MH370: Why Would People Believe Fairy Stories

As new media began to scoff at the latest episode in the Flight MH370 saga, one ‘aviation expert’ who is on the United Nations payroll sneered, “Of course even now some people will not believe this find proves the plane went down where we said it did.

Well I’m not up to speed on this one, having been preoccupied writing fiction, but it did strike me ass interesting that the official version had the plane going into the water to the south west of western Australia. And the wreckage was washed up on Reunion Island, near Madagascar (and Diego Garcia) on the other side of the Indian Ocean.

Having noted that point I shrugged and moved on, leaving it to the relatives of the Flight MH370 dead to point out the peoblems with this latest bucket of whitewash thrown into the Indian Ocean. And one of them duly obliged to the chagrin of the interviewer on BBC Radion 4 today. The Tap reports:

“On BBC Radio 4 this morning, one of family representatives said they are not yet convinced the flapperon is from MH370. James Naugtie tried to steamroller her into saying it was, but she resisted.
If it was supposed to have crashed into a 4 mile deep area of the Indian Ocean, and it took 5 men to lift it, what kind of currents and forces were supposed to allow it to wash up on a beach?”

Yeah …

RELATED POSTS:

Massive Explosion in China: Do We Know the Full Story?
The massive explosion at a chemical plant in the city of Tianjin in northern China was a shocking eveny by any standard. But as usual in recent years, once the initial horror recedes the unfortunate accident narrative starts to unravel. The first thing we notice is that the disaster is very convenient for certain parties, the second is that official news reports just don’t make sense, and the third is that eye witness reports contradict the edited news stories. Now read on …

BBC home of pro – EU propaganda in Britain hid EU funding

MPs attack BBC for its ‘biased EU reporting’:

Corporation accused of ‘falling down severely’ in its obligation to provide impartial coverage.

A report published last Wednesday revealed that the House Of Commons European Scrutiny Committee criticized BBC News about the manner in which the it was treating EU issues.

The Parliamentary all party group strongly published strongly worded warning that the BBC’s coverage of news concerning the European Union was not giving fair attention to the views of people in Britain who think the country should quit the EU.

The European Scrutiny Committee is a select committee of the UK Parliament, assessing and debating the legal and political importance of each EU document and reviewing procedural and institutional developments in the European Union. One paragraph read “The Committee concludes that the BBC has not yet demonstrated that it commands wide confidence in its coverage of the EU.”

The report is a follow-up to November 2013 recommendations to the BBC over its coverage of EU related proceedings in the House of Commons, as well as wider EU issues.

The Committee questioned Chairman of the BBC Trust Rona Fairhead in January, and Lord Hall, Director-General of the BBC, in March, about how the broadcaster was dealing with EU issues.

Hall appeared before the Committee after refusing the invitation three times, which according to the report, is deeply regrettable, as it delayed the session.

Read more:

Here’s a snippet from an article published in The Spectator about a year ago, which drew attention to the increasing pro – EU bias in the BBC’s reporting of European political affairs.

Over the last three years the BBC has secretly obtained millions of pounds in grants from the European Union. Licence fee payers might assume that the Corporation would have been compelled to disclose the source of this money in its annual reports, but they bear no trace of it specifically. In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’.

Instead of making an open declaration, the BBC’s successful lobbying for this money had to be prised out of it using a Freedom of Information (FoI) request lodged for The Spectator, proving that there was never any danger of the state broadcaster’s bosses volunteering it willingly.

The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming.

Next to the £3.65 billion tax-free income that the BBC receives each year via the licence fee, £3 million is, admittedly, a mere speck of dust – just 0.8 per cent of its annual guaranteed revenue and, obviously, even less than that when spread over 36 months.

However, the size of these EU gifts is arguably irrelevant, even though they are indicative of the BBC’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for public money. What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.

read full story

RELATED POSTS:

Corruption: Paraphrasing Johnny Rotten, ‘Never trust a fahkin’ liberal’
As the ‘liberal supporters of Barack Obama’s hapless presidency and more recently the US Democratic Party’s 2016 failed candidate ‘Crooked Hillary’ Clinton whip themselves into an ever greater frenzy over the hugely entertaining antic of President Trump, An editorial at Investors Business Daily may end up being considered by historians as defining exactly why the Obama administration failed so catastrophically …

BBC scandal – Breast beating, politically correct broadcaster has links to gangters, banksters and the arms trade
As news leaks out from the inner sanctums of the BBC about cronyism and corruption in the corporations management structure, people are starting to wonder if the Clarkson fiasco was engineered to deflect attention from the way the BBC has been infiltrated by corporate business, and the linked issue of political bias in its news coverage of the election campaign.

BBC Reporter Almost Killed by Ukrainian Shell While Accusing Rebels of Shelling

Now who was it among my readers was about six months ago accused be of taking the side of evil against the good guys in Ukraine, when I (rightly as it turned out although it will never be officially admitted) wrote that the group most likely to have shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was the Ukrainian Government in Kiev, the neo – fascist government installed after the USA / NATO / EU coup d’etat deposed the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government.

I was further accused of being in love with Vladimir Putin and Nigel Farage (now come on, I might have been a prodigious shagger in my youth but I had taste) and supporting war, being a right wing nut job and someone who goes to a lot of tea parties (I never worked that one out).

All this from people on the part of the political spectrum who like to assume they have a monopoly in intelligence and reason.

Was I wrong to present the case of the pro – Russian separatists in Ukraine against the Obama backed Nazi thugs. Anyone who has followed the progress of Kiev’s genocide campaign against ethnic Russians in Ukraine will not think so, but those who believe the globalist propaganda pumped out by mainstream media might still have trouble believing the USA is the real bad guy. This could help them however …

BBC Reporter Almost Killed by Ukrainian Shell While Accusing Rebels of Shelling

In one more incredibly biased TV report from the Donetsk airport, a BBC journalist started accusing Donetsk self defense forces of breaking the ceasefire while almost getting killed by a Ukrainian “peace-loving” sticking-to-ceasefire shell.

First, Ian Pannell, international BBC corespondent, implicitly accuses rebels of a “scorched earth policy”. (Why would they do that when they’re winning?)

Than in an almost surreal moment while saying that artillery fire “appears” to be mostly “outgoing”, there’s a clear and visible evidence of incoming Ukrainian fire, resulting in an dangerous explosion extremely close to and directly behind him.

Fortunately enough “outgoing fire” hasn’t landed on his head.

It is even more unbelievable that only moments after surviving Ukrainian shelling, the BBC reporter, instead of stating the obvious—that they were almost killed by Ukrainian shelling—has the audacity to state ludicrous claims that rebels are shelling themselves; thus implicitly backing up Ukrainian point of view.

So it seems that “Russian terrorists” are still shelling themselves? We remember Lugansk and pro-Ukrainian media claims that a “terrorist missile” hit an air-conditioner in the administration building, thus killing themselves; or the Odessa massacre where “Russian terrorists” were throwing Molotov cocktails from the rooftop and burned themselves alive.

To certain extent, we feel compassion with BBC employees since they need to stick to the official Westminster propaganda line (“It’s always Russia’s fault”) or risk being demoted or losing their jobs.

If you want to go up the career ladder, self-imposed censorship is a must for every journalist working in the Western mainstream media.

BBC Admits Right Wing Extremists Led ‘Revolution’ In Ukraine

A BBC Newsnight report sub titled, “Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine,” reveals anti – Semitic and anto Russian nationalists armeded by the west (FUKUS axis) and led the mobs in Kiev. This is a direct contradiction of the months of Western media narratives portraying the “revolutionaries” as brave freedom fighters who only aspired to live in a progressive democracy where gay rights were given greater priority than sorting out the crippled economy. The rebels call for “freedom,” “democracy,” and “closer ties with the West,” with the most absurd example being the “I am Ukrainian” propaganda reel were just fictions invented by “Drop The Dead Donkey” style european and American reporters who believe their job is to make the news rather than simply report it.

As with the West’s support of sectarian terrorists across the Middle East, including Al Qaeda and those “progresive liberal” human organ noshing extremists in Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt who showed their support for liberal justice by carrying out summary roadside crucifixions of Coptic Christians, UK, EU and US agents found the most despicable elements in Ukrainian society to lead “revolution” for the sociopolitical reordering of Eastern Europe.

As the dust settles and the West’s proxy regime finds itself safely entrenched in Kiev, Ukraine – the Western media can now finally recuperate some of its lost legitimacy after months of denying the obvious – that armed Neo-Nazis led the so-called “Euromaidan” uprising.

Far from a “pro-democracy” uprising, the “Euromaidan” was yet another case of Western engineered regime change leveraging the good intentions of the ill-informed to mask the covert backing of ugly armed extremists, just as it had done all across the similarly engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011.

We are at war, but not with Islam, China, Iran or Russia, our enemies are our own governments and elites.

The Decline And Fall Of Broadcast Media

Blogger Frank Davis has a fine article online today, here’s a sample:

Norman Tebbit, one time chairman of the Conservative party, and no friend of the BBC, writes:

Contrary to what many of my critics believe, I regard the BBC as a valuable national institution, which served us well over many years. Its principal failures have sprung from an inbred culture which evolved into a censorship of dissident voices. Its habit of recruiting from a narrow range of political – and of late, politically correct – thought has led to a damaging arrogance.

Well, he’s quite right about the inbred culture recruited from a narrow range of the political spectrum. But, in my experience, this isn’t anything new: the BBC has always been left wing. It was when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the 1980s, 30 years ago. But would it be any better if it was right wing? And precisely why is it a “valuable national institution”?

he crisis is the inevitable result of media professionals, like politicians no longer living in the same universe as us mere mortals, I’d say.

How’s About That Then?

Can anybody tell me why we need an enquiry into the Jimmy Saville affair?

Do we need an enquiry because forty years ago it was an accepted part of life that people in positions of authority abused that authority?

I left school in ’74 and entered the workplace, a slightly naive 16 year old.

It wasn’t long before a (married) friend of my Dad’s was offering me a lift home and then stopping in a lay-by hoping for a snog and a grope.
At least he had the decency to take ‘no’ for an answer.

Then there was the chap I worked with who was well over twice my age (also married), in fact he would have been about as old as my Dad, so nearly forty years older than me, making improper suggestions including going to stay at his house whilst his missus was away.

And so it went on, culminating in my boss at the time pinning me up against the pipework when we were alone in the building and saying -got to admit this is one hell of a smooth chat up line, there again he was Welsh, (married and slightly more than twice my age)- “I’ve wanted to fuck you since the day I first saw you.”

When I politely declined he made my life a misery until the point where I could stand it no longer and left. Obviously if I would have accepted this charming offer I would have enjoyed a shining career, or maybe not.

And bear in mind I wouldn’t class myself as, to use one of Dad’s favourite phrases, “a raving beauty”.

It certainly wasn’t unusual for such behaviour in the workplace, and lets face it people with power do use that power to get what they want, always have done and probably to a certain extent always will.

And there will always be those who go along with it for their own ends.
Ever heard of the casting couch? How about wealthy older men with their trophy wives? Rock stars and groupies? Premier League footballers “roasting” sessions? These girls are willing participants, pursuing their own agendas.

So at the BBC in the late sixties through to the eighties the morals of the employees were a bit loose.

And you can say that the girls Jim was fixing it for were underage, but as I recall in my early teens we all wanted to look and be taken for older than we were. We lied about our ages to get into ‘X’ films, discos, the pub. Having watched my daughter and her friends go through exactly the same processes I don’t think anything has changed much there. We didn’t want to go out with boys our own age cos they were so immature. We wanted to go out with men and be treated like women. Some girls probably knew that to be treated like a woman you had to be willing to behave like a woman, and some would not.

So why do we need an enquiry into it?

You may as well have an enquiry into servants seduced by their employers in Victorian and Edwardian times.

It was what happened at the time.

Hopefully it would not be tolerated today, by colleagues, by “victims”, by all the people who knew about this open secret, because now we all know about child abuse, grooming, paedophillia, sexual abuse, harrassment, bigotry and discrimination. We all know and should not be too shy to say when something isn’t right. We know there are people we can talk to and to complain to should the need arise.

Perhaps the inquiry should be looking into whether the behaviour prevalent amongst its presenters forty years ago is still prevalent now. That would be something.
If it was then perhaps there could be some discussion of how to prevent it.

I’ll give you the advice we gave to SezJez.

Don’t put yourself in situations you can’t easily get out off, e.g. don’t let yourself end up in a bedroom with a boy at a party unless you want to get laid.

Don’t lose control, i.e. don’t get so drunk, off your face, that you don’t know what is happening to you.

Most importantly REMEMBER NO MATTER HOW NICE THEY SEEM ALL MEN WANT TO DO IS GET INSIDE YOUR KNICKERS.

Unfortunately not many teenagers heed such warnings.

So perhaps instead of spending money on a pointless inquiry that will conclude that sex was a central part of the BBC a reasonably long time ago the money would be better spent educating youngsters to have a bit more self respect and realistic expectations.

That could be achieved by having some old codger dress up as Jimmy Saville and stick his tongue down their throats.

Certainly be enough to put aanybody off I would have thought.

I’n’t Stephen Poliakoff Brilliant

For the first time in months I really enjoyed something on television (well, apart from the Rugby of course)

I hope everybody watched Joe’s Palace last night instead of the TV adaptation of A Room With A View a one off drama which could have only been a pale imitation of the Merchant Ivory film starring the ethereally beautiful Helena Bonham Carther (no, now behave, this is Machiavelli, not a Boggart Blog piss take.)
Poliakoff’s skilfully crafted script and multi-layered story made its points about life, lonliness and the passage of time with style and subtlety, the entire cast acted their socks off and the production was beauftifully presented thanks to the highest level of production values.
Shows what can bw done when the bottom line is not the governing factor.

If you work for the BBC, please kill a few bean counters NOW and give talent a chance.