BBC: What YOU spent on our lawyers in Secret Climate 28 debacle
The BBC has revealed the cost to the licence-fee payer of its surreal legal fight to keep a publicly available list from the public. Or at least a small part of the cost we all paid in the affair which became known as "28Gate". Regular readers will no doubt recall that 28Gate saw the Beeb attempt to keep secret the names of 28 …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Murdoch
The problem with Doctor Who is that it's childrens entertainment and I am an adult. The acting and scripts of Dr Who are blatantly childish. It's like out of some kids book. The character are shallow and the scripts are full of convenient escapes. They try far too hard to make the characters "cool" (for the "youth") through silly dialog which sabotages the realism. They pretend they deal with adult themes and are "dark" and whatever but that just makes me laugh. The episodes I have seen would fit in well at 4:30ppm on CBBC, but because it's on in the evening on a weekend people think it's an adult sci-fi.
The problem then is that as far as the BBC are concerned the sci-fi niche is filled by Dr Who, when really it isn't. Proper adult sci-fi (and horror) is given no time by the BBC even though they will churn out loads of adult crime dramas. Are the only stories worth telling on TV based on murders in different settings?
As flawed as Prometheus was at least it represented some decent sci-fi to watch in 2012. The kind you couldn't find on the BBC in the entire year.
Re: why not a voluntary subscription????
You're obviously not from around here. Let me break down the class system in the UK for you:
1. Working class. These are your chavs. They watch ITV or Sky. They hate the BBC and would never fund it given the choice.
2. Middle class. These are the people with the cranial capacity to understand BBC programming and the main beneficiaries. Also, these people work for the BBC or its subcontractors.
3. Super rich elites. These people don't watch TV and have no stake -- other than controlling the corporations that create news. They control the corporations from which all BBC "journalists" get their press releases, sorry news. They are the gatekeepers.
Re:Re: Murdoch
The BBC News is somewhat biased, but, so is most of the News programming here in the US. the 'Major Networks' which include CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN all take their marching orders from the New York Times. The NYT in turn is owned by a former 'hippie' who believes that the Viet Nam War was started by the Republican Party (America's involvement there with combat troops was actually a ploy by President Lindon Johnson, a Democrat, to defuse criticism that he was 'soft on Communism'), and that the Communists should have won the Cold War. (He is ignorant of the fate of journalists under any totalitarian regime. He has no clue what 'Up against the wall' really means.) This means that news coverage and editorial slant in the US is determined by a select group of no more than 20 people, who all live in the same area and all imitate each others prejudices and opinions. Those people then decide what is and what is not news, based on what they want to hear. The government owned/operated network, PBS/NPR is somewhere to the left of the New York Times. Every news organization, of course, claims that it is the only one that is 'fair and balanced'. None are.
As far as I have been able to find out, no news reporting organization has ever been unbiased and accurate. They are, after all made up of people. People always have opinions. Opinions expressed are what constitutes bias.
The lone large hold out in the US News Industry is Fox News. CNN used to be the hold out, but, when Ted Turner bought Time-Warner in the late 1990s and with it CBS, and then married (Hanoi) Jane Fonda, CNN was folded into the same NYT worshiping group.
Fox News is a different sort of hold out. Rupert Murdoch wants to make money, so he tries to serve a market that is under-served. Fox News uses opinion polls to find where the average of American Opinion is, and then makes that set of values their Editorial Standard.
I understand that in the UK he follows the same formula (find a market that is under served and fill it), but there, he is in the tabloid (rumor, scandal and gossip) market. Here in the US, that role is filled by the National Inquirer, which is distributed over an area larger than all of Europe (excluding the former Soviet Union) so that market niche is already taken.
CNN has noticed it is slipping against Fox, and is starting to provide less pro-socialist, anti-religious bias (the standard NYTimes agenda) during off election years. The US is generally more religious than Europe is.
In the US, Fox News has a 45% viewership share, verses 55% split among all the other five or six sources.
If you look at an election map by county of America from the last Presidential Election, President Obama and his party lost in 95% of American counties, but, won by a large amount in the large cities of the Northeast US, and the west Coast. He also won in Chicago and a few other large cities where the Metropolitan Population is well over 1 Million people. These are areas with large numbers of publicly supported people, such as welfare recipients, government workers (except military personnel) and university professors and students. There were also a couple of million dead people who voted for him. That is normal for Chicago politics.
Like most cases, these people in the largest cities vote for Democrats (the current mild pro socialist party in America) because they expect to get money from them. The other side, includes the Military, and those who don't want more government or taxes. They worry that the government will take more money from them.
Republicans are not really anti-socialist, they just want to take it slower. After all, socialism means more government power. Politicians don't go into power because they don't want power.
Historically, Democrats have since 1846 taken money from the Military to spend on their supporters, usually in causes that will not benefit more than a few percent of the nations people. Historically, Democrats get the US involved in major wars just after the military gets reduced. Soldiers know this very well. Presidents Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Trueman, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama have all given proof of this.
Both parties, of course, support government sponsored monopolies in large corporations. The two parties just have different industry groups they support. There is considerable overlap among the largest corporations with the two parties. Most of what is called the Fortune 500 actually support both parties to assure that the winner owes them. It works too. General Electric, for instance, usually pays no Federal Taxes. Microsoft has lost at least two Anti-Trust cases that should have resulted in the breakup of the company, they had to call in a couple of favors and then Microsoft was actually allowed to write the settlement, and even to have one judge replaced because he knew too much about what the company had done.
The other political parties in the US are not large enough to matter in a system where winner takes all on a county or state basis. Only the Libertarians have had any victories in living memory. The Communists, the Greens, the Socialists and the various hate groups combined have less than 1% anywhere in the US. The Libertarians pull around 5%, but that is spread around the entire country.
________________________
But back on the topic, The BBC has several large money products in the United States. The US Government financed network, PBS, airs many of the stuffier BBC dramas, mysteries and selected comedies, along with it's own science and political support/propaganda programming. The Beeb is paid for this content. Also, the US Cable industry offers Beeb programming as a possible extra, and internet program providers such as Netflicks and Hulu include Beeb productions in their programming lineups. Dr. Who, for instance, is quite popular here in the US. So are the endless imitations of Jane Austins novels with extremely proper aristocracy carrying on.
I don't know what the money flow to the Beeb from the US is, but, it is certainly well over 100 Million Dollars per year. Perhaps, as high as a Half Billion per year. Even that amount is just a drop in the bucket compared to the money Hollywood pulls in, but it is still a respectable drop from a very large bucket.
Sorry, I should not go on so much.
Some great comments! I can understand the need to protect true journalistic sources, but that doesn't include people who help you develop an editorial policy on a topic. The bbc's most valuable asset is its ability (in theory) to be totally independant. The bbc can spill the beans on anybody and anything including itself without fear of advertisers taking their money elsewhere. The beeb can also comission content that adds value to society (wildlife on one etc) rather than having to appeal solely to the lowest common denominator and produce endless trash.
The fact the the bbc feels the need to waste 20k trying to hide a list which is already in the public domain and should be public knowledge anyway, well the saddest thing is it isn't shocking.
There are journalistic sources and there are technical experts. One requires protection and the other the exact opposite. If I proclaim to be an expert in something and am hired on my reputation then it is only right that my reputation be on the line if I am wrong. Thats kind of how a reputation works.
This stinks of somebody in the bbc news having their own agenda and trying to influence the news. Cherry picking a panel of 'experts' and keeping them secret so you can make a story one sided is not journalism, it is propaganda. Carry on down that path and you get Fox news, msnbc and Comical Ali, although perhaps not in that order!
"I can understand the need to protect true journalistic sources, but that doesn't include people who help you develop an editorial policy on a topic."
It does when there's loonies out there who send death threats to scientists over their stance on climate change.
Because if they didn't and one of them got attacked, then the Beeb would have got it in the neck for making them unsafe.
Apart from one minor detail
Namely that they weren't scientists. They were almost exclusively green lobbyists.
So clearly, the real reason they didn't want to publish was because it would expose their decision as being based on lobbyists, instead of science.
If those scientists have any place discussing climate change it is likely that they have already published papers on the matter. Some of them are even quoted openly in the press, Baron May for example so any stance they already had was public knowledge, just like the list.
I am curious as to why the BBC had someone from the Church of England there?
Some additional help
I guess someone from the Church of England is for any 'additional help' they might be able to bring to bear. Power of prayer or maybe something from a higher being? However, it's good to see the BBC using real scientists with backed up and properly peer reviewed papers on the subject.
@Sebring
Yes, you're right; there are loonies who send death threats to people over their stance on climate change. However, this is from both sides of the spectrum, not just one. The BBC doesn't seem to have any issues listing the names of deniers on a regular basis, but won't do the reverse. So, it's one sided. The BBC has taken a position on this subject, which it should not have. The job of the BBC is to report in an unbiased way and let the viewer/listener decide. It's not to try and push any story in a particular direction.
fooey
Most of the "climate change skeptics" are just shills for businesses that are afraid dealing with the problem will reduce their profits (and to hell with future generations).
Re: fooey
It's called 28Gate because only Orlowski and 27 other frothing right-wing blowhards give a flying fooey (which is now my word of the day).
The BBC decided to move the debate on from "Is there a problem?" to "How big is it?" and "What can/should be done?" The 28 are still stuck on the first question.
Re: Re: fooey
28 refers to the 28 AGW-leaning people at the BBC's 'secret' climate session.
PS: I'm quite sure Andrew is the complete opposite of a "frothing right-wing" person, as you'd quickly discover if you ever met him.
C.
Re: fooey
Cobblers. Businesses can make very good money out of climate change, and there are plenty around that do just that; how do you think Al Gore made a third of a billion dollars in the last 15 years? It's consumers who are stiffed if we impose a regulatory and tax environment which penalizes fossil fuels
Re: fooey
A well reasoned argument.. I could counter by stating that all those who state the climate is changing are accepting huge amounts of money when they do so.
As for your argument about profits. Who are the ones paying for all these green initiatives? Not the businesses you claim are afraid dealing the the problems will reduce their profits. No, they just pass the cost on to the customer. Us, ultimately.
They may, in some cases, profit. A lot of these companies have diversified into new markets (green energy, organic food etc), some of which will be extremely profitable. Certainly the Energy companies won't lose out. Not only do they get to charge higher energy prices, but they are (in some cases) being paid by the government to install greener meters that will also allow them to control energy flows more efficiently and accurately bill us for our usage. We are essentially paying them to upgrade their technology so it costs them less to operate, and brings in more money for them.. Kerching!
Now, I don't deny climate change is happening, and I don't deny that we (as a race) should be looking for more efficient means of energy generation (this has benefits regardless of the effect of the climate). What I don't like is a large public organisation telling me something is true giving little evidence and spending thousands of pounds (some of which might have come from my licence fee) protecting it's sources from any questions. That suggests to me that they feel they have something to hide.
Re: fooey
Plenty of them are, and theres just as many 'tree hugger' shills spouting phoney science. Thats the nature of things. Left unchecked business would undoubtably turn the planet into a giant slag heap, China is trying it's best to do so (the irony isn't lost on me). However, the basic truth is we simply do not know for sure how much impact we are having, how much is part of a natural cycle and how much our impact would be curbed by natural feedback. Thats before we even look at how possible feedback would affect us, like would it be algal blooms, do we mind them etc.
Right now we probably need to be curbing our impact (which it seems is starting to happen in the western world) and trying to use some real science to figure out what is going on not statistical models that have been fudged to make an ideological point.
@96percentchimp Re: fooey
You missed a very, very important question, one that dictates how those following are treated, after "is there a problem?"*, you've missed out :
"what's causing the problem?"
Without knowing the cause, you cant begin to discuss a solution. Current belief is that it's CO2 concentration, but that is still open for debate - in my own lifetime I can remember at least three gasses being the cause of global warming, who's to say today's bogey-man is the right one?
* this itself is subjective, a problem for whom? not the planet, just one of it's indigenous species.
In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
The Reg editor reveals ... an agenda...
"The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them"
Quite.
But El Reg's editorial policy of joining a concerted campaign, led my the likes of the Murdoch's News International and Rothermere's Daily Mail and General Trust, of Bash The BBC - out of simple jealousy - isn't the best way of bringing about change and puts El Reg in poor company.
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
"puts El Reg in poor company"
Sooo, you're saying we should be nice to the BBC because the Daily Mail isn't? Seeing as The Mail isn't particularly warm to child killers, I now fear for the expectations of our crime coverage.
C.
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
The Daily Mail ARE the child killers!
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
I suggest you read more of the coverage. In general, El Reg seems to support the BBC.
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
diodesign,
You have crime coverage? Who knew? I look forward to a more blood-spattered Bootnotes in future. I always thought you restricted yourself to motorised blow-jobs, naked weirdnesses of all kinds (especially the types who drink wet'n'dry vacuum cleaners), and anything involving Bulgarian air-bags.
Re: Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
"You have crime coverage?"
I assume this is sarcasm.
C.
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
Reductio ad absurdum.
I wouldn't criticise everyone at The Register because some writer at The Register says a stupid thing like "Sooo, you're saying we should be nice to the BBC because the Daily Mail isn't?" because that would be absurd, wouldn't it?
Targeting dodgy policy makers and political agenda setters at the BBC is one thing.
Casting the whole of the BBC as a Bad Thing *is* as stupid here as it is in the Mail.
Re: Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
"some writer at The Register says a stupid thing"
Ok, forgive me for trying to take part in a discussion.
C.
@diodesign
How dare you participate on your own discussion forums! What do you think this is? A discussion forum?
I think its nice to have reg staff making comments countering stupid statements and joining in.
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
@diodesign: "Ok, forgive me for trying to take part in a discussion"
You weren't thought, were you?
You said "Sooo, you're saying we should be nice to the BBC because the Daily Mail isn't?"
I wasn't suggesting that let alone saying that. You did.
Targeting dodgy policy makers and political agenda setters at the BBC would be a god use of resources and journalism at El Reg. Carpet bombing the BBC with negativity and snide remarks a la Mail Online does a disservice to all of the GOOD journalists, camera people, broadcasters, editors technicians etc who all, as a whole, produce arguably some of the finest television, radio and journalism ... in the world.
They usually set a standard others can not match.
Just because the normal workaday people are let down by swivel eyed loons and policy wonks doesn't mean we should get rid of the BBC. Only an imbecile would suggest that because what would fill the gap?
Commercial crap from the likes of Murdoch. Endless Enedmol. Cowell FFS!
Boffin icon. Think about it.
Re: Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
"I wasn't suggesting that"
Well, OK, but that's how I read your post anyway.
"Carpet bombing the BBC with negativity and snide remarks"
OK, once again we differ: there is no carpet bombing TTBOMK - when honestly was the last time we said anything about the other "journalists, camera people, broadcasters, editors technicians"?
We've gone into detail about the BBC News website and its triumphs, and link through to its journalism when it touches places we can't reach (fnar). Where the BBC does well, we'll say so; when it doesn't, we'll say something. It's no different to any other organisation.
I'm being led to believe you work for or are somehow linked to the BBC due to your defensiveness. FWIW Reg staffers are friends with and have close ties to BBC employees. Andrew has even a producer credit with the broadcaster!
But we can't mute criticism.
C.
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
"I'm being led to believe you work for or are somehow linked to the BBC due to your defensiveness."
This is like the comments on the Daily Telegraph blog. Expressing an opinion contrary to the website's weather vane brings out the conspiracy theorists!
Re: Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
"the conspiracy theorists!"
I feel I should point out that being defensive of the BBC is not a bad thing.
C.
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
"I'm being led to believe you work for or are somehow linked to the BBC due to your defensiveness."
Who is leading you? I'm not. You're paranoid. Your defensiveness is very revealing.
Some of my best friends are B ... eeboids.
My only link to the BBC is listening to 6 Music and watching Top gear.
Re: Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
"You're paranoid"
Guilty as charged.
C.
Re: In criticising the BBC and their alleged agenda
'This is like the comments on the Daily Telegraph blog. Expressing an opinion contrary to the website's weather vane brings out the conspiracy theorists!'
The question should be why journalists are trying to direct a discussion and why a body that is supposed to report the news in an unbiased way has a weather vane!!
Hahahahaha
You cant have it. No. We dont need to give sources. No. I dont care if its an FOI. Delete the information so we cant give it to them. These are expert opinions and its a consensus so you need to believe us. We are right, just accept it. How dare you question us, this is our field. Most people agree with us apart from the few heretics.
Is the above the climate debate or this 28gate (I hate that name)? The funniest part is when you realise that your money and vastly increasing energy prices is supporting both. We are paying to keep information from ourselves about this supposedly important situation.
Considering...
...that there's loads of loons out there who think nothing of making death threats to climate scientists, it's only reasonable that a degree of anonymity is allowed.
How do you make URLs clickable, by the way?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers
Re: Considering...
Sorry!! How does that work. There are just as many looms out there threatening climate change deniers as well. There are loons on both sides threatening the other. This isn't a one way street.
I've got camps near me with climate change vigilantes threatening anyone who tries to chop down some trees and using force on occasion. The nutters are both sides of the fence, not just one.
Re: Considering...
There are loons on both sides threatening the other. This isn't a one way street.
Er, as far as this particular issue about the BBC is concerned it is a one-way street.
Re: Considering...
> ...that there's loads of loons out there who think nothing of making death threats to climate scientists, it's only reasonable that a degree of anonymity is allowed.
There are several issues, including:
1. The factors are so complex that a great deal of "tuning" of the data is required in an effort to compare like with like. The raw data is seen (probably rightly) by both sides of the argument as not being valid for the intended use. I that puts both sides on very shaky ground of some observations plus a lot of extrapolation.
2. those involved at the BBC were mostly lobby groups from one side if the debate, not scientists of any great repute anyway. We would not expect them to be able to put forward scientific arguments and if they could, the BBC should have published all the supporting data and analysis along an announcement regarding the decision.
3. if you wish to shape public policy, you lose the right to anonymity. There are always nutters and historically it appears that they tend to be on the ecological protection side of a debate. Conversely, funding trails for studies arguing for the status quo should also be published.
Ed's comments and State Secrets
The Ed's comments cheered me up no end.
After the outbreak of the second world war, it was often rumoured that the BBC was being used by the Government as a propaganda machine to disseminate misleading information to the enemy. Maybe it still is if one looks objectively at some of the broadcasts and the emphasis on criminality by some leading Banks, but not others.
Perfectly reasonable in a time of war maybe, but in peacetime?
Post war, it was often rumoured by some that the BBC and their radio arm, the BBC World Service was still being run by various intelligence agencies and Foreign Office interests.
Obviously a culture of secrecy and paranoia still exists. Who knows.
Re: Ed's comments and State Secrets
Exactly and this also explains why for years the BBC gave political asylum to Julian Saville
Re: Ed's comments and State Secrets
The World Service was until very recently funded by the Foreign Office. I listen to it a fair bit, and you know what, in recent years it felt like there was much LESS government influence than on the mainstream BBC output, despite the their money coming directly from a Government department.
Andrew, I agree that there are issues with how parts of the BBC operate. I'd really like to see the Trust getting a better grip on internal management issues to prevent this sort of silliness from happening.
What I would really like is for you to show me a quantified example of a similar-sized broadcaster who operates in a free-market for-profit fashion who produces or directly commissions for broadcast a comparable amount of content, across the same spectrum of media, formats and genres, at the same point-of-use cost to the consumer as the Beeb does for UK citizens and residents, ideally doing so in the US to show that such an operation is not only possible but can scale to larger population sizes.
You frequently bring up this idea that having the Beeb funded by what amounts to a tax is somehow Wrong or Against The Natural Order, but I've not yet seen any convincing evidence that what the Beeb does either is done or even can be done by a private sector equivalent outfit. Channel 4 & Film 4 have some good stuff, but without running the numbers I wouldn't want to assume that the scale of their operations and output is comparable.
I don't believe he said the license fee was wrong, or against the natural order. In this article it was pointed out that the US networks might be rather unhappy if the Beeb were making loadsamoney in America when they're effectively subsidised (which may be a reason to keep quiet about it).
There's nothing wrong with the way the BBC is funded, but if it wants to take public money (which it effectively is - whatever it claims), then it needs to be as transparent as is humanly possible. And that's something it often fails at. Sky don't need to be transparent (though it would be nice), as they don't force you to pay for it.
There are no privately run equivalents of our £3.2Bn state funded broadcaster. But there are individual private organisations operating in the genres of news and drama who produce programmes as good or better than those on the BBC eg. HBO or AMC, AlJazeera. That's the whole point of a free market: you have multiple companies competing to produce the best programmes and the best naturally rise to the top since they get the most customers.
So the idea wouldn't be to replace the Beeb with an equivalent privately run monopoly. It would be to open the market up to free competition by hundreds of different program makers. This is already happening with internet video on demand, Youtube and Netflix etc - although the BBC's guaranteed funding is stifling competition in this area ( eg. iPlayer, BBC news website etc) and stunting the market. There is no longer any justification for the BBC's taxpayer monopoly funding. The 28gate debacle is just one of many examples of why a monopolistic control of the media by one organisation is a bad thing for freedom and democracy.
@ChilliKwok
Control of the media? Really?
Stop being silly and maybe we can seriously converse about this.
My point was that the existence of odd pockets here and there of private-sector news organisations or production companies that produce stuff of calibre comparable to the Beeb does not equate to "Screw 'm, let the free market decide!". The free market wants Eastenders, Strictly Ballbags Come Dancing, Big Brother, TOWIE and Made Of FailIn Chelsea. The free market, in that context, can suck it.
Oh, and pointing at the likes of HBO, AMC, or FX because each of them have a couple of shows is disingenuous - each one of those cable subscriptions will cost you at least as much as your Beeb tax annually, especially if you're having to switch provider to get access to them. Also - for every Sopranos or Mad Men there's a Sex & The City, so let's not pretend that US Cable television is some sort of nirvana of consistently astonishing entertainment.
I notice you've carefully ignored Channel 4 and Film 4, the two UK arms of what I'd consider genuine innovation in both delivery strategies and content diversity - between Film4 providing streaming rentals that actually work and have reasonably recent releases, and Channel 4 being smart enough to make huge swathes of their back catalogue available on demand, they're the best demonstration of the kind of innovation the free market allegedly fosters. The problem is that next to them we've got ITV (who are at least as surprised as everyone else that Downton Abbey is actually popular), Channel 5 (who can best be summarised as "that channel who wanted to get Big Brother because after 10 years of scraping the bottom of the barrel it's still more popular than the rest of the crap they air) and a smorgasbord of Freeview channels mostly aimed at people too bored or braindead to realise they're watching reruns of a programme they don't even like.
(If I had my way, the Beeb would substantially cut down the crowd-pleasing cruft like Eastenders and, well, almost all of its daytime tripe. More travel & history documentaries, more in-depth news, and stuff where you might actually learn something would be the order of the day. It'll never happen, of course, but it's nice to dream sometimes...)
@Captain Underpants
Your reply rather demonstrates you think yourself rather superior to everyone elese. Just because you don't like Eastenders and all the other stuff you listed, doesn't mean it shouldn't be on there. As they're funded largely by the TV watching public, it should really make sense that the programmes they make are those the funders want. And, from the viewing figures, Eastenders etc. are those programmes. Calling people bored or braindead is not an intelligent conversation. It's arrogant, condascending etc.etc. and says more about you than about those you abuse.
BBC Worldwide
Funny, I always suspected that the reason the BBC wanted to keep its overseas earnings secret was to disguise how badly they were doing - given they've got such an amazing catalogue of stuff. But it is possible it's the opposite. Certainly they used to be quite erratic at getting money for their old content, in the way of tape/video/CD, but they do look to have improved over recent years. Although the amount of Top Gear and Doctor Who tat you seem to be able to buy, at ridiculous prices, seems to suggest this isn't wholly a good thing...
Elementary?
wrote Bridcut. "Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution."
'Nuff said.
Note to Green-washers: not all of us who question the veracity of information are Blofeldt-like cat-stroking mega-industrialists; hell-bent in ripping profits from your climate-caused dead hands
(well ok, I DO stroke my cat!)
Re: Elementary?
But which Blofeld? My favourite was the Charles Gray.
This topic is closed for new posts.
