Contributor Leaderboard

Well, you know the official line: wind power now contributes a significant amount to or energy budget, and so represents a major improvement to all our "carbon footprints". After all countless billions spent and all those wind turbines littered everywhere around and over our island how could it be otherwise? In the USA these claims are part of the Obama legacy that he's now trying to sell to the history books. But, he grudging admits that it's “less than 14 percent”. If only these sort of figures were true! https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/obamas-much-ado-about-nothing/ From today's Telegraph: No one is mentioning Ed Windmilliband's role in the fiasco, but it's another of the virtue signalling left's hair-brained ideas that have visibly changed our country for the worst, and piled on huge levels of debt in the process. That debt must be repaid at some point (a situation that will be made much worse as interest levels increase, as now looks likely). How much extra energy will need to be expended to achieve the levels of industrialisation that will be needed for future generations to even service that debt? This is the question to ask those "greens" who believe in infinite free lunch and techno-miracles.

CL there was a comment on Bygone Bedlington, by Alan Brady, some months ago that got me to do some 'Googling'. The comment from Alan was :- 'Netherton was the name of the village and the name of the area until the postal system began in the 1840's. There was confusion with Netherton in Coquetdale so the name of the village was changed to Nedderton. Which was also it's name mentioned on a historical document back when they didn't care very much about spelling. The district remained as Netherton ward of Bedlingtonshire' You probably have found this stuff already but here are the images I found and posted on the Bygone Bedlington site. Can't remember what site the info was on and how many pages of Google links I had to work through to find thses :-

I don't think your opinion has in any way been frowned upon, moe. Malcolm took the time to explain the reasoning behind the proposal, after all, which I would say shows respect for your opinion.

The Guradianistas at the BBC aren't being entirely honest in reporting what Carlos Ghosn the CEO of Nissan UK is saying by selectively reporting him. What Ghosn is looking for is the government to channel some of the revenues from counter-taxing German luxury cars back to Nissan to compensate them for any EU protectionism and Brussels hubris. Obviously no one wants any tariffs, and if sanity prevails there won't be any, but the Brussels bureaucrats are in a hole and their empire threatened, so rationalism may not prevail. Ghosn is being very careful about not issuing any threats, and is only talking about competitiveness, but this doesn't seem to be good enough for elements at the BBC. Nor is he pressing his views, and that he's not mentioning the windfall boost to Nissan's competitiveness from the lower exchange rate is understandable, although it's not understandable for the BBC to completely fail to question him about this aspect! In fact he's doing his duty and acting in the interests of Nissan, its shareholders and it's employees. It a pity that the BBC Guardianistas need to be frequently embarrassed into acting in the interests of their own "shareholders"..

Analysis by News Watch of BBC Brexit coverage Well worth scan reading the whole thing - Maggie! http://news-watch.co.uk/bbc-brexit-collection-strong-bias-against-leaving-the-eu/ What we now have is a sustained ideological attack on traditional working people (particularly those in the North) from the state broadcaster, and an attempt to diminish, disparage and sideline their values. The only decent thing the BBC can do is to get rid of Evan Davis and Ian Katz. As long as they hold a senior positions at the BBC nothing can even start to change.

They SAY they learned something from the referendum result - I wonder! BBC sacked me for being a white man... even though I work in radio Maybe it was just that Jon didn't contribute enough to the non-stop wall of hilariously funny anti-Ukip "jokes" before the last GE? You know, the ones that now cheerfully flout both the BBC Charter and electoral law in the six week purdah periods. OK, so he's not a Guardian subscriber, but why would he waste his money when there are so many surplus copies littered around Broadcasting House?