the Scientific Alliance. But of the links between that group, the New >>> Party, Martin Durkin, and wealthy businessman Robert Durward, there was >>> not a word. >>> >>> A number of newspapers have since reported that financial support for >>> Dimmock's case was provided by Lord Monckton, who wrote the New Party's >>> manifesto. Last year, Monckton argued that the IPCC had grossly >>> exaggerated the danger of climate change in articles published by the >>> Sunday Telegraph. Monckton wrote: >>> >>> "This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on >>> historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse >>> effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a >>> fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect." >>> (Christopher Monckton, 'Don't believe it!' Sunday Telegraph, November 5, >>> 2006) >>> >>> The articles - decidedly Durkin-esque in theme and content - were >>> subsequently demolished by climate scientists. Environmental campaigner >>> George Monbiot commented wryly of Monckton: >>> >>> "He is trying to take on the global scientific establishment on the >>> strength of a classics degree from Cambridge." (Jonathan Leake, 'Please, >>> sir - Gore's got warming wrong,' The Times, October 14, 2007) >>> >>> Monckton is now behind moves to have copies of Durkin's documentary, 'The >>> Great Global Warming Swindle', sent to 3,400 UK secondary schools "to >>> counter Gore's flagrant propaganda". It is hoped that the package will >>> feature a new film called 'Apocalypse No!', a slideshow of Lord Monckton >>> challenging Gore's arguments. >>> >>> The irony of this initiative is clear when we consider that Monckton >>> backed Dimmock's court case and that, as noted above, Dimmock insists: >>> "In my mind it's wrong that we push politics into the classroom." >>> >>> The website promoting Dimmock's campaign declares its aims: >>> >>> "1. To research and monitor examples of partisan political content being >>> introduced into schools. >>> 2. To support those campaigning to keep education free from political >>> bias. >>> 3. To promote fair and honest teaching." >>> (http://www.straightteaching.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=27) >>> >>> And it turns out, in a further twist, that Monckton's schools initiative >>> is being funded by a right-wing American think-tank, the innocently named >>> Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). (Michael McCarthy, 'Climate >>> deniers to send film to British schools,' The Independent, October 15, >>> 2007) >>> >>> Rather like the Scientific Alliance, the good folk at SPPI "support the >>> advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment >>> rooted in rational science and economics". >>> (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/our_mission.html) >>> >>> As anyone who has studied the corporate green backlash will know, >>> "sensible public policies" are actually policies that recklessly >>> subordinate people and planet to short-term profit for the people >>> promoting them (See Andy Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996). >>> >>> One entry title on the SPPI website reads: 'Greenhouse Warming? What >>> Greenhouse Warming?' (August 22, 2007; >>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton..._warming_.html) >>> >>> The author? "Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monkton of Brenchley", >>> listed as Chief Policy Adviser at SPPI. >>> (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html) >>> >>> In one of his Telegraph articles, Monckton wrote: >>> >>> "The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It >>> brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I >>> declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised >>> Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red >>> cent from Exxon." (Monckton, op.cit.) >>> >>> The same, alas, cannot be said of Craig Idso, the Science Adviser and >>> Chairman of the Board at SPPI where Monckton is Chief Policy Advisor. >>> Idso is listed on Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org webpage documenting >>> "Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change sceptics." >>> (http://exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=15) >>> >>> We are deceived if we imagine climate scepticism is the product of a few >>> wealthy eccentrics with too much time and money on their hands. Phil >>> Lesley, author of a handbook on public relations and communications, >>> clarifies the bottom line goal for industry: >>> >>> "People generally do not favour action on a non-alarming situation when >>> arguments seem to be balanced on both sides and there is a clear doubt. >>> The weight of impressions on the public must be balanced so people will >>> have doubts and lack motivation to take action. Accordingly, means are >>> needed to get balancing information into the stream from sources that the >>> public will find credible. There is no need for a clear-cut 'victory'... >>> Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this is not a clear-cut >>> situation in support of the opponents usually is all that is necessary." >>> (Lesly, 'Coping with Opposition Groups,' Public Relations Review 18, >>> 1992, p.331) >>> >>> With the world teetering on the brink of an environmental abyss - and, >>> perhaps, already sinking into that abyss - industry's hall of crazy >>> mirrors with their "balancing information" is bigger and more active than >>> ever. It might seem insane, but the infinite, insatiable nature of the >>> corporate profit drive has always been just that. >>> >>> This is the price we pay when society is dominated by unrestrained greed, >>> and by the blindness that greed brings. >>> >>> >>> USEFUL RESOURCES >>> >>> For further details of the Scientific Alliance, go to: >>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ntific_Alliance >>> >>> Also see Andy Rowell, 'The Alliance of Science', Guardian, March 26, >>> 2003; >>> http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguard...,921537,00.html >>> >>> Professor John Shepherd of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, >>> has written a critique of Judge Barton's remarks: >>> http://www.medialens.org/articles/Al_Gore_..._evaluation.pdf >>> >>> See: 'Surviving Climate Change: The Struggle to Avert Global >>> Catastrophe', edited by David Cromwell and Mark Levene, which has just >>> been published by Pluto Books (London, 2007). >>> >>> For further analysis and resources, please go here: >>> http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8988#8988 >>> >>> >>> SUGGESTED ACTION >>> >>> The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect >>> for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you >>> to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. >>> >>> Write to Roger Harrabin, BBC environment correspondent

It is October. That can only mean one thing to the beer swilling hordes of the world - beer festivals. I suppose we have ours in June not to mention the rest of the year! Most have it in October and you tend to think of Munich. Well that is as maybe but it is not only Germans. In fact the Germans are outclassed by the citizens of the Czech Republic. Per capita, they drink 42 gallons (160 litres) of beer annually, the highest (in more ways than one) rate of consumption in the world. Germany is not far behind drinking 31 gallons (118 liters). However they are in decline I believe. In 2003, for the first time in recorded history, Germans drank more water than beer, a drop attributed to greater awareness of health and fitness as well as an aging populace.That decline did not daunt visitors to the Munich Oktoberfest, however, which this year saw the highest level of beer consumption in its 174-year history at 419,000 litres. Two interesting tatistics are recorded in Der Spiegel, “The number of false dentures found surged to three this year from one in 2006…. Some 50 lost children were also recovered.”

This is a debate which has been going on in Canada and published by the National Post which is reproduced below. So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing? Even climate change experts say many of the claims in Al Gore's film are wrong. Kevin Libin National Post Saturday, May 19, 2007 CREDIT: Al Gore First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year. "I really don't understand why they keep showing it," says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). "I've spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we've seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what's going on." McKenzie says he has educated himself enough about both sides of the climate- change controversy to know that the Al Gore movie is too one-sided to be taught as fact. Even scientists who back Mr. Gore's message admit they're uncomfortable with liberties the politician takes with "science" in the film. But, McKenzie says most of his classmates are credulous. His teachers are not much more discerning. "They don't know there's another side to the argument," he says. McKenzie's mother was outraged to find out that Mr. Gore's film was being presented as fact in her son's classroom. "This is just being poured into kids' brains instead of letting them know there's a debate going on," she says. "An educational system falls down when they start taking one side." The real Gore primer National Post Saturday, May 19, 2007 THE MOVIE Images about the possibility of Florida and San Francisco flooding and then the Manhattan skyline, with the World Trade Centre underwater with the predicted rise of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets melting. THE science A sea level rise of four to 12 inches over the next 50 years is predicted in one of the reports by the UN IPCC. THE MOVIE Dramatic images of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. THE science The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon, due to the normal advance of a glacier, according to marine geology experts such as Finland's Boris Winterhalter and Sweden's Wibjorn Karln. THE MOVIE Mr. Gore stands in front of a large graph showing a predicted 50-year CO2 spike that is as dramatic as the huge temperature swings since the time of the Ice Age. THE science A rise in temperature of between 1 to 2.3 degrees Celcius is predicted over the next 50 years, according to a report by the UN IPCC. Scientists suggest the "correlating" spikes actually occur 800 years apart, with the massive distance between them distorted because they are shown on two graphs split apart. THE MOVIE To illustrate his point about the possibility of polar bears drowning and the species endangered, there is an animated image of a lone polar bear swimming in a sea towards a lonely ice-cap THE science One Canadian polar bear biologist said that although climate change was having an effect on the West Hudson population of polar bears in Canada, of the 13 populations of polar bears, 11 are stable or even increasing in number. Recent polar bear counts in northern Canada show the population is stable. THE MOVIE As Mr. Gore speaks in hushed tones about another terrible outcome of global warming as the screen shows devastating images of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. THE science The top scientist at the National Hurricane Center says global warming does not significantly increase hurricane intensity and even one of Mr. Gore's top advisers, James Hansen, an environmental scientist, said, "We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is." Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved. My view is that Al Gore has done a great service in getting the main features of theClimate Warming story across but the film has embellished some of the points too much. If it is to be shown in the classroom and elsewhere this should be discussed. Climate science has changed over the last five years so it is not surprising that there are scientific statements in the film which need modifying if the full truth is to be told.

Don't be in love with yourself. There's more in life than your body. Are you getting a university education just to earn more money? There's nothing wrong with having money, but when money becomes your god, something is wrong. Be thankful. Forgive and avoid holding grudges. There are people who live just to mark and stain the character of others.

Humankind invariably suffers. One man who certainly endured enormous suffering was Alexander Solzhenitsyn who endured eight years in Soviet prisons and concentration camps. However he is still able to pray: How easy it is to live with you, O Lord. "How easy to believe in You. When my spirit is overwhelmed within me, When even the keenest see no further than the night, And know not what to do tomorrow, You bestow on me the certitude That you exist and are mindful of me, That all the paths of righteousness are not barred. As I ascend into the hill of earthly glory, I turn back and gaze, astonished, on the rod That led me here beyond despair, Where I too may reflect Your radiance upon mankind. All that I may yet reflect, You shall accord me, And appoint others where I shall fail". No uncertainty there.....

What is climate change? “Global Warming” - doesn't tell the whole story Certainly a rise in global air temperature This means more energy is fed into weather systems So more extreme weather conditions – frequency and intensity More and worse hurricanes Flooding Reduced landmass due to sea level rise What causes climate change? Increased CO2, methane, etc in atmosphere Gases trap heat like the glass of greenhouse Greenhouse gases released from long-term storage in ground Fossil fuels - coal, oil, gas - locked in rocks Methane from peat bogs, swamps gets released as temp rises Gases locked in permafrost released as ice melts These gases stay in atmosphere for a long time Human impacts (stats from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - CDIAC) UK Steep rise throughout C19 - Ind Rev Total has started to level out >3 ton C per capita in mid C20 Now ~2.7 ton C/year per capita UK has 1% of world population but produces 2.3% of world's CO2 USA Was outputting same C as UK now in 1905 Total still rising even today ~6 ton C per capita in 1970s 5.5 ton C per capita even today US has 5% of world population but produces 23% of world's CO2 China Was outputting same C as UK now in 1960 Total is rising very sharply Now 6x current UK output Yet less than 1 ton C/year per capita China has 22% of world population but produces 15.5% of world's CO2 Climate Change is happening NOW People have a tendency to think it's all in future But global warming has been happening since [audience guesses] 1910 Antarctic ice melting faster British Antarctic Survey: sea level rise underestimated >13000km2 sea ice lost in 50 years At least 15% of annual 2mm sea level rise in last 5 years down to Antarctic ice Penguin colonies being trapped by Antarctic sea ice breaking off from the main ice sheet Greenland Ice Sheet melt increased NASA satelite observations of Greeland have shown the ice sheet to be breaking up much faster than expected. in the journal "Science", NASA scientists spoke out without the approval of the Bush Administration – they warned sea levels could rise by 6 feet this century by the ice melt from Greenland. Yet more water would come from the Antarctic. Arctic sea ice retreating 7.8m km2 in 1980 6.1m km2 in 2004 Heat Wave, Western Europe, 2003 25,000 people died World Health Organisation says 150,000 people are dying annually due to global warming. This will double by 2020. The deaths are caused by increased spread of disease in Latin America, Asia and Africa - caused by higher temperatures Greenpeace says that 1 in 4 plant and animal species could become extinct in the next 50 years. That's 1 million species at risk. The area of the world affected by droughts has doubled since 1970. Hadley Centre run climate models and emphasise there is still huge uncertainty on the rate by which the world will warm this century. Some models show a possibility of an 11°C global temperature rise by 2100 If we do nothing: UK Climate Impacts Programme say expect 3 feet sea level rise by 2080 in S E England (if we carry on burning fossil fuels as before). The land is sinking as sea levels rise Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says expect temperature rises of up to 5.8°C by 2100 and sea level rise of nearly 1 metre - if we carry on burning as before. EU has set policy target of no more than 2°C temperature rise Even this would be enough to increase spread of malaria in Africa UNEP warn "billions face hunger and starvation" if temperatures in the tropics increase by 2°C - the impact upon agriculture This month, Christian Aid warned 182 million people would die in Africa this century due to diseases caused by climate change What can be done? Alternative technologies Renewable energy Wind turbines Solar hot water Solar PV Wave Tidal Ground Source Heat Pump Bio-fuels Micro generation Low-carbon Carbon Sequestration – lock CO2 up underground Energy efficient lightbulbs – each keeps ½ ton CO2 from being released during bulb's lifetime CHP Boiler Public transport More efficient car Hybrid petrol/electric Smaller NOT a 4x4 Carbon-free transport Cycling Walking Lifestyle change Don't fly abroad Buy local produce - reduce food miles Don't leave things on standby - switch them off: standby accounts for 10% of electricity usage in homes and offices FoE Big Ask with Friends of the Earth Over half of MPs have signed EDM 178 Hoping to get CC bill included in Queen's speech Sign online – seefoe.org.uk Conclusion This is the defining moral issue of our time. We, as individuals are all defined by our response to what is clearly an unprecedented threat. We will be judged by those that follow us. On the Today programme on 29th March, the Archbishop of Canterbury said: “I think in the first instance the moral responsibility lies with absolutely everybody, not only in terms of examining our own lifestyle and asking what, concretely can be done, but also in sending a message to governments that this is recognised as a priority by the public.” “Nobody ... likes talking about enforceable international protocols and yet unless there is a real change in attitude, we have to contemplate those very unwelcome possibilities if we want to the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die.” “...we're looking at rising spirals of hunger and deprivation.” The children born to your family will want to know one thing about you: What you did to stop this calamity that would destroy their lives. Did you fight tooth and nail to stop it, or did you simply accept what was being done - going along with the mass of people, making matters worse.

Gavin Macfadyen, director of Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Speech last year at another event. Speech: What we are here to celebrate is of course Investigative Journalism! It is “uncovering something somebody wants kept secret”and Exposing social conditions or institutional conduct that has been ignored, by-passed or kept hidden in fear of governments and the wealthy and powerful. The central social importance of investigative reporting is its ability to raise the public alarm over issues of corruption, injustice, secrecy, poverty and public safety It’s To Right Wrongs To Defend the Public Interest To have an Unusual Preoccupation with Evidence To know the phrase: “without fear or favour” To seek the private reality behind the public face To be a voice for those without one. It is to Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable. To know that all governments lie Moreover, to quote Joseph Pulitzer, that “A journalist has no Friends" To know that 75% of almost every newspaper and television reports are entirely handouts, Parliamentary statements, PR releases and puffs. To know that official secrets are rarely to protect the public, but to cover-up crimes, frauds, incompetence, and even conspiracy. To know that the worst crimes are not committed with a gun, but a fountain pen. To know that sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is one of the few jobs where you can get paid to be imprisoned, beaten up, threatened with death, arrested in foreign countries, to be shot at, forced to use cover stories, tell lies to dangerous men and have a awful family life. Almost no government has ever honoured an independent and critical editor or journalist. But without investigative journalism, abuse of power flourishes, accountability is forgotten, the officious and the brutal gain confidence. However stirring, this special journalism has been under sustained attack for over twenty years. It has been weakened because of growing corporate ownership, an absence of opposition in government – all in a climate of cost cutting and profit taking at almost any price. Where the national media motto becomes “Celebrities and Amnesia!” The endless talk shows, soaps, reality programmes, soft celebrity gossip, light comedy and lifestyle – in Britain it’s the wonders of repainting your toilet, and installing a wonderful new vibrating sofa. There are now six travel shows, nine cooking shows. It’s dumbing down on a vast scale. What Newton Minnow described as a vast wasteland. A stupendous cultural and educational opportunity squandered, and by definition, the public interest betrayed Television investigative programming has virtually disappeared or been replaced with celebrity tabloid “exposes.” Despite their great size and influence, few newspapers regularly finance investigative teams and projects. Disturbingly there are only a handful of women reporters working infrequently in this area. A critical range of important women’s and social issues are therefore seldom addressed. Indeed situations where access would be denied to a male investigator remain unreported. In the US, corporate media with this agenda has becoming less willing to finance long-term investigations; US networks now have almost no foreign bureaus and few investigative teams worthy of the name. For three years of the Iraq war, almost no part of the media exposed the lies and misrepresentations that justified the illegal invasion of another country. In addition, when a truthful but controversial report about government was broadcast on CBS, the counter attack was fierce, and well-known reporters sacked. In one disturbing case, the reporter who discovered links between cocaine trafficking and the CIA was driven to suicide. In Britain, the situation has declined further. The government counterattack against the BBC’s critical reports caused the departure of a leading reporter, his immediate boss, the Director General and the appointment of an entirely new Board of Governors. The BBC is still reeling. And now for the bad news! I’m only kidding. In France and Germany, there are well resourced investigations. Without the conservatizing role of the Iraq war, the tide has begun to change. 90 Minutes at Canal Plus has produced powerful documentaries identifying major pharmaceutical companies with fraudulent and criminal practice. They have turned the light on huge environmental devastations, racial and class scandals in housing, education and crime. American Universities, and US foundations like Knight, Park, Ford and Soros are financing serious investigative training, the fight to retain freedom from surveillance, preventing the erosion of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Information. There is now more training, at more universities than at any time since the 60’s. While the main networks continue to discount serious journalism, PBS Frontline has broadcast major investigations. Many are jointly financed with the New York Times and Lowell Bergman’s investigation of industrial injuries at one big southern company gave him and his team a Pulitzer Prize. Independent foundations supported and made possible all these disclosures. As we meet here, Bill Moyers, former President Carter’s Press Secretary, is broadcasting a television series openly attacking the mainstream media for capitulating to President Bush and the lies about Iraq and Al Quida. Seymour Hersh, writing in a magazine not known at all for investigative reporting, exposed the crimes at Abu Gharaib, the Bush administration’s war plans against Iran, and the vast corruption of the Halliburton companies. Others have opened the garbage can of worms in the role of private military companies, and the appalling medical treatment of returning soldiers. It is significant that the first act of the administration in the war was to ban the press from independent reporting. There was to be no reports except from those “embedded” with the generals. Rights were restricted. No US or foreign cameraman could show pictures to the public of dead American soldiers; could ask hostile questions to the President; to interview wounded soldiers - even to visit Army hospitals, or military cemeteries. The government refused to publish figures on civilian casualties One report last month documented the theft of uncounted tens of billions of dollars on shrink-wrapped pallets unloaded from giant transports somewhere in Baghdad airport. The government claims not to know what happened to literally tons of money. Equally, shipments of thousands of weapons have “disappeared”. Well-resourced investigations have now made public what actually happened in New Orleans. These reports brought to the public, corruption and incompetence in the disappearance of vast sums of public money on non-existent projects, including food, medicine, temporary housing, and rescue equipment. Hundreds of tons of emergency food was never provided to the hungry and was discovered by the press only a month ago. The Internet has also expanded where important investigations now frequently appear in Salon, Counter-Punch, Huffington and the Consortium. Millions read these every week. In Britain, books by Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko are on sale in airports. In an awful way her death reopened scepticism and anger about the Putin regime and why Prime Minister Blair said nothing for days about her assassination. A freelance reporter, Stephen Grey, using ingenious methods and serious computer analysis broke the Extraordinary Rendition story. He worked with colleagues in Sweden and completed their work with computer experts at the New York Times. His work saved hundreds from beatings, torture, and disappearances at Guantanamo, Bagram and Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Poland and far too many places. In Chicago, not too long ago a professor and a handful of his graduate students started the Innocence Project. One journalism student and one lawyer - a team – each looked at one prisoner on Death Row. They did something that had never happened before. It is now being copied at other Universities in America and in Europe. The work of these students exposed fabricated police evidence and would result in the freeing of 13 inmates _ then they were joined by reporters from the Chicago press. More innocent men were freed. The governor, a Bush Republican, resigned and has toured the US speaking against capital punishment. He had been complicit is many wrongful killings. Ironically, the Governor, who found his conscience in this case, is being prosecuted for corruption in another. When investigative reporting was in its greatest decline perhaps 6 or 7 years ago, it was harder perhaps to see its attractiveness. When serious investigations appear, people talk about it, many know. Driven by word of mouth, Sales rise, viewing figures climb, programs acquire real credibility and more importantly still, they begin to achieve a loyal following. When news really affects people, they talk about it and they will follow it. This seems to be true in most countries. It also affects the culture of the press. Editors and producers become more sophisticated practitioners, or more combative, knowing how to use media law to enable rather than brake exposure. Building viewers and readers by more aggressive reporting. While print is powerful, the necessity is to use it to improve the life of South Africans and build a powerful, well informed electorate. Investigative reporting’s long slide into history is clearly over and the long recovery has begun. This awards ceremony for investigative reporting is a powerful proof. It will I hope encourage reporters and raise the flag of public purpose and interest. It is a real honour to be here to see it. Without any exaggeration, Investigative journalism around the world is back. End Back to top

It was a full house with the speaker giving a well received talk on investigative journalism throughout the world and then answering questions put to him about specific concerns of IOM residents. Investigative journalism assists the citizen in their right to know, helping accountability, stamping out injustice, secrecy and wrongs commtted by the powerful against the weak without fear or favour. It "comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable!" A good journalist has no special friends. He is prepared to reveal wrongs from whatever source. Investigative journalism is 100% evidence based and there must be no journalistic mistakes otherwise credibility is compromised. Currently some 70 journalists are in jail in the USA and Europe trying not to reveal their sources. However this type of journalism is very expensive. Some 30% of stories cannot be run after investigation. The speaker went through a whole host of past important cases - Watergate, Reginald Maudling, James Goldsmith, Jim Slater, Cambodia bombing,Vietnam, the Birmingham Six, Leopold of Belgium, Marcos in Phillipines, German nuclear reactors being cleaned by Turkish people exposing them to lethal doses of radiation, treatment of prisoners in Iraq. Then, it was the turn of the questioners. Pensioners being discriminated against, alleged corrupt police officers, alleged money laundering, the Manx Film industry finance, Manx Radio alleged to be a quango of the Government, the Water Authority, environmental issues in Peel Harbour affecting the sea life were just some of the matters raised. Well stormy times are our future if all the allegations are found to be true! Here are details of an M.A. Course at the City University, London: Published on The Centre for Investigative Journalism (http://tcij.org) Investigative Journalism MA This pioneering new course, offered by City's internationally-renowned Journalism & Publishing department: provides students with the essential skills for a first job in print or broadcast journalism, together with innovative and in-depth research and investigation techniques teaches advanced research skills including computer-assisted reporting, the effective use of public records and databases, the Freedom of Information Act, and other complex information; and examines undercover and covert investigative techniques. provides knowledge of case studies of high-profile investigations and the skills to investigate issues of public concern, miscarriages of justice, and companies, organisations and individuals within an ethical framework. offers students the opportunity to complete a real-life investigation aimed for publication or broadcast. is taught by leading investigative journalists, including: David Leigh, investigations editor of The Guardian and Anthony Sampson Professor of Reporting at City; Gavin MacFadyen, director of the prestigious Centre for Investigative Journalism based at City; Heather Brooke, Freedom of Information expert and Honorary Visiting Fellow at City; Rosie Waterhouse, formerly of the Sunday Times Insight team and Newsnight, and; Melanie McFadyean, City lecturer and freelance journalist. is located in central London, giving students unrivalled access to the media industry for contacts and work placements. Gavin MacFadyen was this evening's speaker.

IF I KNEW If I knew it would be the last time That I'd see you fall asleep, I would tuck you in more tightly and pray the Lord, your soul to keep. If I knew it would be the last time that I see you walk out the door, I would give you a hug and kiss and call you back for one more If I knew it would be the last time I'd hear your voice lifted up in praise, I would video tape each action and word, so I could play them back day after day. If I knew it would be the last time, I could spare an extra minute to stop and say "I love you," instead of assuming you would KNOW it. If I knew it would be the last time I would be there to share your day, Well I'm sure you'll have so many more, so I can let just this one slip away. For surely there's always tomorrow to make up for an oversight, and we always get a second chance to make everything just right. There will always be another day to say "I love you," And certainly there's another chance to say our "Anything I can do?" But just in case I might be wrong, and today is all I get, I'd like to say how much I love you and I hope we never forget. Tomorrow is not promised to anyone, young or old alike, And today may be the last chance you get to hold your loved one tight. So if you're waiting for tomorrow, why not do it today? For if tomorrow never comes, you'll surely regret the day, That you didn't take that extra time for a smile, a hug, or a kiss and you were too busy to grant someone, what turned out to be their one last wish. So hold your loved ones close today, and whisper in their ear, Tell them how much you love them and that you'll always hold them dear Take time to say "I'm sorry," "Please forgive me," "Thank you," or "It's okay." And if tomorrow never comes, you'll have no regrets about today. Author Anonymous

There is nothing sadder than a Christian fellowship where every song must be of victory, every prayer full of faith, every member always smiling and joyful. It is an exhausting pretence to keep up for long, and it condemns those who cannot hide from their fears to further pain of failure and inadequacy. It is actually dishonest. It means that we can never offer our tears as well as our smiles, our questions as well as our certainties, our wounds as well as our victories. It means that we are always keeping Christ out of the very places in our lives where we need him most - the place of our darkness, uncertainties, and fears. It also means in practice that we will keep talking and chattering to avoid silence. As we have already seen, silence has a way of insisting upon truth. - David Runcorn, A Center of Quiet; Hearing God When Life Is Noisy