The Christopher Booker thread

[pjclarke]

I'd just like to make the point that he must read a shed load of books to decide who gets that Booker prize each year

And doing that Screen Wipe thing, while keeping Konnie Huq happy ....

[OwlHoot]

To avoid confusion. If people want to make a point about Booker then please make it here.

I'd just like to make the point that he must read a shed load of books to decide who gets that Booker prize each year

[DodgyAgent]

Such 'refusal', if it exists, might be rather more effective if he didn't consistently make a fool of himself. Take the smear he co-authored with Richard North against the chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, alleging conflicts of interest running into 'millions of dollars' from outside commercial interests, and complaining that we don’t know “how much we all pay him” as chairman of the IPCC.

Booker and North apparently allowed their political dispositions to over-ride basic journalistic principles, like

• Not lying and
• Doing easy and basic research.

Pachauri's employers, a charity, commissioned KPMG to audit Dr Pachauri's finanical affairs and found he received his basic salary of £45K and less than £3,000 from speaking fees, lectures and books. His income from chairing the IPCC is a matter of public record. before tax he receives this .....

£0.

Despite several requests for a clarification the Telegraph refused - until Pachauri instructed libel lawyers. The article has now been removed, and the Telegraph obliged to pay 6-figure costs and issue an apology ...



Seems to me Booker and North's allowed political prejudices to overcome basic journalistic good practice and smeared a scrupulously honest man.

But as long as he is one of us and fights the good fight, we can overlook such petifogging nitpicks such as the publishing the truth, doing a bit of Googling before putting pen to paper.... huh?

Fair enough. If he is going to behave like that then he deserves to be judged accordingly.

[pjclarke]

You tell us.

I love Booker for his refusal to let the left fool us into constantly pouring money into their coffers - whether it be the institutions of the EU or the gravy train that is the climate change racket.

Such 'refusal', if it exists, might be rather more effective if he didn't consistently make a fool of himself. Take the smear he co-authored with Richard North against the chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, alleging conflicts of interest running into 'millions of dollars' from outside commercial interests, and complaining that we don’t know “how much we all pay him” as chairman of the IPCC.

Booker and North apparently allowed their political dispositions to over-ride basic journalistic principles, like

• Not lying and
• Doing easy and basic research.

Pachauri's employers, a charity, commissioned KPMG to audit Dr Pachauri's finanical affairs and found he received his basic salary of £45K and less than £3,000 from speaking fees, lectures and books. His income from chairing the IPCC is a matter of public record. before tax he receives this .....

£0.

Despite several requests for a clarification the Telegraph refused - until Pachauri instructed libel lawyers. The article has now been removed, and the Telegraph obliged to pay 6-figure costs and issue an apology ...

On 20 December 2009 we published an article about Dr Pachauri and his business interests. It was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years. We apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused.

Seems to me Booker and North's allowed political prejudices to overcome basic journalistic good practice and smeared a scrupulously honest man.

But as long as he is one of us and fights the good fight, we can overlook such petifogging nitpicks such as the publishing the truth, doing a bit of Googling before putting pen to paper.... huh?

[DodgyAgent]

Geoffrey Podger
Chief Executive
Health and Safety Executive

.

Christopher Booker.

How many people have believed Booker and put themselves at risk? The man is a menace.

You tell us.

I love Booker for his refusal to let the left fool us into constantly pouring money into their coffers - whether it be the institutions of the EU or the gravy train that is the climate change racket.

[pjclarke]

Putting it simply, white asbestos is implicated as a cause of both lung cancer and mesothelioma though uncertainty remains about the precise nature of how the risk changes at different levels of exposure. It cannot be called safe by any sensible person.

Geoffrey Podger
Chief Executive
Health and Safety Executive

A succession of scientific studies have shown that white asbestos cement - not to be confused with the genuinely dangerous blue and brown forms of asbestos, a different mineral - poses no measurable risk to health

.

Christopher Booker.

How many people have believed Booker and put themselves at risk? The man is a menace.

[Freaki Li Cuatre]

He lives in the next village to me and I've met him in the pub a few times.

He's a nice bloke.

Some may say a little over zealous in his anti-AGW stance but a useful chap to have on side when greedy developers and landowners have targeted your area with plans for wind farms.

With him all the way on his views re Europe.

[DodgyAgent]

To avoid confusion. If people want to make a point about Booker then please make it here. If you want to make a point about the photosynthesis/Co2 article then please make it here http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ists-miss.html