...and any other matters that take our fancy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40709270Another Fake News article from the BBC...How on earth could you do a Who's Who of the Russia-Trump drama and NOT mention Christopher Steele, ex MI5, alleged author of the dodgy dossier?
Did some reading up on THE Memo the other day, deliberately trying to get websites, media outlets etc with different points of view just to see what I believed.For once I think I come down on the mainstream media’s side, the alternative is that nearly 90% of Media outlets, the FBI, CIA etc etc are all in on the conspiracy and thats getting to fake moon landing and Roswell levels of madness.
So we shouldn't have voted for Brexit then?
I’m happy for everyone to watch and read everything and come to their own conclusions.I did for Brexit and the majority didn’t let me down. I dunno with the Memo....
Obviously, as you rightly say, do the research and make your own mind up...only silly flockers do otherwise. :) But I am afraid we are now at a point where 90% of the mainstream media do fail to tell the truth on a range of important subjects...both in the US and the UK and in cahoots with government, business and foreign interests (e.g. Qataris, Chinese, Saudis - as well as Russians). If you are watching CNN,MSNBC, ABC, or CBS you will be getting a v. skewed view of what's been happening. The FISA-FBI memo has to be read in the context of how Hillary Clinton has been treated over her illegal private e mail server...she got the kid gloves treatment...nearly all her staff were given immunity and she had a whole team of advisors and lawyers around when interviewed v. briefly. Comey then introduced the novel doctrine of intent in relation to her illegal action (something the legislation does not mention) in order to let her off. And that's before we get on to the corrupt Clinton Foundation or the Uranium One deal. The FBI-FISA memo is simply the opening salvo in in this latest front of the war. There is going to be a lot more.
Yep I’m still on the fence - However I do agree that the BBC etc are tying themselves in ever tighter knots to make their version of events in the USA work.
Here are some questions to ponder: 1. Do the UK MSM love stories about spies, MI6, and secret machinations? Or do they usually shy away from such narratives? (Philby, Burgess, McLean, Anthony Blunt, the dodgy Iraq dossier and all that). 2. Is Christopher Steele role central to the whole FBI-FISA scandal? 3. Why are the UK MSM showing so little interest in Christopher Steele? |The dots are begging to be joined...but UK journos are looking the other way as studiously as they can. These are not the actions of real journalists.
"A controversaal memo""An attempt to undermine the FBI"BBC swings into full bias mode.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42827167Zurcher thinks he's very clever. But you can see all the little "hand on the tiller" moments. No one - except Zurcher - thinks the affair between Page and Strojk is the scandal...or indeed the fact they were using governmentphones...or even that they made derogatory remarks about Trump. No, if Zurcher was a journalist as opposed to a pro-Democrat propagandist, he would know the problem with the Page-Strojk exchanges was that they reveal plotting against Trump ("we need an insurance policy", the "secret society") and favouritism towards Clinton (the decision not to prosecute had been taken BEFORE HRC was actually interviewed!). Here's how Zurcher desperately tries to spin it. "The memo doesn't address any of this, instead opting to recount how that investigation was initiated by Peter Strzok, a senior FBI agent who has since become mired in a scandal surrounding an affair with a co-worker in which they made derogatory remarks about Mr Trump via text message on government mobile phones."
The text messages do not say "we need an insurance policy"
I didn't want to clog up the post with exact quotations: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”
In the last two days, we have witnessed an all time low in the quality of the so-called 'unbiased' coverage of news events by the BBC:1. The 'Controversial Memo'. The BBC continue to portray this is as a move made by Donald Trump to deflect attention away from the 'Trump-Russia' story. They are maintaining this stance today with the BBC News website sub-headline ...'Senior Democrats have warned President Donald Trump not to use a controversial memo as a "pretext" to fire the special counsel investigating alleged Russian involvement in the US election....2. An attempt by Kirsty Wark on News Night to pin responsibility for radicalisation of Darren Osborne onto Tommy Robinson without mentioning the BBC docudrama Three Girls which had been referred to in court proceedings as the likely trigger for his actions.3. Coverage of the violent protests against Jacob Rees-Mogg at his speaking event in Bristol. This doesn't even figure on the BBC News website Homepage. It is there on the Politics page, but the report is deliberately couched in terms which avoid attaching any blame for the violent scuffles upon masked activist thugs. Guido identifies who he thinks the perpetrators might have been.
All good examples, LC! I think the Wark interview was particularly egregious as she recently outed herself as a supporter of no borders mass migration to the UK. At least, that's the only sense I could make out of her comments. Maybe she was just virtue signalling but then she was virtue signalling in a pro no-borders way.
It really is very striking how 'Newsnight' - and much of the other BBC coverage I saw - chose NOT to focus on the BBC's 'Three Girls', despite it being the initial spark that sent Osborne off on his murderous path, and heap all the guilt-by-association on Tommy Robinson instead. The questions Kirsty Wark and Daniel Sandford put to Tommy Robinson could just as easily (and unfairly) have been put to the BBC folk behind that BBC programme.
I've been searching the BBC's use of word 'controversial' over the past couple of days on TV Eyes (on an unrelated matter) and it turns out to be everywhere on the BBC as regards that memo. It's always introduced as 'the controversial memo' or 'the controversial Republican memo' or (particularly on BBC 5Live) 'the hugely controversial memo'. They definitely do want us to think of it as a controversial memo.
Maybe 'Support our Lefty' could operate a sub-series just for the BBC? Literally.
"Controversial" nearly always indicates the BBC doesn't like something. The Joseph Rowntree Trust never come up with anything "controversial". Nor do Chatham House. Or Tell Mama. But people they don't like do. :)
It does. I might start a 'Controversy Watch' study!Seriously. The 138 uses so far this month (nearly three days now), as TV Eyes - which picks up on single words - reveals, relate to.......drum roll...Donald Trump, the conservative Polish government, Lord Tebbit, the government's Prevent Strategy, a housing scheme at Haringey Council (the one Momentum brought the Blairite Labour leader down over), and (just once) that art gallery's decision to remove that lovely Victorian painting with the topless nymphs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42926976Above article on BBC website begins with a rather odd description of the FBI-FISA model:"The memo, written by Republicans, accuses the FBI of abusing its powers."Written by "Republicans"? Er no...as far as I know the memo was written by the Chair of the House Intel Committee and its release was approved by vote of the committee, and then subsequently approved by President Trump for release...But the BBC would much prefer you to think that this is a "political spat" and this is a "Republican" memo. Don't the BBC understand the difference between party and public office? Don't they understand the difference between singular and plural?
I haven't found any mention during the BBC's investigation and coverage of the 'Controversial Memo' of The Ohrs. According to this report:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/house-intelligence-committee-releases-russia-memo-over-fbi-objections-n844026... The memo further charged that Steele was politically biased and had admitted to an associate that he was "desperate" for Trump to not win the 2016 election.In September 2016, Steele told then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr — who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein — that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." The memo also noted that Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS during the same time period "to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump.""The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC," ....
The BBC hide so much! They been working hard not to highlight the damning wording of the texts between Strojk and his DoJ lover Page re Trump and the "secret society". From what I have read about this momentous story online (sources - not MSM sources - who have been proved accurate so far), it appears that the Memo was merely the first of nine, of which 5 have been scheduled for publication.
I spy double standards from the BBC at work.First: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42934645Theresa May's plan to end intimidation in politicsHere we have a Photo of Theresa May with the usual black background. Further down, is the story ...'"The abuse I receive personally tends to come from the hard right of politics," said Labour MP Cat Smith."The organised groups tend to be Britain First, the EDL, who are very threatening," she said ...Compare this with the Andrew Marr interview and the furore over Claire Kober, .... Leader of @haringeycouncil @ClaireKober tells #marr that in the last two years, she has experienced “threats, bullying, intimidation and sexism”. “I don't believe a man would have been treated the same way” ....The bullying etc of Claire Kober, being carried out by the far-left, somehow is seen as less menacing in the BBC reports than that of Cat Smith by the far-right. The term 'Corbyn Supporters' seems to absolve this particular group.
It's very striking how the far-right is made the focus on that article rather than the far-left.
I don’t think they can quite grasp how bad the far left is, nor can their less vocal supporters. On the majority of forums, the level of abouse towards the centre and the normal right is unbelievable. Starting from calling people racist, old, Nazis etc etc you’ve all seen it.
I think they do grasp how bad they can be...but they seem them as their stormtroopers preventing any populist insurgency beyond Brexit. Your definitely correct about the abuse on forums - the stuff written on the Guardian Forums was outrageous...Brexit voters were smelly, uneducated, racist, infirm, unemployed, unemployable, fat etc...There was a strong class bias as well, ironically for a paper identified with the Left, almost as if poor working class people should not have the right to a vote as they couldn't be relied up on to deliver the correct result.
Have a read of this story on the BBC “Gender pay gap 'widens for graduates'”It reminded me of something so a quick google would suggest that it’s omotting one important fact;https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
Yes I've reference that little factette before now...oddly it hasn't had much exposure on the BBC apart from a kind of "we're moving in the right direction"...same with exam results - you would think there would be much wailing in the equality-obsessed BBC about one gender doing much better than another, but since it's women doing better, you'd think wrong! :) Likewise,you never hear the BBC bemoaning the lack of women in sewage clearance or waste collection. We need a new name for their notion of equality: femequality...crypto-equality...mock-equality...
On the BBC News channel, there was an incident of note when Jane Hill was reporting the verdict of the Darren Osborne case. On the sub-titles came the text .... 'terrorist attack' ... but out of Jane's mouth, as the sub-titles rolled in sync came the words ... 'van attack'. I have often noticed that sub-titles for the news are prepared in advance of the broadcast, as they tend to run more smoothly than real time sub-titles. Was there a meeting to discuss this news item? If so, was a decision made to alter the wording? and if so, why? The BBC have always claimed that the Finsbury Park Mosque incident was a terrorist attack. A softening of presentation?
BBC precedent is a wonderful thing.If variable.
I sat through the Mash Report last night. Can there really be anything more annoying than listening to presenter like Nish Kumar, who almost certainly enjoys more privilege that most of his viewers repeatedly banging on about “white privilege”
Can you imagine how carefully the white (not my categorising, his) people involved in the (dreadfully unfunny) show will be when talking to him? They won't be able to relax. One false word, some unintended offence against the Rules of Nish, and they would be suffering a career-ending departure from the world of light entertainment.
The BBC are gleefully reporting the major falls in the Dow Index...but not what might lie behind them. So what's it all about? Good sources who have been right about the FBI-FISA memo and related matters are reporting that it is a deliberate co-ordinated counter-attack by the globalists meant to punish Trump. Effectively a declaration of war after the FBI memo release. All sorts of weird stuff has been happening recently. But Trump has responded by (reportedly) approving official second counsel to investigate DoJ/FBI.
Zurcher on the Dow drop: "US cable news channels, which had been airing the president live, cut into their coverage to report on the record-setting day. It was a highly visible hiccup in the recent US economic success story that will be hard for most Americans to miss."He's lurving it isn't he? However often have the BBC reported in such breathy terms on the "yuge" rise in the Dow since Trump got elected? Never. When reporting on it they do so in regretful, "we'll see..." tones. The BBC are asking us to believe in a lot of coincidences: Andrew McCabe resigns just before FBI-FISA memo release (but nothing to do with it)...train carrying large number of GOP and senior military personnel gets derailed after refuse truck straddles the line (but nothing to see here, just an accident - happens all the time)...and now Dow goes into precipitous decline despite hugely positive US economic performance (yep, just another of those darn coincidences!). Well there will be a few more "coincidences" coming our way because Trump is going to appoint a second counsel to investigate the DoJ and FBI.
I am still boycotting I Player...Anyone seen this Roger Stone Hard Talk prog???: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct2knz
I am similarly an iPlayer stubborn refuser. Here's something from youtube that looks like at least part of it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cURR_xDZznQ
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/graham-grassley-christopher-steele-dossier-criminal-investigation-letter.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ruUS Senators call for criminal investigation of Christopher Steel, ex MI6 Russian specialist...Will this make the BBC US-Canada website? - not if they can populate it with trivia and Trumpophobia. :)
Sorry - Steel = Steele
See the archived piece from the Andrew Marr interview with Claire Kober:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-42936451/claire-kober-accuses-labour-members-of-sexism-and-bullyingBy concentrating on 'Labour Members' - instead of 'Corbyn Supporters' - and accusations of 'sexism and bullying', publicity for the real reason for Kober's removal from office are avoided. The 'sexism and bullying' was a means to an end - the end in question being to introduce hard-left Labour housing policies in Haringey.As indicated in earlier posts, the Sadiq Kahn London Plan speaks of introducing huge numbers of dwellings into existing suburban structures in areas such as Haringey, by upward extensions, redevelopment of existing stock and building on back gardens. Claire Kober had the similar aim of increasing housing stock, but her method was to be by the means of Borough/Developer Partnerships as an alternative to Borough financed (and owned) rebuilding. There was an orchestrated campaign by 'Corbyn Supporters' who claimed that the high rents required by the Developer in the Borough/Developer model, despite assurances of affordability, would exclude many existing residents, and future inhabitants of the area from being able to live there.The Borough financed (and owned) rebuilding model, although it may be desirable in terms of community ideals would inevitably lead to disappointment as cost and programme controls as applied ruthlessly by Developers were bureaucratised.I would have expected Marr to examine the underlying reasons for Kober's departure. After all, she must be high on the list of BBC buddies, and she should have been able to rely upon support from Marr - evidently the fear of upsetting the 'Corbyn Supporters' overrode this alliance.
The Guardian have spelt out what the likely outcome of the Labour housing policy might look like:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value... 'Labour plans to make landowners sell to state for fraction of value' ... 'Exclusive: party proposes raid on private land to cut cost of building new council houses,' ...There can be no surer way to send investors and capital elsewhere than this policy. Why do the BBC routinely avoid asking policy questions to the so-called 'Government in Waiting'?
Re: Disruption of Jacob Rees-Mogg's attempt to address students at Bristol University, a contributor to Guido yesterday posted a full clip of the incident, definitely not seen on the BBC. It shows just how courageous Rees-Mogg was. On Youtube, search for, 'Top Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg caught up in university brawl' (2:43)
I think the left liberal media including of course the BBC are having a total mental collapse over Trump...he plays them every which way and they have no response beyond doubling down on their lies.The BBC appears to have entered a catatonic state and stopped reporting on the latest revelations about FBI-Dem-Russia collusion. It's incredible stuff. But the BBC simply can't report on it as it as it creates too much inner conflict.
The BBC News website, on the US and Canada page, has a routine negative 'news' story about Donald Trump - .... This US couple decided to move to Canada after Trump became president ... ... Robin and Heather Vargas are settling into their new Canadian home. The couple left the United States in response to Donald Trump becoming president....Rather than true reporting, after some genuine investigation, the BBC have resorted to a smear campaign, sniping, seeking to associate Donald Trump with a negative story which has been selectively gathered for the purpose. Is it really newsworthy that Robin and Heather Vargas have moved to Canada?
To borrow Craig's tagline from a while ago, Accentuate the Negative, the BBC have proved true to form. ...Bank of England hints at earlier and larger rate rises...You should look much much further down the news item to read:.... The Bank noted that the global economy was expanding at the fastest pace in seven years and that the UK was benefiting from that growth........It also thinks that UK wage growth will start to pick up, giving the economy a further boost........ As a result, the Bank has raised its growth forecast for the UK economy to 1.7% this year, from its previous forecast of 1.5% made in November...And of course the Despite Brexit proviso ...But it says its forecasts are based on a "smooth" adjustment to Britain's departure from the European Union....
Just imagine if you were BBC North America reporter Anthony Zurcher. Every day you wake up...go to the bathroom...look in the mirror and tell yourself: "I'm a journalist." Then you go to work and ignore the biggest story ever of political corruption since Water gate. That's a heavy load to have to carry.
There was probably more freedom of expression and less suppression of truth under Stalin than under the BBC. That's not a joke - just a sober assessment. Some evidence:1. The Obama portraits - only acclaim...no mention that they have been subject to ridicule across social media or that many have queried why Obama chose an artist who has specialised in paintings of black women beheading white women or who has used Chinese slave workers to realise the paintings in Beijing factories. 2. The BBC refuse to mention the Florida school shooter is a self identifying Antifa and pro Syrian revolution supporter.The BBC - the UK's favourite Fake News outlet.
It's always worth looking down the BBC News website review of the newspapers. Bias comes shining through in two ways:1. There are usually two images at the top setting the tone for the review. Without exception, these will always carry stories that fit the BBC narrative. Today we have the Daily Mail - Processed Foods are driving up rates of Cancer, and The Daily Telegraph - DUP call for direct rule leaves May facing crisis.2. Stories that don't suit are generally speaking relegated further down the page, such as today's Sun story about Corbyn's past dealings. Not only that, but below the image of the front page comes a commentary from the BBC giving their own opinion - or bias. In this case: ...the Sun claims on its front page that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn met with a "communist spy" in 1986. In the paper, a Labour spokesman says Mr Corbyn met a Czech diplomat but never knowingly talked to a spy. Since then Labour has told the BBC any suggestion that Mr Corbyn was an informer for an intelligence agency is "entirely false and a ridiculous smear"....There is no need for the BBC to offer their own 'take' on this Corbyn story. We are all capable of forming our own opinion. It is the plain facts that should be reported.
I should add that apart from the reference to Corby via the Sun article, the BBC News website itself doesn't feature the story. It looks as though they are intent on shoring up the façade of Labour, a Government in waiting, whilst denying their audience the facts about a possible future PM.
There's more from the Sun on Corbyn's past today:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5590233/jeremy-corbyn-links-soviet-spy-claims-labour/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=6d0d7f3359-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-6d0d7f3359-190084149How can the BBC justify their refusal to carry this story? ...Sir Richard [Dearlove], who lead MI6 from 1999-2004, was also the Secret Intelligence Service’s head of station in Prague in the 1970s.The ex-spymaster added: “These are genuine documents which shows he was targeted and the case was advanced, at a time when a very unpleasant Czech regime was persecuting dissidents. They were the enemies of the West.“They wouldn’t have targeted him unless they believed he was a Communist fellow traveller.”...The BBC should be investigating, and informing the nation about this story. They are desperate for us to believe that Corbyn is a PM in waiting. They seem intent upon promoting the myth that surrounds Corbyn/Labour by avoiding any unwelcome truths.
There is a perfect storm brewing - it's on the radar. The Brexit process is completed by Theresa May upon a series of compromises to appease the EU. Due to splits in both major parties over Brexit and its outcome, TM suffers a vote of no confidence and a General Election is called. Labour under the Corbyn leadership is swept to victory due to frustration over Brexit and an anti Conservative sentiment. Corbyn is promptly replaced as Leader by McDonnell. Free from EU constraints, a programme of far-left policies are introduced including nationalisation of key industries. London as a global financial centre declines as investors look for a safer home for their capital. The UK fails to establish good trade deals throughout the world due to the lack of Government initiative - Labour preferring to tax heavily the existing core wealth of UK domiciles. An attempt is made to ease housing shortages by compulsory purchase of land. More and more Labour-supporting immigrants flock to London and the rest of the UK etc etc.
There is a twist here, because in order for some of the far-left policies such as nationalisation to take place, the UK must be outside the clutches of the EU. Yet, Labour/Corbyn like to play to the youth voters, who in general were pro EU. Why doesn't the BBC press for a satisfactory explanation to this paradox?
The obvious antidote to the above is the emergence of a new strength from within the Conservative leadership which demonstrates a genuine desire to carry out the wishes of the UK electorate without what appears to be a constant watering-down of the terms for Brexit in order to appease the Remainers and the EU. If Theresa May can be seen to have achieved a unity of purpose as a result of good strong leadership, and is able to force through a Brexit deal which is good for the UK's future, then she will be held in higher esteem regardless of the wavering start to her stint as PM. In that case the nightmare scenario above can be averted.And, the BBC's role in all of this? You've guessed - Anti May, Anti Brexit, Anti Conservative Government, pro Labour, pro EU, anti global trade deals, pro open borders etc. The leadership required by TM must be able to overcome the disadvantage of the UK's national broadcaster acting as a millstone round her neck, and willing the time to come when Labour/Corbyn take power.On this, there seems to be no middle ground. It's all or nothing, an effective Brexit or a return to the 1970s' Labour economic policies.
I am currently engaged in an interesting exchange with a young chap called Femi, on twitter.Femi is being pushed as the saviour of Europe by such as Alistair Campbell and Paul Mason and Lord Adonis, all frequent bbc invitees. In fact Femi May have made it into a few Bbc studios too.Femi is young and black, which still leaves one problem as he is a man.He is a man who knows his EU law, and has a mysterious source of funding that allows him to promote it endlessly.Just about every member of the Florida Bureau of Professional Engineers is in love with him, even some of the women. I know this because once Femi stopped replying to points I was making that were not on his script (the Rob Burley dodge) I started getting bombarded by #FBPE love.It would be interesting to see Femi debate with Andrew Neil rather than bbc interviewers who invite Femi on to say what Femi wants and the bbc likes to be heard.