BBC picks on Chris to cover-up serious wrong-doing by famous..

I shall soon be naming two famous people who wrongly endorse a charity, which is fraudulent, their extravagant blessing has resulted in large sums being raise - shouldn't such revered and respected figures not know better.  Are they just gullible and naïve?

In the mean-time,  have been wondering why the BBC, which has completely ignored all my good works and important projects for years, in 2015 decided to pick on me?  Accepted, for some reason they believe that their audience only want tabloid-level scandal, why do they employ journalist who are4 completely lack in relevant training to write about scientific topics. Bright 'A' level science students in the UK have a better grasp of Science than Navin Singh Khadka, the BBC World Service's Environment Correspondent.  Why does he specialise in the Himalaya, when he knows almost nothing????  It is laughable.  Quite a lot of the questions he put to me insulted my intelligence but he has been allowed to get away with it for years. A 'politically' correct appointment if ever there was....

The BBC was not concerned about fraudulent plant charities operating in India.

The BBC  was not concerned about lazy, incompetent Indian botanists, who sit in offices 'inventing' rare species that are no such thing!

The BBC  was not concerned about Indian botanists digging up species they falsely claim to be 'critically endangered' (which means about to become extinct), transporting down thousands of feet, to inevitably expire in botanic garden, making a farce of 'ex-situ' conservation claims.

The BBC  was not concerned about the range of activities which are destroying colonies of medicinal plants.

The BBC  was not concerned about Indian botanists publishing check-lists and floras (painfully slowly) littered with misidentified plants and incorrect information.

The BBC  was not concerned about false claims of endemic species (i.e. ones found only in India or a part of India).

The BBC  was not concerned about numerous false claims of plant species being "new to science".

The BBC  was not concerned that International bodies like IUCN & CITES blindly accept false claims of rarity.

The BBC  was not concerned that a ridiculous CAMP methodology (designed for fauna, not flora) was used to assess rarity, which took a lack of pressed specimens in Indian herbaria collected since Indian Independence as evidence of its reduced occurrence - when the explanation for most Himalayan plants was simple i.e. few Indian botanists have the appetite to explore for plants in the Himalaya, such that if the habitat of a species involved steep ground, large boulders, let alone cliffs, which hardly any Indian botanist ventures amongst/onto (this certainly applies in the NW Himalaya) - they rarely go into the mountains at all, they rarely, if ever, trek...  Hence the ridiculous claims that Primula reptans, Saxifraga jacquemontiana and Meconopsis aculeata are rare!  In fact they are found in abundance, by the hundred of thousand, if not million....  I can recognise these species and I have seen them in numerous places. I have explored in more places of steep ground in the NW Himalaya than the combined experience of every single Indian botanist during the past 30 years.  One cannot assess the abundance or rarity of plants sat in an office!

The BBC was not concerned that an Indian charity, which is a fake, received firstly tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands of pounds, to do practically nothing, other than to write reports and make false claims....

I could go on, and on, and on. But to understand these complex issues, they need to employ someone with relevant scientific training and relevant training, otherwise the objectiveness which is assumed within BBC reporting, fails.

Successive Indian Governments have actively discouraged International collaboration.  They are becoming more and more secretive.  After all, IF they can prevent foreigners coming to India (in my case, the Himalaya), there will be no proof of the serious wrong-doing.

So, why, after all the years I have been raising such issues on my web-site, is the only interest shown by the BBC, a matter of 'permission' to visit the Himalaya?  For the record, I disproved every accusation made by Mr Khadka, so he was left to insinuate and downright lie - which is his normal style.

But I ask the basic question, who asked that 'attack-dog' Khadka be attack me?  Was it a deliberate attempt to silence me, after I dared to publicly criticise wrong-doing?


Comments