The BBC, the Police and Tommy Sheridan

BBC lies, pro-zionist and right-wing anti-union tendencies are highlighted on this blog from time-to-time. Here is a case of outrageous bias by BBC Scotland regarding the recent trial of the ex-leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, Tommy Sheridan.

Which yet again begs the question, in what other country in the world outside of this Disunited Kingdom do the proles have to pay for a television channel which is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the ruling elite?

Saakashvili – the shame of the Western media
from Russia Today

Much to my delight, the word is getting out. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is slowly but surely being seen for what he is: a liar and an opportunist. However, my delight will never make up for the disdain I have for those among the commentariat who have protected him and covered up his lies. Western mainstream media continues to disgrace itself. And at the same time it lectures Russia about media standards. Again, we witness in front of our very eyes the death of outrage.

During Saakashvili’s war, we mostly heard from Saakashvili – not his victims or the Russian side. This of course was all so convenient for Saakashvili and his Western handlers. It was supposed to be that way. Saakashvili after all is Western – he’s “just like us.” But is he? Well, if he is just “like us,” we should be ashamed of ourselves and change – and look for better stooges to advance Washington’s neocon agenda.



The timelines are now becoming clear. Saakashvili ordered an attack against civilians he called his own. He said he “loved” the South Ossetian people and that we would never harm them. Only hours later, he attacked them in their beds – a 12-hour assault against innocent civilians. When things didn’t go the way he expected, he blamed Russia. The West’s commentariat swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. This was the commentariat’s first shame in the affair - much more follows.

To this day, Saakashvili is getting away with murder. Saakashvili started a war, with Washington’s support, and now expects a very pliant Western media to bail him out. Amazingly, and almost meeting his expectations, he nearly pulled it off. But the truth is catching up with him. Finally, there are those connecting the dots – Saakashvili has problems with dots being connected. He never really expected this. His Washington handlers in Tbilisi and the US were tasked with sanitising all of this. But it is not happening.

CNN, the BBC, Sky News, and all the American domestic networks cannot admit to their appalling coverage of Saakashvili’s preemptive war. Now they all prefer to ignore the facts that are coming to light. They simply lack the professional guts to admit they were wrong when the world needed the truth. Sadly, this is very much part of a trend.

I am pleased that at least more and more print media outlets are now reconsidering what really happened a month ago. They certainly don’t have a balanced view of Russia’s position regarding this conflict, but at least they are distancing themselves from Saakashvili’s. This is a small step towards correction and commitment to the truth.

Saakashvili is on his way out. Something tells me he won’t get the Western media coverage he wants and expects. The West’s media loves winners and morally defensible heroes. The more we learn, the less Saakashvili is either.

Peter Lavelle, Russia Today

Nazis in the BBC's Closet?

I know the BBC is nothing more than a conduit for the government's ideological sewage but I was still alarmed at the way someone in the BBC is stirring-up racial differences in Britain by highlighting that madman, Enoch Powell's, Rivers of Blood speech as it did today.

Why does the BBC have to keep on digging-up this stuff from the sewers of the British psyche? Is it the BBC's intention to revive Powell as some sort of martyred national hero in the eyes of a generation that has little or no memory of the racial strife and persecution this country went through in the 'sixties and more particularly under that very-British fascist, Margaret Thatcher?

How many black people have died and suffered at the hands of British white supremacists already? Is it the BBC's hope that they should be joined by many more in a Britain torn apart with economic and social turmoil?

As one who migrated to these islands nearly 50 years ago, I must say it in public: thanks to the BBC I have been made to feel like a Jew in Hitler's Germany.

Ol' Macky's Back in Town

Oh yes, there are certainly Nazis inside the BBC as there are in this abomination of a Nu Labor government and the Tories who are deliberately seeking to stir-up racial and nationalist turmoil with the intention of creating unrest and lawlessness so that they have an excuse to declare martial law and replace parliament altogether with a dictatorship.


The old-time Socialist, Louis Armstrong, knew exactly what he was singing about, warning the USA of McCarthyite, fascist racism!

I have said it many times before: Britain today is in a similar state to the last days of the German Weimar Republic when the Nazis were already taking over. The government has already scape-goated British Muslims as its surrogate Jews (a different slant on the traditional anti-semitism if you will). Already, anti-war campaigners are being persecuted by Britain's men-in-black. Thatcher destroyed the Trade Unions and turned Britain plc into one, vast concentration-camp.

Those who blame it all on "Europe" clearly have no idea of the domestic origins of the British police state. And while chattering on about 'national sovereignty' they forget that not only is the idea of a nation-state a feudal, capitalist concept but that any sovereignty the people had --and in imperialist Britain they never did have any-- has been superseded by a fascist state masquerading as a democracy.

And now, the BBC quite calculatedly revives the spectre of racism. It's clear to this new Jew why it is they're doing it ..

BBC: Big Brother Cooperation

It's a matter of alarm and concern that there are so many people out there who still believe that the BBC is a balanced and fair-minded source of news and current affairs. That belief was, at best ill-founded and at worst, typical of the hypocrisy of a British self-image of decency and fair-mindedness which, through that peculiarly British imperialist institution, the public school, gave succeeding generations the ideological veneer and justification for an unabashed and rapacious colonialism.

So successful were Britain's ruling classes in persuading themselves of their manifest destiny to rule --an ideology which gained serious promotion through Rudyard Kipling's obnoxious caricature of the ruled as being the White Man's burden-- that both Britain's rulers and their ruled came to believe in their own Victorian spin.

It was out of that national hypocrisy that the BBC was born in the twilight decades of Britain's decayed raj when, despite the harsh face of colonialism, a Scottish Presbyterian, Lord Reith, was canny enough to disguise the BBC's real purpose of control through the instilling of elitist values by giving it the motto, "Let Nation Speak Peace Unto Nation"!

Today, in the post-Blair vassal state of a United Kingdom itself in collapse, Reith's motto has become nothing more than an embarrassment for a corporation that is increasingly recognized as being little more than an exclusive conduit for state propaganda. The greater majority of BBC personnel may, as reports suggest, like to consider themselves to be liberal-minded nice guys but the message that Aunty puts out to the world is one of totalitarianism and brazen warmongering.

Its present, wholly one-sided, coverage of the war crime that was the invasion of Iraq and the imperialist occupation of that country and Afghanistan is just a case in point. Another is its calculated avoidance of any mention of the stolen US elections of 2000 and 2004 where the people of the United States were, in effect, hijacked by a group of robber politicians and a corrupt judiciary. Another is its continued promotion of the official Bush-instigated conspiracy theory of 911 and its silence over the extremely suspicious events surrounding that other probable conspiracy, the London bombings of 7 July 2005.

One could keep on with a long list of the BBC's embedded reportage of events emanating as straight spin from the state's sources, both in London and Washington. Keeping out any real, critical political analysis and barring its airwaves to anyone other than the apologists of the British state and its Washington boss, it stubbornly insists on promoting Neocon ideologues such as the unhinged John Bolton who is constantly given BBC airtime long after having been discredited and fired from office.


BBC's 'Bonkers' Bolton

All that is bad enough but the role that the BBC is playing is much worse and far more deceptive than that.

Using anodyne language, innuendo and subtle suggestion, the BBC inverts the reality of affairs by creating an alternative reality and reporting on that instead as the authentic world.

The British media are masters in the art of deceit, they don't distort reality so much as manufacture another version, casually dismissing the truth as an unrepresentative oddity.

Outright deception, delivered in a regular voice and pleasing prose, even and chirpy of tone, triumphs, as honesty is crowded out by the brilliant ruse that presents telling the truth not as the presence of honesty, but the absence of etiquette ..

Kola, Medialens, 28 October 2007

BBC News 24 is the corporation's flagship, satellite broadcaster of news and current affairs, hence given a razzle-dazzle imagery of up-to-date, global news reportage accompanied with the sound of an urgent, authoritative yet vibrant, drumming rhythm heard in every airport departure lounge and hometown settlement across the planet.

But, together with the rest of the corrupt BBC, News 24 is feeding you and me, twenty four seven three sixty-five, what is little more than a carefully packaged, unmitigated lie.

A case in point was News 24's recently broadcast programme in its Our World series, "Do they know who we are?" ostensibly a piece on the rapid growth of electronic surveillance technology but hidden beneath the packaging actually its promotion as something desirable that the majority of people want.

The attention span of the average viewer is no more than a few, brief seconds so the message has got to be put across in the first moments. It is then reinforced over and over with a few variations included such as an opposing view or argument which is then immediately demolished.

So this piece of surveillance promotion starts with a cheerfully upbeat version of the Harry Lime Theme from the Third Man, zither and all. This sets the mood for a positive reaction from the audience. If a negative reaction were required, the music would be appropriately anxious, even disturbing.

Almost immediately a message flashes across the screen: "75% want more security." After some impressive clips showing Silicon Valley scientists predicting the inevitability of increasingly hi-tech surveillance technology we are introduced to the 'product', in this case a Gameboy-like hand-held sensor which can detect the presence of terrorists hiding inside a building whose architecture is predictably Muslim. Even their breathing, we are told, can be sensed through walls by this wonder gadget.

Then, rather cleverly, the reporter takes us to a Muslim community in Forest Gate, London and we are reminded how the police had conducted a heavy-handed raid on "suspect terrorists" last year, leaving one man shot and wounded. If the police had been able to use these sensors, the reporter suggests, perhaps all that would have been avoidable. Makes you think doesn't it?

We are shown a group of Muslims being introduced to this technology by the reporter who, in an apparent concession to his audience, point out that there had been some immediate complaints about the imagery in the promotional video showing Muslim architecture. "But as soon as the audience were shown the technology being used in Iraq they accepted it," he claims.



He picks on a young member of the audience who says, "We don't need to worry. Anyone can watch us." And then another older man who agrees that this kind of sensor could be used for "legitimate intelligence." Thus, using recorded soundbites in a highly selective way, we see how a Muslim audience is persuaded that these highly intrusive sensors can be used in situations of war or surveillance, either against the enemy or an innocent public who should have nothing to worry about from 'legitimate intelligence'!

Strange, is it not, that a Muslim audience could be persuaded of its use in the Iraq war? You would have expected a massive, negative reaction. But no. Instead, capitalising on guilt feelings among Muslims, they are sold the product as justifiable under wartime conditions. Once this breakthrough is achieved, the audience has been softened-up enough to accept its use by police or 'legitimate intelligence' (whatever that may be!) against a public that should not worry if it has nothing to hide!

This last is regularly used by the promoters of increased surveillance technology and totalitarianization. If you've nothing to hide, why worry? Using an individual's anxiety (ie that he might have something to hide from 'the Law') and the principle of the Big Lie we are bullied into accepting further encroachments on our right to privacy.

The Big Lie is based upon the idea that most everyone tells little lies from time to time. Little lies and dishonesties are, therefore, understandable and acceptable. It's what we all do. But Big Lies, on the other hand, are neither comprehensible or acceptable. So, when subject to a Big Lie, part of us --the part which governs our 'little me', personal values-- shuts down, unable to deal with the enormity of it. But another part keeps running and is forced to come to terms with the unacceptable, to accept that as the message comes to us from a source of authority then it must, has to be, true.

This process is sometimes described by the mind manupilaters in blatant fashion as 'thinking the unthinkable', 'pushing the envelope', or put in another way which remains unsaid, of being coerced into accepting the unacceptable.

This process is called Cognitive Dissonance, the process used here to extract the appropriate soundbites from an audience made to feel guilty about the 'war on terrorism.' Well, that's ok then, we are led to think. If a Muslim audience can accept this new technology (for they do have a problem with terrorism, don't they?) then it should be perfectly acceptable to us. Again, the projection of our guilt (but we do have things in our life we prefer to keep hidden!) onto Muslims (who we know are susceptible to becoming terrorists).

The key-phrase to sum up this event was obtained from a man in his (responsible) 'thirties who agrees that such intrusive technology would be fine when used by "legitimate intelligence," meaning government authorities. Again, the phrase begs so many questions as to what is and isn't legitimate but we aren't given time to dwell on that.

Instead, we are taken to the final, reinforcing summation: there are already 4 million CCTV cameras in Britain so is our private life safe? We are then told (sources not revealed) that 75% want more surveillance and this 'fact' is borne out by an 'expert' from the US National Security Agency, a body with a suitably authoritative name (how many people would know that the NSC is a US government spy agency?)

The promotion is ended with the same upbeat introductory theme.

Neat one, eh? Being of a mischievous, cynical nature I was left wondering if the BBC got a nice little hidden backhander from some Silicon Valley manufacturer for having given airtime to this promotional piece? With government cutbacks on BBC revenue it is increasingly having to privatize and commercialize its operations. So, while doing what the government tells it to do, in this case to promote the totalitarianization of Britain, why not make a few dollars on the side?

And, I couldn't help keep thinking of those Muslims in Forest Gate, my febrile imagination hearing their repeated cries of indignation against the way so many of the audience had left that meeting, feeling that they had been utterly conned into unwittingly cooperating with a foxy Big Brother BBC.

Employees Expose Murdoch's FOX NEWS Distortions




Link

Now how about a similar exposé by the lying BBC's employees?

BBC Lies gets its Knickers in a Twist, yet Again

12 October 2007 Spinwatch The BBC is making a real hash of the Al Gore story. Today on Radio Four’s flagship lunch-time news programme, it invited Martin Livermore from the Scientific Alliance, to give an interview on Gore winning the Nobel Prize. As we have blogged on the site, the Scientific Alliance was set up by Scottish quarryman Robert Durward in 2001 to fight environmental regulations and take the sceptical line on climate change. It was one of the first “corporate front groups” to be set up in the UK. It has consistently tried to undermine climate science and networked with Exxon-funded groups in the US and UK. However rather than saying the Alliance undermines the debate on climate science, the BBC’s presenter Shaun Ley described the Alliance as “campaigning to improve the quality of debate about science”. Asked about the Nobel award to Gore, Martin Livermore the Alliance's ex-Dupont front man said that it was “not healthy” to give awards to “fashionable causes”. He also warned Gore’s award would “close down the scientific debate”. When asked about the recent legal case against Gore’s film in the UK, which had been objected to by “a parent”, Livermore said the Judge who had criticised Gore had made a “sensible decision” on a “political film” that represented “just one point of view”. What the BBC failed to do again is actually tell the listener what was going on here. To an uninformed listener it seems that the Scientific Alliance and legal action “by the parent” are completely separate. The problem is they are not. They are funded by the same person: Robert Durward, a Scottish Quarryman and chair of the New Party – which his political opponents have described as fascist. The so-called parent is Stewart Dimmock, who is a member of the New Party, a failed New Party councillor, and who has admitted being backed by the New Party in taking the legal action. So, unbeknown to the public, on the radio at lunch-time (and later on TV) the BBC interviewed an ex-chemical industry spokesman who works for a front group set up by a quarryman who was talking about a legal case that the quarryman has funded. But that’s obviously too complicated for the BBC or too insignificant a fact to tell their listeners Revealed: The Hidden Agenda Behind Al Gore Attack

The BBC's Deceit and Lies to Continue

Listening to all the chest-beating currently emanating from a self-obsessed BBC anyone would think that nothing less than a revolution in broadcasting was going on. The BBC must not deceive the audience we are told by its Director General, Mark Thompson. In future, any programme makers who deceive the public will be shown the door, he promises.

And BBC staff are going to be trained in how to be honest!

Hurrah, at last the message has got through, you may think. The BBC is going to try to be objective about news reporting!

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Truth and a promise not to deceive concerns the BBC's phone-in programmes and how it reports on Mrs Windsor Marm. In no way will it affect the lying-machine which is the BBC News.

BBC reporter, Nick Highams, commented on how the public might feel that the BBC holds its audiences in contempt. This hasn't happened, he reassures us, and we must prevent it from happening.

Bollocks.

The manner in which this miserable organization, totally dependent on a licence-fee which the population is forced to pay, treats us its audience is nothing but contemptuous. The BBC is a conduit of State propaganda and in principle no different to any other, including those in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The only difference is in its veneer of totally false British, middle-class gentility.

The BBC's deceit and lies will continue and its apparatchiks will grow fatter at the public's expense.

A Look in the Mirror
Read it here and here

First There Was an Earthquake, then There Was no Earthquake
Monday, July 16th, 2007 will not be a date that will live in infamy. Not at least within the marbled corridors and high haunts of the British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) editorial board.

Mindgames & BBC Breakfast TV

An old belief in the Soviet Union and east European countries was that if you wanted to know the truth about what was going on all you had to do was to believe the opposite of what the State media told you.

Although the BBC, in a typically middle class British manner, is less obvious hence far more underhand I find that the general principle still prevails. For when all is said and done either a piece of news reportage reflects the truth or it does not. Unfortunately for the likes of the BBC, the opportunity to tinker with facts is limited by what is actually going on in the real world and the people's received wisdom of same.

Of course, that doesn't stop it from trying to keep its masters in government and high places happy. Despite a snowball of increasing hysteria among its managers, matched only by another of despair among its staff (News Director, Helen Boaden, is quoted as saying she was aware that some staff felt "knackered and frustrated" because of their workload) the same old, mediocrities are daily trotted out to an increasingly jaded public.

Breakfast TV seems to be a good time to slip in a few subliminal messages into the communal subconscious. While folk are still half asleep, munching on toast and cornflakes, the verbal sleight of hand can have its maximum effect. Witness, for example, this morning's little foray into the land of BBC virtual reality.

With a burgeoning of CCTV spy cameras on every street corner, shop and motorway is Britain turning into a surveillance society? Now the answer to that should be obvious but that's precisely why the BBC is forced to treat the question. And treat it it does. Well, yes, but you see surveillance is really good for us because it cuts crime and terrorism, says the BBC, cashing in on a premium of fear, guilt and insecurity.

Although your data might be widely available to a score of agencies, don't worry, it's protected by the Data Protection Act. Besides which, the authorities aren't going to seek information on you unless you've done something bad.

Phew! You know, I was quite worried for a minute there. So that's all right, then, nothing to worry about. I can rest assured, knowing that my government is looking after my best interests. Big Brother is watching over me and Big Brother knows best.

And, hey, you know what? I'm comforted by a feeling that I believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden and Santa Claus too!

Notice how, in a manner Goebbels would have delighted in, the BBC uses moral guilt to hammer home the message: if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about in a surveillance society. It's the criminals and terrorists that ought to be worried. Now you're not a criminal or a terrorist are you? Are you?

Am I?

Well, I don't really know. You've got me feeling Kafkaesquely guilty now. Maybe I am a criminal and a terrorist and don't know it? Or at least maybe potentially I might be? What about all those pathological hateful thoughts I have when stuck in a traffic jam for hours? And, you know, there's times I've felt almost sympathy for those terrorists. After all, it's a fucked up world and we're all guilty of a degree of terrorism, aren't we, by allowing our governments to go on mass killing sprees abroad?

It's just so difficult to know who's innocent and who's guilty. Nothing's simple anymore so perhaps we all deserve to be constantly surveilled by all these spy cameras? And if it's reducing crime and terrorism then it's gotta be good, innit? After all, Aunty BBC like Big Brother, knows best.

(Photo: Thanks to Stef Zucconi)

Fox Outfauxed by the BBC

Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.

The BBC, though not a private corporation, must not escape criticism. Historically it has a monopolistic relationship with a British state which controls its purse strings. Though apparently at the other end of the spectrum, it exercises an equally oppressive regime against the public interest.

So bad has this become that recently a well-known Net blogger in the UK, Craig Murray, observed that whilst commenting on the Anglo-Iranian maritime dispute he was given more leeway at Murdoch's Sky News than on the BBC!

"Sky does seem to maintain a modicum of journalistic integrity. The BBC has totally lost it since Gilligan, Dyke and Hussey were sacked for telling the truth about Iraqi WMD, and David Kelly was murdered."
(Craig Murray's Blog, 5 April 2007)

There's no doubt that Murdoch's Fox distorts, lies and is dangerous to our freedoms. But if Fox is dangerous and Murdoch's Sky still has a modicum of integrity ...

What does that tell you about today's BBC?!


Link

Black Ops, Corrupt Britannia and State-sponsored Terrorism.

Extract from the BBC's Any Answers on the thorny subject of state-sponsored terrorism. For once, the truth got through!

Photos from http://www.dublinmonaghanbombings.org/

Link

Also, read this , this and this

BBC = Blair's Broadcasting Corporation

In the Blue-Pill Matrix world, the BBC is a news service which disseminates an impartial view of daily events. In the real world, it is nothing more than a shameless and servile tool of the British capitalist state and, in recent months, a mouthpiece for Tony Blair's neocon, very-British form of fascism.

This message has to be repeated over and over until the public out there are disabused of the lies perpetuated by the BBC that it is a benign teller of truths. If it tells the truth then it is very much a western capitalist, Blue-Pill version meant to accomodate the views of Britain's ruling elites. It is very much a minority truth, totally out-of-step with the vast majority of Brits who do not support its warmongering propaganda.

Far from being the benign, somewhat avuncular, cricket-loving animal it is so often portrayed as, the BBC is a very nasty, well-organised, international mouthpiece for genocide and the repression of true democracy. In other words, it remains true-to-form, a remnant of Britain's imperial past; a remnant which was taken over sixty years ago to serve the old imperialists' successor, the United States.

Hence the BBC line is more or less Washington, DC's line. A line which will change according to whoever might be occupying the White House at any given time. And when it comes to British affairs, you can be sure that there is a hotline between 10 Downing Street and the BBC Newsdesk. You and I are simply at the receiving end of this news-by-diktat.

Today, the BBC's vitriol is reserved for Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution. The BBC is giving extensive coverage to a protest that took place in Caracas over the Venezuelan government's refusal to renew the broadcasting licence of right-wing Radio Caracas TV (RCTV).

RCTV played a significant anti-Chávist role during the failed 2002 coup when it deliberately broadcast misinformation about what was going on.

During the April 2002 coup attempt RCTV was one of the main protagonists in the organization and execution of the coup. It was the first to broadcast the false claim that Chavez supporters were shooting at opposition demonstrators, which then served as a justification for high level generals to declare their disobedience to the government, also on RCTV.

RCTV then had exclusive interviews with coup plotters and the talk show host Napoleon Bravo read Chavez’s supposed resignation letter on RCTV. Later it turned out that the letter was never signed by Chavez and that he had actually not resigned at all, but had been taken into custody.

When the coup began to falter and thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in support of Chavez, RCTV refused to provide any news coverage of the developments and switched from 24-hour news coverage to the broadcasting of old cartoons and movies instead.

(Venezuelanalysis.com, 3 January 2007)

Of course, the BBC report doesn't mention any of the above. In its news release on the Net it presents the demonstration as a popular uprising of "thousands" countered only by a pro-Chávist demonstration of "hundreds." Well, anyone who has been on an anti-government march in Britain will know how good the BBC is at misreporting numbers so I, for one, will reserve my judgement on the BBC's 'hundreds' v. 'thousands' in Caracas.

The report was then carried on BBC News 24 which is satellite broadcast all over the planet. That report conspicuously omitted any mention of a counter-demo and concentrated, instead, on what appeared through the magic of the editor's cutting-room to look like the beginnings of an anti-Chávist uprising. All in the BBC's dreams.

Now, imagine the failed coup had taken place not in Caracas but --as in my own dreams-- in London. Not against Chávez but Blair and not with RCTV but the BBC. How would Tinpot Tony feel about renewing the BBC's licence?

In fact, the comparison is not far wide of the mark. The BBC, under Greg Dyke's directorship, did challenge Blair about his serial WMD lies which legitimised the invasion of Iraq. For having dared to do so, Dyke 'resigned' (he had no choice) and was replaced with one of Blair's toadies, Michael Grade. Ever since that time the BBC has been reduced to playing the part of the neocons' whoring mouthpiece.

All that took place in the Red-Pill world which the BBC is prohibited from reporting. Unlike the BBC's reactionary bosses who would find themselves out of work in an anti-capitalist revolution, Greg Dyke commented significantly on his 'resignation' that, being financially independent, he hadn't taken the director's job for the money. You can be sure that no British government will ever make a mistake like that again!

Meantime, spare a thought for all the poor souls who continue to languish in the BBC's dark satanic mills, their consciences compromised by a state not very different to the Soviet Union against which it used to rail so self-righteously during an earlier Cold War.

Parental Warning for the MSM

"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to."– Thomas Jefferson

LENIN'S TOMB is a widely-read blog that I visit daily and regular readers of my own blog will know that I sometimes reproduce articles from Tomb in their entirety.

Today's Tomb makes some acerbic comments about a blogger's code-of-conduct that is being circulated on the Net. Very suspect that, a blogger's code-of-conduct. Don't at all like the rotten whiff emanating from the fact that the BBC, the British state's propaganda mouthpiece, is promoting it quite so enthusiastically.

If bloggers are concerned about abuse, death threats &c all they have to do is to filter their feedback. Anyone who enters a public arena like the Net must expect that kind of thing, it's part of the trade.

No, we'll do without elitist codes of conduct from wimps like Mr O'Reilly whose motives are, I suspect, rather dodgy. Net freedom presupposes that blogging must remain a self-regulatory pastime.

Mr O'Reilly and the BBC, you speak for yourselves and let the rest of us be, ok?

BBC: "Keep taking the Blue Pills!"

BBC News 24, the international version of Blair TV's media war machine, has just announced a decision by the British Ministry of Defence to 'allow' the 15 navy ex-detainees to sell their stories to the press. This will only be permitted after the stories are vetted by their commanding officers!

What blatant propaganda from the British corporate state!

No intelligent person is going to believe that this is anything but another seedy attempt on behalf of the Blairite war party to sell the world a load of unmitigated bullshit making their 15 employees sound like heroes who were abused by those terrible Iranians.

It's interesting, though, that Blair and the Brits are entering the information war at this level. Clearly, they've been rattled by the way a handful of bloggers, led by ex-UK Ambassador Craig Murray, successfully challenged the lies being put out by the Ministry of Defence. The quality of Craig's information has been so spot-on that it was taken very seriously by both members of the British Foreign Office and a media otherwise servile to the Blair war party.

The Bush regime --it's not an elected government-- has, for some time, been conducting a war of disinformation through the international press and by practising cyberattacks against dissenting websites on the internet. Now, it seems, that his sidekicks in the UK are beginning to use similar methods.

BBC News 24, along with the rest of the UK media, are also making a big noise about the death of four British soldiers in a bomb-attack in Iraq. The suggestion being put out is that the bomb was supplied to the Iraqi resistance ("terrorists" according to the BBC) by Iran. This is clearly the BBC following an instruction given them by Blair to use the approach already being used by Bush's junta to whip-up anti-Iranian feeling among their respective publics prior to another horrendous war crime, this time to include nuclear weapons, in Iran.

The UK Media must be reminded, over and over again, that it is already complicit in a war crime committed against Iraq and that the enthusiastic spreading of lies and disinformation with which it is now targeting the people of Iran compounds the criminality of every one of its journalists who willingly buy into and help perpetuate the USUK's endless genocide against humanity.