Posts Tagged 'BBC spin'

New 7/7 footage: conclusive proof the 4 bombers did it.

Well no, it doesn’t, like nothing about 7/7 does,  but don’t let that stop you from allowing the BBC’s NLP telling you it does.


[A lesson in NLP tricks!]

Ben Geoghagen:

“This is really chilling footage, I would describe it John”

– BBC Journo once again expressing a personal opinion, but as a BBC journo (the BBC still, incredibly, can successfully draw upon it’s image of the informed and informative ‘trusted’ institution of Britishness), he has an open passageway into your brain, even though you’ve never het him before and know absolutely nothing about him (esp. his political leanings – or how passionate he holds those views and what what extent therefore that he will promote them)

“What you’re about to see…”

NLP ‘preparation’

“I’ll show you the first one. The first one. It’s of H.H. HE exists KX underground station and you see him going into Boots…” [footage1] time = 08:59:46  “it’s part of the property there part of the concourse”

NLP ‘expansion’


“There you can see hi actually entering the shop”

time = 9:05:54-7 (WH Smith sign seen in footage)

“What is striking about all this footage…”

[footage3 – grey] time = 09:53:13-5

“And here is him coming out of KX station onto the main concourse…”

“…what is so striking about it, is the number of people he passes as he wonders outside Kings Cross station.”

At this point the journo talks about the problems/delays/congestion on the tube that day. [back to footage3 – grey] time = 9:53:13- Note almost impossible to identify any person. And he says

“..a lot of people are on their MOBILE PHONES making calls to friends or their bosses saying they are going to be late.”

Really??? Mobile phones at 09:52:29? This is something that should be checked. Note: it’s almost assured the BBC journo didn’t check.

“and here’s H.H. walking with this rucksack amongst them and obviously they are totally oblivious to the danger they face because here’s a man whose carry a bomb on his back and a bomb which he later detonates on the No 30 Bus at Tavistock square and kills 13 people as he does so” – This is lazy pre-concluded supposition. There is no proof he did it. There has been no trial.

[Inside BMA building? footage.  Time 09:42-04. Supposed explosion on the bus at 9:42:18]

yet Bus aerial debris footage: VLW 173 time = 09:34:23 BST

Of course the “BMA? footage time and the ‘aerial blast debris time” footage is inconsistent. They differ by 7min 41seconds and TAKE A LOOK AT THE BIG TREE: The branches on the left hardly move at all. If this wasn’t ‘explained’ to you, you would have virtually no idea it was describing an explosion. There is NO obvious blast movement up or to the right on the trees left hand side. If this ‘blast debris’ was faked I’d not be surprised, esp. as there only seems to be one shot with ‘hazy blobs’ in it.

Journo goes on about

[how much footage was gone through] in order to get good evidence of the movements of this one bomber H.H.”

Who said it was ‘good’ – the journo. He’s giving you his opinion and his opinion is that it’s good. My opinion (and I’m going to cover it up that it is my opinion) is that it’s bullshit footage and it doesn’t prove anything.

“…there were cameras on some of the busses showing you footage on SOME of the busses, showing you the No 30 thirty bus that he eventually got on”

NLP again. And very clever. He ‘covers’ footage from busses, but not a peep from him about a total lack of footage is available from any specific bus he’s supposed to have gotten onto.

“to piece together his movements on that day…”

Yet more NLP commands telling you what to think. And it’s not pieced together. The timelines once again are inconsistent.

“before he detonated his device”

This is NLP ‘reinforcement’

“on that bus” – my emphasis

more ‘reinforcement’ having been told earlier about the No. 30 bus.

Not once does he expose you to anything other than it’s a ‘fact’ the these guys did it. He never said the word likely, supposed, possible or even the commonly used mild get out clause of ‘alleged”

What a terrible so-called journalist this Ben Geoghagen is. Well, that’s probably why he’s working at the BBC.

News and yet more Newz

One of these comes from a UK government funded corporation, the other from an indpendently funded news base. Guess which is which.

This gives me a sliver of opportunity to slip in some nostalgia…

The one at the bottom (the news item that is, not the kid in the video) came from the independently (non government) funded  news base the one at the top came from the government funded BBC.

Did you guess correctly?

Good. Now we’ll begin…

errr are you sitting confortably?

Here’s the URL’s if yor interested. 

Yeah I know, I could have made it tougher. I didn’t play fair – a bit like the BBC really. Well you can probably guess at what’s coming next.

The BBC… hummm where to start? Perhaps this: The BBC is a training camp for journalistic genocide. Its propaganda is flagrant and crass but that’s all it needs to be. A form of Occams razor that billows upon the masses. A presstitite  – the self employeed variety, one that actually looks sexy but inside is a utter mess.

If you are new here, yo might wondering what’s rubbing me up the wrong way? Well look at the BBC headline. Put the routing that dominates your life to the side for just a moment and look at it closely. Think about it.

Can UK US stop extremsim in Yemen?

Oh boy!

It’s implying that Yemen [yes YEMEN – the country, the coutry of 203,850 sq miles (527,970 sq km)]  has extremism in it,  the WHOLE country! If this implication isn’t delibate*, then the journalism presented is the culinary equivalent akin to a hard boiled egg. So now you think Yeme n is an exremist country what other propaganda alpha-waves enter your primed skull?

UK US. Hey, wait a minute. What the HELL does this have to do withthe UK? 
N-O-T-H-I-N-G—A-T—A-L-L    that’s what.

Are you not offended yet at what the BBC is doing to you? Are you not outraged that this disgusting filth? You should be. It’s WORSE than the Nazis! Worse? Yeah because the Nazi’s were nearly 70 years ago! WE should have learned. Actually YOU should have learned!!!! (OK they perverted your schooling – you have an atoms wothh of an excuse)

Why put the UK first? Well the rather descriptice USUK would be frowned upon, a little bit like the planet Uranus properly pronounced “Your Anus” (which is kind of funny really) is now pronunced Your-ran-us a bit like your highess (altho I think your heighness should also be pronounced “Your Anus” – if you said it quickly enough and semi-mumbled it, you might just get away with it :)

But is it really an attempt to avoid saying “YOU SUCK” No. As aluded to before it’s an attempt to rope the UK in to the next phase of the War OF  Terror – one that I think has taken most of us by surprise. It superglue’s us to the United Snakes, or AmeriKKKa as it’s somethimes known. I think I might start thinking of it as Israyhells back yard, or playgroind…. or toilet! An Iraqi friend of mine told me today he thought the US in it’s collapse will break out into a civil war. I think he’s right. The battle lines will be divided roughly between the good decnt salt of the earth people who at some stage say through the rotten corporate mainstream media  and those on the other side that eats and drinks from the Zionist banquet. Unfortantely I think the Zionist side will win and the decent people massacred (ZioMurFeDo – the martial art: The way of the Zionist Murder Fest). Those that survive will be left separating sourting out scrap metal in the FEMA camps. You know the way the Americans (and Ozzies to a degree) are damn lazy and just steal names of places like NEW York, New Orleans, New Hampshire and so on? Well I wonder if there’s a FEMA camp in New Belsen, New Treblinka to New Auschwitz. If not then in some odd way, perhaps there should be. They could twin with any three towns in the Gaza strip. They might have to forgo mutual sighseeing though – and food and water and medicine.

Getting back to “UK US” Not only that, but the question has buried in it some kind of “right” like a moral right or a human right or even a legal right to ‘sort out’ Yemen.

Man, this British BBC junk just gets worse and worse. Bury the BBC before it buried you.

Next the Swin(dl)e Flu… bt actually no comment is needed really. The headline summaries the con pretty well. Yes people died and so its orignins MUST be investigated in the public area and by independent investigators. But of course, this ain’t gonn happen. Wonder what the next lab modified virus wull be and when they will release it, supported by a whoreporate mainstream media announcing early on ‘200 dead’ and then blame others for scaremongering other than themselves. Oh, we’re back to the BBC and its newz again. And maybe next time, they’ll discuss its bird/pig.human make-up having allowed a few days to ‘discover’ its genetic charasteristcs from the time they sent it for analysis – unlike last time. hey guess what… were back at the BBC again!

Notice anything worth being concerned about?

I’ll leave you now with a snippted from the ever worthy Aletho News…

Establishment Slime Cental advertising goes one step higher

Yes once again it’s that old dung pit of political propaganda – BBC Newz. Up to its usual tricks of not reporting much of anti-establishment stories and events.

This time they are disgracefully advertising Tamiflu. Seasoned loons will need no introduction to Tamiflu, and my head is buzzing with self induced E102 and MSG poisoning to be bothered to give any lead links.

The poisoing is wearing off a bit now so here’s an article sent to Jeff Rense from from Patricia Doyle, PhD, with a title saying “Do Not Take A Swine Flu Vaccine!” 



The impression given is that Tamiflu is good to ‘cure’ swine flu. Has Tamiflu ever been tested against swine flu? Why don’t the BBC report on the medical studies of Tamiflu with swine fever? Why don’t they have a medical ‘expert’ cautioning that Tamiflu may have ZERO effect (other than to boost the share price of the makers of Tamiflu?.

I think the BBC should be investigated for possible corruption.


“In 2007, nearly 90 years after Sir Mark Sykes died, all the living descendants gave their permission to exhume his body for scientific investigation headed by virologist, Prof John Oxford…. – source

Other info:

…Professor Oxford is a prolific communicator. He also makes time to give numerous interviews on BBC Radio and Television, and is a frequent contributor to the BBC News website. Professor Oxford has published 250 scientific papers.

He is especially proud of Retroscreen Virology, which he established in 1989 with the help of EU funding. Retroscreen Virology has grown into Europe’s leading contract virology research company. Its work is dedicated to creating the next generation of antivirals and vaccines in the field of biomedical research. It is the only company in the UK able to conduct human influenza challenge studies in a specialised quarantine unit with A/Panama/2007/99 and A/New Caledonia/20/99 viruses and has characterised influenza A (H1N1 and H3N2) and B viruses. Recently the company cultivated the SARS virus in its containment laboratory and has investigated virucides and lozenges for major pharmaceutical companies.” – source


Professor Oxford then moved to Canberra to work under Professor Graeme Laver, whose work with the crystallization of the influenza protein formed the basis for the development of the Tamiflu vaccine. – source:

Well well well.

Does Oxford get money from the EU for ‘pandemic disaster management’?
Does Oxford get royalties for Tamiflu? (which as far as I know has no effect on swine flu)
Does Oxford stand the chance of making a lot from ‘preventitive action in Eurozone’?
Did does Oxford advise on what medicines to stock?
Is Oxford the Peter Power of the pharmaceutical industry?

Did Ms. Tansy Huws have it or not? And how did Tamiflu supposedly make her better?

“Tamiflu’s safety and effectiveness have not been determined in people with chronic heart or lung disease, kidney failure, or in people with high-risk underlying medical conditions…

Tamiflu has not been shown to treat flu-like illnesses caused by any virus other than influenza A and B (e.g., stomach flu, common cold, or other respiratory illnesses not caused by influenza). – source FDA,

 Why would the Mexican doctors follow up: “Couldn’t get out of bed for a WHOLE WEEK… From one minute to the next she felt nauseous and had a VERY HIGH fever.” – sounds pretty serious to me. How come Ms. Huws doesn’t actually know what she had?

Don’t take drugs so that the symptoms are clear??? After ONE WHOLE WEEK?? I think they’d be pretty clear. And if the symptoms started last Sunday (8 days ago, and you were in bed for a WHOLE WEEK, I applaud you being fit enough to contact the BBC websire and tell all – mention of Tamiflu included. Do they call it ‘Tamiflu’ in Mexico?

Do the embassies/FCO  log phone calls?

Why is Oxford digging up Mark Sykes’ body for spanish flu when they had samples of it in 2004? See here. From that article is says “they say that their work may lead to better ways to assess the potential danger of emerging flu viruses.” – Yeah and better understanding on how to use it as a weapon. There is NO scientific development that goes unlooked at for its potential as a weapon. If memory serves correct, the PNAC doc, Rebuilding America’s Defences aludes to race specific vioweapons. 

The right to believe

The fascists are out once more, jabbing the knives into the belly of those who hold contrary opinions. To these fascists, it doesn’t matter one bit, that what they perceive as an ‘offensive belief’, actually has a reasonable basis behind it.

The result? Attack the person, not the information by which that belief was established. When you see that methodology being employed, you know the knife-jabbers have lost the argument and wallow in their own ignorance.

I am of course talking about Catholic Bishop Mr. Richard Williamson.

And the repugnant BBC plays it’s part in it, providing only 1m23s clip of the Bishop exclusively devoid of the Bishop citing some of the basis that forms his belief. Funny how the BBC clip stops just before the Bishop actually goes onto the explain the rationale behind his stance. Althought, perhaps ‘funny’ isn’t quite the word!

Please compare the BBC selected portion [LINK HERE] with a more fuller(but still edited) version found on YouTube.

And as usuall from the scummy BBC, it doesn’t give any critical analysis of the interviewer who tries to put words into the Bishops mouth and/or spin what he says.

Well done to all those torch and pitchforkers for once again demonstrating how cowardly they are to debate the real issues in order for them to hide behind their zeal for cognitive homogeneity.

I’ll transcribe what the admirable rational Bishop says and post it here later.

And perhaps I’ve actually been a bit unkind accessing the variants of ‘belief’: Although the Bishop himself used the words "I believe" in this matter, really, the element of faith is rather absent. Therefore, and actually the Bishop does indicate this from what he says, he adops a "current stance" on the issue based on what he has seen. He clearly gives the impression tht if he saw stronger evidence which would support 6m Jews died ot that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who did die was a result of gassing, then he would – based on what he said – change his opinion.

That matter of course gets no airing and in places like Germany – to it’s deep shame – isn’t allowed, in some ways resembling its recent history, and it also shows there are numerous fascists still supporting Germany. Ho ho!


UPDATE: Rest assured, if you want to debate the holocaust issues (or non-holocaust issues) here then you can. There is no thought police here, unlike some other blogs. Feel free to discuss and lay-out ANY evidence you wish, (even the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion if you must – although that is heading into a side issue). Unlike other blogs where discussion is stifled, I fully encourage it. A reminder is given however that one can argue without causing deliberate offence.


The real story behind the BBC banning the appeal for blitzed Gazans?

Honourable pre-reading recommendation:
1) Retired consultant, Dr Chris Burns-Cox, calls BBC ban of Gaza appeal scandalous.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 08:00

2) In Lyons we (dis)Trust  ( BBC, Thompson, complaints, BBC petiton – all ignored.

The MPAC (UK) forum, here, reports:

In November 2005, Thompson traveled with his Jewish wife to Israel, where he held direct talks with Ariel Sharon, which were intended to let the BBC ‘build bridges with Israel’.
Mark Thompson travelled to Israel in 2005 with his wife Jane Blumberg who is Jewish.’…on-517400.html – and his wife is an extreme Zionist. The BBC is Occupied Territory. It’s not clear if he regards Palestinians as animals or humans. – NominalActor (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

this factual statement has already been removed several times by the zionist cabul on wikipedia 

The above sentence comes up in search but is missing in the article. Why was it removed, is it factually incorrect? –Wool Bridge (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He has had talks with Ariel Sharon –

Is this why the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) Gaza Aid Appeal that wasn’t broadcast by the BBC? (BSKYB,  being Zionist freindly MurdochCorp unsurprizingly followed suit). Other discussion HERE on World Press Network.

Seems likely to me. The swines. The BBC is well known for its pro-Israyhell bias but I never thought a connection to the Godforsaken thieved state of occupation was so blunt.

Wiki says this about Mr. Thompson:

“Later that day he told BBC staff, via an internal televised message[6], that deception of the public was never acceptable. “ source

From which we can conclude Mark is quite open about his Zionist leanings.

Have your say (I certainly will) – The paradox of thrift


Page last updated at 15:09 GMT, Monday, 24 November 2008
 E-mail this to a friend   Printable version 

The paradox of thrift

By Steve Schifferes
Economics reporter, BBC News 
Retail sales fell for a second month in a row
Should we save or should we spend?

Ed: Yes, bipolarise the issue. Well done.

It’s gloomy out there. The economy is shrinking, property values are falling and stock markets are in the doldrums.

Ed: It’s gloomy because the crappy economic ‘system’ has been welded onto most of our lives. If it never impinged upon us, there wouldn’t be any ‘gloom’. 

Many people borrowed heavily during the boom, and now are tempted to pay off debt or save more for a rainy day – something which until now has not characterised the behaviour of UK consumers.

Ed: They borrowed on interest to make more money. Granted, many have never had the opportunity to discover the harm this practice causes, but many others knew, and simply don’t give a damn. Who is tempted to pay off the debt? Do you mean the new jobless or homeless? Do you mean the remaining house owners who now have lower rates of interest on their loans? Who? And what debt? The untouchable personally unpayable debt the governmenthas saddled us with ‘bailouts’ etc?

 But if this happens, will the government’s plan to boost the economy through greater spending work?

Ed: Wait a minute. How can we spend more, if saving has never characterised the behaviour of UK consumers.??


Paradox of thrift

Because thrift may be a virtue for the individual, but could damage the economy as a whole, according to the economist John Maynard Keynes, writing in the midst of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Ed: thrift as I understand it means cautious non-wasteful (prudential) money management – leaning towards the savings / nest-eggs. Aaah. Now we see where this article is going… guess what? It follows the government line they’ve recently been chanting “spend, spend, spend”

He called it the paradox of thrift. The more people saved, the more they reduced effective demand, thus further slowing the economy.

Ed: Well, mixed in with this is the “as demand increases, price increases” – and more money changes hands. Therefore, it’s “good” for “the economy” – translated means: It’s good for those who increase the financial distance between them and most other people. But this ultimately (and fairly rapidly) harms the people at the bottom tier of the financial pyramid who end up paying for that greed.

The virtue of ‘spending’ is only that it prevents potholes for this frankly speaking, rather nasty economic system during its operation. Why milk the ‘high demand’ opportunity to extract higher fees? What if we didn’t? Don’t you think the consequences would be a lot more pleasant for virtually everyone on the planet other than those at the top? Or isn’t Democracy supposed to permeate to this extent?

So yeah, if you save of course you’ll harm the greedy system. Mais oui!

This was one reason, he pointed out, that a recession can become self-reinforcing.

Ed: Message = save and (they say) you’ll make things worse therefore spend

Keynes also argued that, faced with slowing demand, businesses would not necessarily use the extra savings available in the economy to invest.

 Ed: Didn’t Keynes every say anythingin favour of saving? The appearance offered is that he didn’t.

In the Keynesian theory, as the slump in demand cascaded through the economy, the resulting slowdown would mean that everyone had less income – ultimately reducing the absolute amount of savings, even if people increase the proportion of their income they put aside.

 Ed: Guess no-one sees fit to mention that in the normal economy, the value of money has plummeted and that today even before the ‘sub-prime’ initial signaling that the scam was to take a new vibrant direction, that people today (and governments) are today in debt on a massive scale that simply dwarfs any debt help say 100 years ago. That’s right folks, the ‘fraud economy’ sucked you into a hole. All you are being offered is a burning rope to clamber into yet another deeper hole. BBC quality and balanced reporting you see.

As unemployment grew, investment would fall, whatever the level of savings.

Ed: I’m incredibly old fashioned, because I believe if a business makes a profit, then it is a worthy enterprise and should keep ticking along – employees included. But that’s just silly me. If I had any contempory financial respectability, I would cut jobs the moment successive year on year INCREASE IN PROFITS took a downturn.


Government help needed 
The government has slashed interest rates in a bid to boost spending.

Ed: Aaah. So far, ‘probems’ (savings) have been discussed because of YOU!. Now Government is mentioned with the word “help”, previously when ‘government’ was mentioned, it was accompanied with the word “boost” – Get the message folks?

 But how can we persuade the reluctant consumer to spend, and the reluctant businessman to invest?

Ed: So, one man, albeit a very insightful and textualising man, and some tiny portion of what he said has sealed the argument. ‘Saving is the big bad” – And don’t forget we still haven’t been offered any of Keynes’s insights as to virtues of saving {if indeed he had any}.

Keynes’ answer was that it was only the government that could overcome the collective paradox: what was good for the individual would weaken the economy.

Ed: Government good, Person bad. Oh, and who got us into this recession in the first place? Either by active participation in it (enticing interest rates, bailouts, massive overpayment for nationalising something engaged in fraudulent practices anyone?) or by failure to create regulate to prevent it from happening in the first place? Well, I guess as I have been told that it’s the people who are bad, then it must be them then! 

This is now the theory being embraced by the chancellor, who has abandoned his fiscal rules for the time being in order to pour money back into the economy.

 Ed: “Rules” that lead to….?  {Rules for us, opportunities and loop holes for ‘them}

And cuts in interest rates by the Bank of England are also designed to encourage businesses to continue to invest.

 Ed: Invest? Oopps, this is the age of leverage – I almost forgot. Being old fashioned I slipped into ‘old’ mode of imagining investment was done with real, tangeable savings. ‘Move over old git’ I hear. P.s. {Rules for us, opportunities and loop holes for ‘them}

But this is not very effective, because credit markets are in deep freeze. As a result, it is even more important to inject cash into the economy – at least according to Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England.

 Ed: anyone else feel like declaring and participating in freezing something that doesn’t really exists either? If enough of us do it, we’ll probably get a nice big payout for fear of collapsing the meaningless imaginary system? Yoo Hoo! Who’s in?


Spectre of deflation

There is another reason why the government wants to give a jolt to the economy now.

It is the fear that prices will actually start to fall as the slowdown gets going.

And deflation – falling prices – would certainly reinforce the paradox of thrift.

Ed: Can’t have those darkies and others we’ve already cut of of the system from being able to afford anything again can we? You see, once gain, falling prices only ‘hurt’ the vultures that were already doing very nicely from the situation before. You know, people who fund those lovely political parties of ours and own fine Tuscany based yachts for us to sip champagne on. We must help those suffering people.

If consumers expect prices to drop further in the future, then they have an even stronger incentive to delay their purchases until later, when they can benefit from lower prices.

 Ed: I went to the canteen today. Strangely they were selling food. I wonder if I should have gone up to the owner and said “You know, you could save money if you didn’t buy any food today but waited for the price drop in a couple of days.” Somehow, I can’t quite place why, but I don’t think she’d be all that impressed.

Deflation, especially in asset prices like houses, can be very long-lasting and hugely damaging to the economy, as recent experience in Japan suggests.

 Ed: Yes, better keep those house prices a ‘risin. Can’t have people breaking free of the 20 year debt now can we? Or those who buy simply to make more money out of peoples need. Deflation, like you = evil being! Can’t have a law that says “A house can only cost £500” 

So one reason the government may want to temporarily cut VAT now is to convince people that prices are going to go up later, thus encouraging them to spend.

Ed: And of course, they have looked at problems that arise from this, like the effect on the poor. they did look at the effect on the poor – didn’t they? Anyone?.


Rational expectations

Will these measures work?

One reason Keynesian explanations of the economy fell out of favour in the last few decades was the rise of a new economic theory – rational expectations.

Ed: But you’ve just finished advocating ‘spend spend spend’ based on a very small seciton of this one mans empirical evidence of a greed based, elite serving, manipulated system. And no doubt your readers were beginning to convince themselves that what they were reading was correct.

This argued that people were aware that any government borrowing would have to be paid back later. As a result they adjust their expectations accordingly, and do not spend as much as predicted.

Ed: So the government, in trying to get people to spend, never heard of this ‘new’ theory or paid it little/no attention?

Since this time, the government will be signalling its intentions to claw back the money it spends in future budgets,…

Ed: Aaah! The government is going to ‘save’. No comment on negative implications of this?

…perhaps we will all save more to cover our future loss of income.

Ed: People obviously need income to pay their expenses. They only need to save for when they want to purchase something of significant cost, to provide some security for ill health or as security for when the inherently fraudulent system belches. If their needs were constantly met by a guaranteed ability to acquire income, if houses were made to cost £500, cars (which really we should design life to avoid having to use) the same, free or near-free schooling and health treatment then nobody would need to save. Really! Are we so stupid we can’t design an economic system that negates the need to save? Of course we can, it’s just that people throughout history who have considered themselves as being superior to others, have implemented a system which maintains that relationship. Worst of all, we have stupidly allowed it to survive.

This theory may well apply to the financial markets, which are making the price of UK debt more expensive on the grounds it is likely to expand dramatically.

Ed: They make it more expensive by lowering interest rates? Mmmm! But of these ‘markets’; they certainly aren’t the kind of markets I would like to see – and lets stop calling them ‘markets’ – giving them the veneer of respectability – and call them for what they really are… Gambling dens. Given my way these ‘markets’ would be scrapped. Only those markets in harmony with catering for the needs of ordinary people proper markets should be allowed to survive. 

But the psychology of individuals may be different.

In the first place, some people may not be able save much whatever their expectations. Money that goes to pensioners surviving on the state pension, for example, may go straight into spending.

And some psychological research suggests that people do not “discount” very effectively in the long term.

So we may be under-estimating the attractiveness of spending even in the midst of a recession.

Returning to the single source, ‘murder hole’ of Keynesian ‘philisophy’, telling you not to save in the first place. I wonder if anyone has heard of aspect of psychological that identifies ‘if a lie is repeated often enough, it will be believed’. Notice the ‘may’. This is the ‘guilt free’ clause published so that then people believe this article and spend for the ‘good of the economy’ whatever that means (it usually means ‘help rich people stay rich’) then when they have no money and even more debt the BBC can say ‘Well, we didn’t say it WOULD help’.

This, at least, has to be the government’s hope as it embarks on its most audacious economic U-turn since Labour came to office in 1997.

Ed: Here we go again. “Government” and “hope”. Do these BBC journo’s take psychology lessons? Given the reference to it in the article and the fact this ‘economic financial system’ (read: ‘economic scam’) as well as political system does rely on fear and mind games, you would have to say ‘yes, they probably do’.

My opinion is: If the BBC are advocating spend, then its probably better not to. The BBC Newz department is simply an outlet for government spin, Newz heavily overlaps with finance of course, and I think it’s safe to say from a cursory examination of (particularly)modern government policy, they don’t give a damn about you – in fact they want to screw you, unless of course you happen to be of reasonale wealth. In that case, they love you.

What’s YOUR view? Have YOUR say!

BBC – Nothing short of sick.

The BBC has once again exceeded itself and pushed the boat out further than ever before – further into the river Styx. The well thumbed “BBC book of propaganda” has been exercised to paint a rosy picture of the killing of over 1,000,000 Iraqi people and over 2,000,000 refugees.

Naturally without a hint of criticism, the BBC reports, BuSh’s 5 year statement in which he describes the fulfilment of his lust for slaughter as being “just”.

In case you didn’t know, it is just to make supersonic jagged shards of white hot metal penetrate the eyes, brain, belly and hearts of babies who have just began to use those body parts to see the world and to begin to marvel at it. It is just for shockwaves to rip the flesh and skin straight off the bone and bone from joints. It is just to torture people, rape them, post the rape pictures on the internet, freeze people to death on ice, make them masturbate or suffer torture only to torture them for a laugh afterwards in any case.

Neocon, neojust.

I can imagine, like a rabid Doberman, the congealing saliva dripping from the mouths of the BBC’s news directors must have been flowing copiously at the realisation that the 5th anniversary would grant them yet another opportunity to lie to the masses and cast its poisoned apologetic whitewash upon the masses.

I forced myself to watch some of BBC Worlds news on the matter, so that there would be at least someone who pointed out the filth they peddled and refused to let this disgrace of a news organisation, silently get away with it

They didn’t disappoint my expectations.

Que some young hack, who perhaps coincidently, seemed to resemble a former BBC Iraq “correspondent” Paul Wood… or perhaps it isn’t coincidence. Let me diverge briefly and remind you that Paul Wood didn’t report the genocide in Fallujah in which its inhabitants were showered with white phosphorous and the city itself devastated, because as the embedded Mr Wood said, he “didn’t see it”. That this modern day Halabjah, its very clear breach of international law as well as a total abandonment of even the slightest trace of morality was effectively covered up by people mile Paul Wood doesn’t matter, neither then, should it matter to you. Right?

Back to the young Mr. Wood wannabe – the young hack, whose name I spent no effort to remember[1], eager to climb the blood and grease soaked journo pole, he was “interviewing” some throwaway US puppet with the rather laughable title of “Minister for Reconciliation.” The “interview” took place in the city of the American Embassy in Baghdad – the green zone – where it is reported by many real journalists, that BBC correspondents operate almost exclusively in there and therefore report their news about Iraq, courteously of US military press releases and handouts. Strangely enough, the bland puppet paints the picture that it isn’t the fault of the ‘Coalition of the Killing’ but that of sectarianism and  the all singing all dancing “Al-Kyeda”

And although I was only half listening to the latest US puppet wheeled in front of BBC budget cameras, it appeared that he almost finished saying the word nuclear and then temporary blip in the transmission occurred and then the minister started talking about Hamas and Fatah.

Bridget Kendall also chipped in to the force dejour against everyone except the British and the Americans. One thing she said related to those that died. She described people who had been brutally killed at the hands of sectarian violence or “Al-Kyeda”. The sense of déjà vu didn’t pass unnoticed. What she didn’t do, was put any attention onto those that died at the hands of the USans or the British. Iraqi’s you see, don’t die at the hands of the occidentals, but are strangely prone to dying at the hands of sectarian paramilitaries or Al-Kyeda.

Even if Ms. Kendall did report it, which she DIDN’T, (the BBC’s tactic is to lie by omission – a tactics are well known to observers of what they call “BBC news” – seemingly in the Freudian slipwise fashion) then the BBC would likely paint it in the same fashion that Dick Cheney did when it was put to him that he and the US administration defied the wish of most of the American public about the Iraq war. “SO?” he retorted.

Ms. Kendall went on said many Iraqi’s fled the violence into Kurdistan. Ho ho ho! Kurdistan??? Methinks Ms. Kendal has done a Jane Standly with a bit of pre-emptive news. Kurdistan of course being the fake state that Turkey will set up (with a “fully independent” leader of course) to solve the Kurdish “problem”. It matters not that Turkish troops will continue to use their permanent bases in North Iraq and build roads to allow its armour and infantry to shell Kurdish villagers more easily.

Ms. Kendall tried to brush over the WMD lies, saying inspection teams after the war was underway, “didn’t find” them! Gurrrrr!!!! The impression to the casual viewer is that there WERE there just not found. She mentioned NOTHING about Scott Ritter who is widely reported (but not on the BBC) to have said something like all but about 20 items had been accounted, but his bosses told him even if they were found, they would never be accounted for, i.e.  the WMD excuse was precisely that – an excuse to invade Iraq. Not a peep about the Al Kayda lie, nor BBC lies about Saddam detonating a nuclear test warhead, nor of anthrax and other bio (and chemo) warfare agents. NOTHING.

The BBC also showed the toppling of the Saddam Statue in Baghdad[2], which seems to me has a number of outstanding questions raised about it being a stage managed stunt, with Mr megaclutz, Ahmad Chalabi’s rent-a-mob following a script while the American baby killers blocked off the area to ordinary people, which not surprisingly the BBC camera’s never bothered to show.

Perhaps worst of all was the horrific attempt by Hugh Sykes to reassure us that it was all worth it. He stood in front of a small children’s climbing frame and a couple of other playground items (recently put there no doubt – drawing upon knowledge of the history of western propaganda) and said “it feels better now” – an utterly revolting lie to try and bleach away the blood and misery of the Iraqi people who have been suffering for over 17 years.

Later a BBC studio news reader reported the war killed QUOTE: “10’s of thousands” – WHAT??? This paints a picture of between 20,000 and 90,000 were killed. Even the Iraq health ministry reports over 100,000. Al Jazeera earlier reported the Lancets 655,000 figure published a couple of years ago. This made me angry as a follow up report put that figure at over 1,000,000 – One million, however Al Jazeera later put the one million figure on its bottom screen ‘news bites’.

BBC news disgusts me. Al Jazeera on the other hand put this out called “The Deserter” on its “Witness” programme, hosted by Ragae Omar (an ex-BBC journo quirkily enough)

Part one:

Part two:

The difference in quality news/politics by a modest news organisation like AJE compared to the mega-rich BBC is astounding. AJE consistently beats BBC in many aspects. The BBC should give up news altogether and stick to light entertainment – It’s good at trivial stuff, but then again, I supposes it’s excellent at bring a channel for British Govt Propaganda.

As I end this I will point out that the BBC has NEVER broadcasted the alternative side by say featuring an interview with the legitimate Iraqi resistance. It’s ALWAYS putting some pro-war, pro-death advocate on and perhaps, if you are lucky, some trivial dude who complains that the noise at night time is worse than it used to be. Neither do they show successful operations against the invading murderers who have poisoned their land.

As I say in the title, the BBC is nothing short of sick.

[1] In a later “BBC news” report, anchorwoman Luise Ducette, introduced Adam Brookes, speaking from “Camp Victory” in Baghdad  talking to two Lt Colonels of the 101st Airborne. This was the young hack I mentioned above. My eyes were drawn to his name and his unremarkable persona, having already written the paragraphs about him earlier. One USan Lt Colonels said something like Iraqi children remind him of American children and they can’t leave now because of them. Stupid tosser. His presence and men are the ones who have killed HUGE numbers of Iraqi kids. But hey, this is the BBC here, this is Adam Brookes, this is USan soldiers, this is an “interview” to show us the USans are the ‘good guys’

[2] In the same report as [1], Luise Ducette, introduced another story of a man who hammered away at the Saddam Statue shortly before it toppled on Apr 9 2003. Lucky they were able to find him isn’t it? The man, {I only caught his first name} Khadam, was a mechanic of cars like Hondas as well as Harley Davidson motorbikes (yes you read that correctly, Harley Davidson motorbikes in iraq). The BBC aired his grim view. I think he said he felt betrayal by the US. He also complained about the irregular water and electricity.

Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
March 2023