As I live just a few miles north of Balcombe the global media frenzy over  this rather nondescript village has been of particular interest – partly because it has become a textbook example of that classic political/media ploy of “How To Lie With Statistics”

The figure of 82% of Balcombe residents opposing fracking in the surrounding area outside  has become a talismanic number in the public “debate” around this issue. It conjures up a heartwarming image of the little people taking on the dark legions of Big Oil and has been much used by outsiders to justify their willingness to “help” the local “community” by orchestrating a series of well choreographed “protests” to show their “solidarity” with the residents.

There is no doubt that a significant number of villagers have their concerns about the issue and they have certainly captured the attention of the media with their noise. But do they really represent a significant majority of Balcombe’s residents?

During August and September the Parish Council conducted a poll to establish the views of the residents on the attitude to fracking that the Parish Council should adopt. A polling card was delivered to every residence in the Parish and, when the poll closed on 10th September, 284 polling cards had been returned. 234 (82%) expressed the view that the Parish Council should oppose fracking, 30 that it should not, 16 had no strong views, and 4 polling cards were invalid.

Wow, that certainly sounds convincing…..until the more attentive observer might spot the absence of what is always the key figure in any survey – how many polling cards were not returned?

It seems to be the case that only 33% of residents responded to the survey. Now this is something which immediately changes the arithmetic of the poll and questions the legitimacy of the claim that well over three quarters of the citizens of Balcombe oppose fracking.

the much quoted “82 per cent of residents” actually should read the “82% of the 33% of residents who responded to the questionnaire”. That means the 66% (those who didn’t respond) plus the 18% of those that did but who are in favour / with no firm opinion are being out shouted by the 26% of villages who are anti-fracking

But then  “82% of the 33% of residents who responded to the questionnaire say frack off” on a placard wouldn’t quite have so much of an impact……

This is a book that a UK cabinet minister thinks you should not be allowed to read. Indeed the author of the book, along with an academic in another Australian university, has been driven out of the halls of learning for daring to question the accepted wisdom on climate change

Or so you might have imagined if you weren’t familiar with the recent treatment by two Australian universities — Macquarie and James Cook — of two eminent scientists working in the field of ‘climate change’. Both have been ostracised by their institutions for reaching conclusions unsatisfactory to the controlling regime.

Heresy….there are some who might even prefer that they be burned at the stake. After all the zealots were content to imply that dissidents should be blown up..

;

So on no account should you read this book…..remember YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED….

Wonga, benefit “cuts”, asylum seekers, same sex marriage, women bishops…..wherever you see “Church of England”, “Bishop” etc in the media it will almost certainly be a quote upon one of those subjects…it’s almost as if the Church of England has become one all embracing campaigning charity, obsessed with whatever is issue of the day at BBC/Guardian dinner parties.

The mythical Martian would have a hard time grasping the fact that the C of E was about God and matters spiritual. He/she/it would see it as an institution in retreat, almost too embarrassed to even mention the R word.

Churches are empty and congregations dwindling even though the clergy strive not to offend..

Near where I live is a huge private estate, mainly housing about 5,000 young couples with school age children on comfortable but relatively modest salaries.  – the sort of people who see the church as a major irrelevance. The development plan had a site earmarked for an Anglican church….it was never built because the C of E didn’t fancy the challenge.

Why?

In the past Christians went out of their way to go into areas where they were not welcomed. They flourished when they were being despised and hated – and eventually gained converts simply because of admiration engendered by fighting against long odds.

Isn’t it time the C of E stopped apologising and retreating  and went out into the streets proclaiming the gospel?

Isn’t it time for another John Wesley?