So then, I have given up on TV. Do I then, now live my life in isolation from other people and their ideas? Not at all. I use the Internet.

IMAGINE for a moment that it was discovered, by chance, that six years ago the BBC had a high-level meeting of its executives and a group of “the best constitutional experts” to determine the policy of the BBC in reporting the ongoing debate about Scotland’s future governance Imagine that body said – unanimously – that maintaining the United Kingdom with Scotland as a member is the only model that should shape its editorial approach.

Even more unbelievable (surely) would be if the group consisted of only those who supported Scotland remaining in the union. It would (surely) be incomprehensible that the BBC would behave in such a way.

So who were all these ‘best scientific experts’ who did so much to shape the BBC’s climate policy (and by extension, one fears, government policy too…)? Well, two were from Greenpeace; one was from Stop Climate Chaos; one was a CO2 reduction expert from BP; one was from Npower Renewables; one came from the left-leaning New Economics Foundation… Only five of those present could, in any way, be considered scientists with disciplines even vaguely relevant to ‘climate change’. And of these, every one had a track record of climate alarmism. No wonder the BBC tried so hard to keep the list of 28 a secret. Its claim that its policy change was based on the ‘best scientific’ expertise turns out to have been a massive lie.

You pay for this propaganda with your compulsory licence fee. You pay for it again — and how! — through the myriad costly measures which have been adopted by successive governments to ‘combat climate change’. If this doesn’t make you angry and disgusted and determined to see root and branch reform of this mendacious, incompetent and institutionally corrupt organisation, I should very much like to know why.

This is far, far more serious than the ‘Jimmy Saville Affair’. The BBC having abandoned its Charter can have far-reaching and long-lasting effects on UK culture, governance and security.

The BBC needs a root-and-branch reorganisation. Those responsible for the usurpation of the BBC need to be imprisoned as a warning to others who may want to usurp the BBC or any other national institution.

And if the BBC cannot be corrected then it needs to be abolished before its corrupted condition can do additional harm.

I turn on the television and am treated to programmes about people you obviously value and think I should be interested in but whom I just naturally find either depressive or totally abhorrent. The “good” criminal who’s spent most of their adult life preying on the vulnerable but who’s now written a book, totally justifying all the pain and misery they’ve meted out to ordinary people, because it was all somehow society’s fault, which is to say, our fault.

The brainless penis on legs, whose only claim to fame is how many women he’s porked and how many children he’s fathered, before he did a runner on to the next one. The blowsy cow with five children of various colours, who’s never heard of contraception but definitely knows how to claim each and every state benefit going. She’s never worked in her life and never will either. If she should perchance miss one benefit allowance, there’ll be some grim-faced believer in the big society, determined to get it for her and get it backdated too.

Do you really seriously think the average person is interested in the incoherent philosophical musings of trailer trash like that? I’m sure you feel it’s part of you doing your own particular penance for living in the more fashionable areas of London or something, but we actually don’t feel that need. It’s no wonder people are deserting the channel.

The problem with most statists is that they want every intricate detail about how everything will function in LibPar. That is not possible as we cannot centrally plan a free market and individual liberty. When somebody asks, “Who will build the roads?” their little statist brains cannot comprehend “road builders” as an answer. We have to dumb it down for them and deal with their fears of freedom. The best way to do this is with the Socratic Teaching Method. For any of these government services that they cling to so much, we could ask them simple questions such as:

The Luddite tone of the attacks against Amazon rings like the following: The electric light will replace the candle. The car will replace the horse and buggy. The cure for tuberculosis will put the sanatoriums out of business. The computer will replace the typewriter.

The statist element lies in the attackers' desire to enlist the police power of the state to stifle the competition and artificially prop up their businesses.

Now we bloggers must keep this all in view. Slowly people will realise that if you want any semblance of truth and understanding, the internet is where it's at. Rather than stare at the bias of the colluding media those sycophants should be as much in the firing line of invective as those crooked political and corporate gangsters.

I wasn't going to crow, really I wasn't. But I'm afraid I can't resist, especially since it's my last blog post for a while and this is an event of some significance. I'm talking about the Press Complaints Commission's ruling on a complaint brought against this blog by our old friends at the University of East Anglia. They lost. We won. (And I do mean we: I'm hugely grateful to my legal advisers, as well as to experts including Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford, Richard North and Christopher Booker.)

Communication is a two way street, if you are so sure of your findings then offer them up for all to see, if you wish us to understand then be honest and open and self critical and humble and ever ready to revise your position, that is the only way forward. In other words trust us. What climate science is doing now is morally wrong, you know it and we know it, you are attempting to persuade by domination and bullying and secrecy, you are attempting to push the political class into forcing us to accepting irreversible socio economic changes while freezing out, insulting and ignoring those who point out flaws and errors.

And now, at last, the journalists are getting something like the same treatment; and of course, as a politician who loves writing, I must tremble before the wrath of pheasantplucker, but I also rejoice at the change that has taken place. A broadcast has been turned into a dialogue. When we write our pieces, thousands of eyes are scanning them for errors of fact and taste – and now our critics cannot only harrumph and curse us. They can tell the world – in seconds – where they think we have gone wrong. We are not just writing columns, we are writing wiki-columns, and if we sometimes get beaten up, we also have the satisfaction of gaining the odd grunt of agreement.

The WikiLeaks controversy is exposing one of the great divides among the American citizenry: the good, little citizen who has a reverential deference for government power and the independent, critical thinker who isn’t scared to expose and oppose government wrongdoing.

Next time you hear dire “scientific” warnings — and demands to surrender more control over your life to the government in order to avert disaster — remember the crack babies. The only disaster coming may be an activist-induced panic.

Think about that when you hear dire predictions about global warming or avian flu.

Since Orwell (at least), it’s been a recurring theme in speculative fiction that the technofascists will take advantage of new technologies to put society under total lockdown and transform our lives into authoritarian hells. But fortunately, the forces of freedom are a lot more creative and efficient in making use of technological possibilities than are the forces of authoritarianism.

Splattergate, splattergate, ten-ten Fran,
Blow up a kid as fast as you can,
Roll it, pat it, explode it for free,
Save all the Carbon for baby and me.

I don’t think any of us will ever be able to look at another Richard Curtis movie in quite the same way ever again. It may even be that we will now never, ever be able to enjoy another episode of the Vicar of Dibley, because all we’ll be able to think about is Dawn French with a Panzerfaust beneath her cassock ready to blast off the heads of any members of her congregation who don’t believe in Man Made Global Warming. What a sad day this is for us all.

That's the problem with picking on a minority interest and treating it as something worthy of special treatment. Whether it is sexual proclivity, pigmentation, physical infirmity or any other of the selected minorities chosen for special treatment by the self-proclaimed "progressive" elite, it is impossible to make a principled stand for special treatment for one minority without extending the same privilege to others. Exclude others and you undermine the case for your own cause. There is an unassailable case for equal treatment but no case for special treatment.

Those of us who have long been in denial about the realities of global warming and the credibility of the IPCC, can now feel relieved, there may be hope for us yet. The diagnosis has been made; we have a psychological problem, which so far has failed to respond to the millions upon millions of dollars spent in “communicating” climate change to the masses.

It’s brilliant corporate communications. It takes command of the issue, defines the parameters of legitimate discussion and cuts the ground from underneath people who would even question basic assumptions. Absolutely brilliant.

And absolutely despicable. A debate born from scientific discovery with consequences that will affect every living soul on this planet gets hijacked for a silly game based on an inadquate metaphor. And it is done intentionally, to paint opposition as those who want the planet to stay sick.

I haven’t heard that kind of normative defensiveness from a industry in years. Back in the day most corporates and industry bodies would rely on ‘you’re not being balanced’ arguments against stakeholder concerns. Then they learnt the hard way that genuine concerns need a genuine answer. In fact, a proper stakeholder engagement approach is what most PRs advise when a client faces an ethics crisis. This needs to be more than talk; the PR industry needs to listen to the concerns, be more transparent about clients, train staff in greenwash and ethics and even establish a ‘whistle blowing’ line for when codes of ethics are broken.

We are left now, many more of us than before the DPP's statement, with a feeling that we have been failed. For us yes, for the gangsters in power it's business as usual. When its one of their own, they band together, they act in solidarity, each element standing firm to the point where their power is maintained and they continue - until the next "mistake". Our problem is that we do not match our enemies with the same element of solidarity towards each other.

Remember Douglass’ message: The exact measure of injustice and wrong is that to which you will quietly submit.