Rebelling against extinction 5

A founder of Extinction Rebellion, Gail Bradbrook, explains her beef.

She makes nothing clear to us.

Extinction Rebellion is a movement, started in 2018, of mostly middle-aged people, with what looks like a preponderance of women.

Information from Google:

Extinction Rebellion is a global environmental movement with the stated aim of using nonviolent civil disobedience to compel government action to avoid tipping points in the climate system, biodiversity loss, and the risk of social and ecological collapse.

So it is one of those many organizations of passionate believers in man-made global warming.

Their protest demonstrations are dramatically staged, in spectacular costume, in public places:


The protestors are paid to demonstrate. From the Express:

Extinction Rebellion is paying its campaigners up to £400 a week to cause chaos on the streets of the UK, it has been revealed.

Recently they tried to stop London underground trains from taking people to work by climbing on top of the trains. They were pulled down by irate members of the public.

Who funds them?

They state that they are “transparent” about the sources of their money, which, they say, “is received from crowdfunding, major donors, NGOs and foundations”. But they do not name the major donors, NGOS and foundations.

Maybe we should see their more colorful, less obstreperous, costumed performances simply as entertainments, adding to the gaiety of nations?

Posted under Subversion, Videos by Jillian Becker on Saturday, October 26, 2019

Tagged with ,

This post has 5 comments.


A Base British Corporation 11

The BBC, once  renowned for its truthful and objective reporting, now a shill for terrorists and lefty despots, legally extorts money from every TV watcher and radio listener in Britain under the age of 75. Although it depends on public money, it ignores all public criticism. Its arrogant self-righteousness is almost as sickening as its sustained propaganda for immoral causes.  

The admirable Charles Moore of The Daily Telegraph wrote this to the BBC operations director of TV licencing: 

Dear Mr Shimeild,

On October 18, 2008, The Russell Brand Show on BBC Radio 2 broadcast a nine-minute sequence in which the presenter, Brand, and his guest, Jonathan Ross [a low, filthy-minded, cruel, altogether disgusting  show-off – JB], left messages on the answering machine of the then 78-year-old actor, Andrew Sachs [a great actor, refugee from Nazi Germany – JB]. In these, Ross shouted that Brand had “****** your granddaughter”. Further obscene and insulting messages broadcast included remarks about Mr Sachs’s granddaughter’s menstruation, and whether Mr Sachs would now kill himself because of the shame. The pair joked, on air, that they would “find out where Andrew Sachs lives, kick his front door in and scream apologies into his bottom”.

As a result of public outrage at this broadcast, several people left the BBC. Jonathan Ross, however, was only suspended for three months. It has been reported that Jonathan Ross earns £6 million a year from the BBC. Despite being a corporation mainly funded by the taxpayer, in the form of the licence fee, the BBC refuses to reveal the figure for Ross’s contract, but it has not denied it. If the reported amount is correct, Ross is by far the best-paid person in its history.

The Public Purposes of the BBC are, says its Charter, the “main object” of the BBC’s existence. They state that the corporation must take the lead in “sustaining citizenship and civil society” and “stimulating creativity and cultural excellence”. The Ross/Brand obscene broadcast – and several other broadcasts by Ross – are clearly contrary to the Public Purposes. The fact that Ross remains in post, paid an enormous sum, shows that the BBC has contempt for its own Public Purposes.

Since the BBC is breaking its own Charter, it has forfeited its right to collect a compulsory tax – the licence fee – from everyone who possesses a television. I wrote in public, at the time of the broadcast last autumn, that, in the circumstances, I would not pay my licence fee again. The circumstances have not improved. I hereby inform you, therefore, that I refuse to renew my licence, but I shall continue to keep and watch my television…

The BBC may take Mr Moore to court. We await developments. 

Posted under Britain, Commentary, Miscellaneous, United Kingdom by Jillian Becker on Saturday, July 11, 2009

Tagged with , , , , ,

This post has 11 comments.