Comrade Harrabin has a piece on plastics recycling, saying that 97% of plastic bottles are being returned (in an unspecified place, perhaps a galaxy far, far away). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47273778

There's that number again. Claim a success rate of 100% or 50% folks will say it has been conjured out of thin air. But 97% is so very specific that, well, iss gorra be right, innit?

Harrabin quotes a spokesperson for the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Whilst I applaud their motives, the claim that "Our countryside, rivers and oceans are choked with plastic" is a little wide of the mark. From Llandudno I can see all the way to Anglesey and all I can see is, er, water. I hate litter as much as the next man - and often pick up other people's - the disgusting $%##%£s - but to claim that the countryside and ocean is almost buried under litter is 97% bonkers.

GolfCharlie. 9:39 AM

I recall a visit to a factory in India which was employing a great many people doing menial jobs extremely inefficiently. When asked, the factory manager, who had been proudly showing off both his factory and product, indignantly replied that he wouldn't even consider any form of mechanization, which would clearly improve both productivity and profits, because that would put out of work most of his employees. And he felt a duty towards them. Those employees had families that were totally dependent upon his factory. It was then that I came to recognize that productivity, efficiency and many other capitalist concepts are not always to be strived for.

Afterthought: Later I came to understand that this form of industrialization in the Indian clothing sector had been deliberately destroyed by us British to stop competition with the British clothing industry.

Some politicians are worthy of respect. I do not agree with their stance over BREXIT, but they have been honest about that, and about hate preachers.

The BBC does realise that Corbyn has obstructed the Remainers, and encouraged racial hatred, whilst the BBC is trying to get the UK public more sympathetic towards those actively involved in, and unrepentant about religious motivated war, brutality and killing.

The BREXIT mess keeps costing politicians dear. It was supposed to flush the Conservative Party of EU Opposition. It has failed. Now Labour is flushing away respected Politicians so save the life's work of one man.

If all politicians could be asked whether they believe in Mann's Hockey Stick, it would be so much easier to reject rubbish for further recycling.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47278902

"Seven MPs have resigned from the Labour Party in protest at Jeremy Corbyn's approach to Brexit and anti-Semitism.

They are: Chuka Umunna, Luciana Berger, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Mike Gapes, Gavin Shuker and Ann Coffey.

Ms Berger said Labour had become institutionally anti-Semitic and she was "embarrassed and ashamed" to stay.

Mr Corbyn said he was "disappointed" the MPs had felt unable to continue working for the policies that "inspired millions" at the 2017 election.

The MPs are not launching a new political party - they will sit in Parliament as the Independent group."

Guess the subject competition

https://order-order.com/2019/02/18/richs-monday-morning-view-283/

It could be someone in the BBC justifying what is newsworthy.

Feb 18, 2019 at 9:04 AM | Rhoda Klapp

About 20 years ago, I remember speaking to a UK Passport Holder who was born in a country associated with cheap child labour producing cheap clothing for the west. She was angry. Every fresh story resulted in more children back on the streets with no money to buy food.

UK outsourcing produces disposable employees.

" .. and save me from the wrath of other BH regulars."
Feb 18, 2019 at 8:15 AM | Supertroll

UK Courts and Social Services are now more sympathetic towards the rights of Grandparents to bring up a child if the birth parents are unavailable, unable or incapable, or have a track record of abuse and irresponsibility. If the parents are not incarcerated, supervised and restricted access is normally a requirement, and they have to live outside areas they might come into contact with the child. Social Media allows this to become a farce, but this is not the fault of social media.

I don't think Grandparents have an automatic right to become Legal Guardians, but Courts and parents normally accept the reports of Social Workers. If parents challenge Social Workers, a report is more likely to recommend Adoption without any Family contact.

Under the cloak of Child Protection, bad and incompetent social workers keep getting away with lies and incompetence for years. Good decent social workers (the majority) go about their work without attracting attention or publicity.

Feb 18, 2019 at 7:38 AM | Mark Hodgson: "I wonder if this applies to climate science?"

As the desperados sneered in Blazing Saddles: "Badges? Badges? We don' need no steenkin' BADGES."

I expect that university courses in Climate Science have a module entitled CC107 - How To Keep The Gravy Train Rolling. In such lectures a grizzled and cocky old lecturer in a leather jacket will be chortling to his impressionable young audience, "Now, boys and girls, when we make predictions a decade or two is no good! If a climatalogical career lasts Y years, then predictions must be made for a minimum of Y+1. And bearing in mind that we must safeguard the profession so that future climatologists can make a living, 2Y or even 3Y is a suitable timescale. Think of the children! And the children's children."

"But, Dr Spongelove, what price scientific integrity?"

"Haha, lad. There was once a bloke called Popper who said that true science must be falsifiable - if its predictions can be falsified then the theory must be binned. Is that what you mean by integrity? Well, laddie, let me tell you that Popper rode a bike to college. You don't want to ride a bike do you? Or be an unemployed climate scientist down the Jobcentre?

Now, everybody, we shall sing the class song. All together now: In The Year Twenty Five Twenty Five......"

Right now on BBC1 there's a wild story about the disastrous effect of fashion on the natural world. It is a BBC funded initiative to worry people about perfectly innocent and normal activities. We all have to spend more on clothes but less often. What this means once decoded is more posh fashion and no Primark for the plebs. It's disgusting on its face but for the BBC to be pushing a preachy agenda with no balance is unacceptable (to use a word which nowadays means..nothing).