The day BBC died

a reply to: anonentity

I have no love for cities! I’ve grown up in one of the world’s biggest and seen sides of this one and others that many never see. Not just the growing legions of homeless slotted into every other doorway in London at night, but also the estates that police don’t even enter; this allows the crime to flourish there, which it seems to have been deemed preferable to enforcing the law and forcing those activities elsewhere - the more well to do areas. ‘Let them kill each other’ seems to be the unspoken policy. That’s frakked if your a kid on an estate who doesn’t want to gang up, or push drugs, but instead mind their own business. Such innocents have been thrown to the wolves.

I’m sure the same could be said of towns, maybe even villages. But I think bigger is indeed worse. Cities scale up the problems to industrial scales. Perhaps worse of all is that the sheer scale and abundance of these scenarios in cities normalises it. People stop questioning the inequity, turn away from it if they can and these places become cities within cities; ruled over by the worse among them and given up on by the rule makers. Imagine being born into that - it’s sh!t.

For some lucky buggers cities are sweet delight, but to rip off Blake, for others they’re endless night. Leaving Mumbai at dawn through endless corrugated iron shanty towns housing multitudes and generations of families doomed to a life of abject squalor because of the pull of the city - it’s long-con of jobs and roads paved with gold. Same can be said for Tijuana, drawing people in to be close to the USA. The world’s full of these lying magnets of promise, from boarder towns to cities.

Are cities an unavoidable part of the human condition? Or are they the festering wounds of commerce and capitalism? A symptom of the need to eat in a world in which we no longer learn to kill our prey, or grow our own potatoes and carrots.

The poor frakkers born into these places, forever trapped by their parents and their children can only surrender to it. Then here comes Covid, there scourge of the 21st century dweller of highly populated places to show us cities are a mistaken aberration which our technology can now cure? It could be a complex lucky dip of bear traps and tickets out of your sh!thole. Covid has forced cities and their businesses to find remote ways of operating - the global catastrophe has ironically shon a light at the end of the tunnel.

..Could it be the last call for these life sucking manifestations of Dante’s inferno? The dawn of a new way that cures these seething, inhuman symptoms of the need to be near one’s work. The days of these highly infectious plagues of concrete, girders and bio-matter might finally be numbered! Will WFH permanently unlock the prison gate, allowing the inhabitants to crawl out of their cramped dungeons into the world around, normally preserved for a lucky few? To spread out and satellite communities grow to replace the City - the space, the air, the peace….

No, I fear that even with the cause removed for a many hundreds of thousands the symptom will persist and despite the tech being proven the workers will ultimately be forced to again congregate en masse. Why? That’s indeed a million dollar question.

Any hope for new alternative economies that dispense with money and the money made from money will be dashed against high concrete walls by those powerful people who get rich off your money.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: Freeborn


Just today there’s yet another story about Boris’ bottomless venality; soirées open only to individuals that have donated 250k…
Elite Tory donors club holds secret meetings with Johnson and Sunak
Not does cash for questions persist, but Boris has parties to take his orders from the money.

Good catch, hadn't seen this, the Party banned - looks like he's brought back Cameron's Leaders Group - It was meant to be scrapped in 2014 due to illegality. Fairly certiant the beeb didn;t run a single article on it the 11 years it was running dsepite a total of £40m in bribes.

Interactive forensic data journalism showing all donors of the bribes 2013 - 2018 and what industry they worked for and how much they donated

The City donated £50m, hedge fund managers £18m.

£500,000 donation - Senior Leader’s Group - Knighthood, peerage, OBEs etc..
£250,000 donation - monthly meetings with PM Cameron and George Osbourne
£50,000 donation - Private dinner PM David Cameron after PMQs
£2,500 private chat with backbench Tory MP at annual Party Conference

a reply to: bastion

Now that link is a beauty! How in hell does that happen in an open democracy? The answer to that can only be that this is not a democracy, but rather a boot sale in which everything including the boot is for sale.

a reply to: McGinty

a reply to: bastion

Cameron and Boris are two of most amoral and corrupt individuals that have ever disgraced Downing Street and Westminster - and there's been some shysters and racketeers there over the years.

They blatantly show so little regard for the British people in their endless drive to exploit the system for every penny they can.
They perceive it to be their own little cash cow to milk whenever they see fit.

As I've said in other threads Cummings assessment of Boris Johnson rings true - his motivations may be suspect and he himself is pretty damned odious - but none of that negates what he said.

This cabal believe they can act with total impunity and that they are above the law - they probably are.

This whole, rotten stinking mess needs tearing down and rebuilding.

a reply to: McGinty

Wow that was a good one ! I think the summation is that if you have been conned out of your land you are stuffed. Which sort of comes down to a philosophical inward discourse, on how you are personally going to react to the problem. A far lower density of habitation seems to be up there in the conclusion. How long does it take to plant a couple of acres of spuds a week? then a week to harvest. That's years' worth of wages which can be swapped for anything down at the local market. We have all been conned.
So a logical deduction would be that the cities exist as a guaranteed market for your extra produce, which is great as long as you don't have to live in one.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: bastion

Now that link is a beauty! How in hell does that happen in an open democracy? The answer to that can only be that this is not a democracy, but rather a boot sale in which everything including the boot is for sale.

Pretty much - they get even more one on one contact with the PM than the Queen who is meant to be Head of State.

The UK ranks below Afghanistan in terms of corruption and dark money. This site is a goldmine of top-quality fearless journalism exposing it all.
www.opendemocracy.net...

The 50 richest members of the Tory Party have a combined wealth of over £47 Billiion.

The super-rich and large companies are protected by MI5/MI6 under 'national security grounds' - All they need to do is write to the Home Secretary claiming their wealth/profit helps keep the UK economy, thus national security, stable and they're given access to indiustrial espionage docs, advanced warning if journalists are investigating them and help 'charecter assasinating' any person who publishes such info.

10 men in the UK donate over 20% of total UK political donations and the combined wealth of the Tories.

Cameron and Boris take it to another level of corruption though - they got paid £160,000 each to 'play tennis' with ex-KGB and Russian Russian Finance Minister Vladimir Chernukhin and his wife - Boris lied claiming he never attened the match. Cameron refused to give the money back when he was caught claiming it 'wasn't the right approach' and that he 'certainly wasn't a Putin crony'.

This was despite all the evidence Cherrnukhin played a key role in shooting down the commercial airliner MH17 and involvement in the illegal annexation of Crimea.

Lord Geidt who is the 'independent' ethics adviser appointed to stop the dodgy donations works in Arms dealing (BAE - over 200 lobbying meetings with gov since 2012) and for multi-billion pound investment firm Schroders PLC.

Lobbying watchdog chair Eric Pickles failed to publicly declare he works for the Tory lobbying group Enterprise Forum who help businesses lobby Tory MPs.

Boris has launched a campaign to ban the Electoral Commision from taking Parties and Politicians to court over illegal campaigns and secret donations following the investigation into the illegal Downing Street refurbs.

a reply to: bastion

Again, another great link - thanks for that!

The big question in all this is where is the MSM press? Where are the journalists? They’re traditionally our last line of defence against this level of corruption, where the official investigators need investigating? That’s main reason for freedom of speech. It’s a rhetorical question on ATS, since we know they’re as bent as frack.

I wonder if the MSM itself would be the most effective target, if the political corruption is to be unearthed and corrected. The underground press’ attempts to go directly for the bent politicians is indeed brave and worthy, but always seems to be fruitless, since their readers are probably very few. If these courageous activist sites were to worked together to expose the MSM press corruption and if that swamp alone could be drained, then a functioning MSM will have a lot more success dethroning the cronies.

Can’t be an easy for the good journalists working in the MSM - there must be some - to be told time and again that they can’t follow up on so many stories, because the state says no! Find the dirt on those in charge at the papers who are in league with this dysfunctional aspect of the state and that might let those journalists off the leash. I guess I’m saying that the kind of coup against corruption that I think has the greatest chance is a journalistic coup. The truth’s always the thing tptb fear the most.

It’s the stuff of fantasy, I guess.

a reply to: bastion

Pretty much - they get even more one on one contact with the PM than the Queen who is meant to be Head of State.

Quite ironic really considering the guy who oversees and organises the elite Tory donors club is a nephew of Camilla.
en.wikipedia.org...

These people not only share an incredibly privileged and elitist background that is as far removed from the lives the rest of us live as could possibly be but they also have an almost incestuous relationship with each other.
They have a deep rooted and insidious level of influence and/or control which spreads out into almost every level of UK society.

The super-rich and large companies are protected by MI5/MI6 under 'national security grounds'....

Probably because the majority of people in senior positions within the intelligence and security services share a similar background and have vested interests.

Look at the majority of people in senior positions in our military, Civil Service, Clergy, politics, police, judiciary and the legal profession, bankers, industrialists, finance, media, government oversight and other regulatory bodies, journalism, education and academia, arts and almost everything of any importance or influence, nearly every single one of them comes from the same or similar background.

Is it any wonder that their primary concern is maintaining the status quo and their place at the trough?

The glass ceiling that ensures this level of control continues is as strong today as it has been for a long, long time and is the greatest injustice there is in this country yet we get distracted with mistruths, deceptions and other divisive tactics, sometimes even with our tacit agreement.

There are a lot of myths and stories about political funding in the UK.

The gravy train of rewarding donors with peerages et al happens by all governments. It's something which should be stopped, and the House of Lords reformed.

Anyway, here's a couple of resources around funding and donations. It’s well appreciated that the Conservatives have more private donors, and the Labour Party rely on Trade Unions for their cash.

Electoral Commission party political donations database at the bottom of this page

Here's the Register of MP's interests

Here’s Penny Mordaunt teaching the Labour Party's Angela Reyner a thing, or two.

a reply to: paraphi

Yup it's certainly something all parties are guilty of all of them attend Murdoch's super yaught parties during summer recess. Len Mcluskey is a nasty piece of work and pretty much holds them hostage.

The Blair and Brown governments ran a private donor club called the 'hotel group' who met with Nu-Labour Government at Grosevenor House Hotel and even had a policy meeting headed by Brown at the Treasury on 2nd May '97. Most front benchers in the Nu-Labour years were paid six figure salaries as consultants and directors IIRC a large percentage of these weren't declared to Parliament.

There's a lot of incredibly powerful rights and laws that allow anyone to investigate corruption and submit evidence for prosecution in the UK but they're often burried in 200+ page long legalese documents.

For investigating/exposing local government corruption Regulation 15(2)(b) of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 and Section 25 - 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 grants every person in the UK 30 consecutive working days to have full access to inspect and make photocopies of all books local authority accounts, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts.

An interesting read. Thanks guys.

I can’t differentiate between one political party playing in the slime pit as any another political party if I’m honest. They’re all part of an ancient established class system where the name of the game is who can pocket the most interns of gold and land. Land being the main prize.
In the U.K. the hereditary system is basically unchanged since before the Romans and cemented in place by the Normans.
The hereditary system calls for a head figure who can be controlled by the Dukes, viscounts and earls, namely The Crown. The Crown can and does change family lineage, whereas the hereditary nobles can usually trace an unbroken family line.
Until very recently parliamentarians were exclusively chosen to be represented by the hereditary peers. Making laws to be debated and if passed by a majority presented to the crown to give consent.
Today, politicians can rise to power in direct opposition to the ‘establishment’ not for the benefit of the people aka Cromwell, who, when secured his bloody hands in the history books was very quickly brought to heel by the peers and the peers quickly restored the monarchy. The monarchy being much much easier to control.
To keep on topic, here is where the art of manipulation, misdirection and pure Machiavellian malice needs to be brought into play upon the population.
The politicians goal is the carve themselves a piece of the hereditary pie, while the peers are doing their level best to keep them where they belong. With the rest of us, the hoipoloi.
And what better way than by using the direct message systems straight into peoples homes, TV & Radio Joseph Goebbels would have a field day with the unlimited propaganda power the likes of the BBC and their cohorts wield.
Even today, the prime minister is limited to creating life peers (the lowest rank).
So, don’t get caught up in the day to day political nonsense, it doesn’t matter which party or which puppet leader has ideas above their station, it’s nought but a smokescreen to keep your eyes from the real game. And to keep the carrot of hereditary linage the jackpot politicians crave for just out of their grubby reach.
And that leaves the rest of us is squabbling amongst ourselves in the muck blaming each other for voting in the latest puppet prime minister. Whoever that is.
Divide and Conquer. Sometimes the most simplistic strategy is right there. Labour or Conservative.

Ranks And Privileges Of The Peerage
www.debretts.com...

a reply to: wooleyjumper

Informed and insightful post!

I have to say that, sadly, I agree with every word. I’d only add that every now and then it’s perhaps inevitable that a glitch will appear - an interloper not bent on personal profit and status - not trying to carve themselves a piece of that hereditary pie - somehow finds that fate has put them within touching distance of the greasy poll’s tip - the top upon which the actor fronting up the elite agenda usually sits.

The way in which virtually every quarter of the of the bought and paid for state and media gravy train turned on Corbyn screams that he was an existential threat. A threat to you and I, or to the elite cabals and their minions? I’ll put my chips down on the latter.

Freeborn has astutely and inarguably pointed out Corbyn’s shortcomings in his posts above. These shortcomings gave the establishment a few naked targets to aim at and cemented the assassination job done on him. but it’s my opinion that had he gotten into downing st, then while he would no doubt not pleased everyone and made some cock ups, he’d have been a break from the corrupt system of rule you so well illustrated in your post.

Not sure we’ll get another such opportunity to short circuit that over overbearing control system in any of our lifetimes. I e no doubt that he would’ve been to these fat cats suckling the workers to death what Cromwell was to Charles. Metaphorically, that is!

Just going to point out that Cromwell was hardly the national hero he tends to be portrayed as.

He never, ever at any point supported universal suffrage.
He wanted a parliament that only represented wealthy landowners, that comprised of wealthy landowners legislating in favour of wealthy landowners interests.

He used and manipulated elements within The New Model Army then failed to deliver on promises he made to them and even imprisoned many of their leaders, often without trial.

He suspended parliament and ruled as a virtual dictator.

He more or less committed religious genocide in Ireland.

He sold off noble titles and privileges to fill his own private coffers and to help finance his lust for power and glory.

a reply to: Freeborn

Keeping us straight as ever, Freeborn 👍🏻

As you well put above, Corbyn wouldn’t have been the perfect leader. But he and Cromwell did represent a break from the corrupt system of omnipotent power due to birth that’d long made the people’s lives a misery.

I don’t think any of us are naive enough to think that if we wait long enough the perfect leader will come to make this break and lead us without fault into a new era. We have to make the best of the chances we get in this life and always accept a lessor of the evils if that’s all there is.

What Cromwell achieved for the common man of those times is to show them that corrupt regimes can be overthrown. If cromwell’s rule then proved corrupt, he’d given the people a lesson in what to do about that and proven it possible.

Whatever Corbyn’s shortcomings, his victory would’ve made that break from the tyranny of corporate and old money cronyism.

originally posted by: McGinty
As you well put above, Corbyn wouldn’t have been the perfect leader. But he and Cromwell did represent a break from the corrupt system of omnipotent power due to birth that’d long made the people’s lives a misery.

Don't want to interrupt a love-in, but what's the "due to birth" angle.

Two PMs in the last few decades have not received a university education (Callaghan (Lab) and Major (Con)). Not all were born with a silver spoon - Thatcher for example was from the "working class".

Like all good socialists, Corybn had rich parents and was grammar school educated. He can afford to be a socialist! He was no Cromwell.

Corbyn was never going to become PM. The UK electorate always steers towards the centre ground. People may rant and rave about the Conservatives, but they are the only party which seems capable of adapting policy to the mood of the country. Labour are lost in their metropolitan / student wokeness and have lost the working class along the way. Anyway, what is the working class nowadays? It’s hard to define.

It's also an uncomfortable truth for some, but to become the PM you need to be intelligent and well educated. You may think Boris is stupid, but he's clearly not.

It's a sad fact that grammar and public/fee-paying schools provide a better educational foundation than your average comprehensive. The reasons are complex. Good schooling increases the chance of a place in a good university. A good university often offers connections and careers.

Labour politicians know this, which is why with one hand they cry about how unfair it is, but on the other they send their own kids to the best schools they can - public or grammar schools. See Shami Chakrabarti as a case study in hypocrisy.

Now, this thread’s about the BBC. So what is the link? Interestingly, there is a link because the BBC seems to support a narrow metropolitan opinion, which is precisely that niche which Labour have fallen in to, and you can hear it in the view that “BAME people vote Labour”.

Here's a couple of examples. Firstly of the BBC making a pig's ear of an interview with Galloway (like him, or loath him he has a point) and the second of the politics of race showing how far disconnected from reality Labour have become.

originally posted by: paraphi
…what's the "due to birth" angle.

I wasn’t necessarily referring the the management tptb appoint to front up the 2 party paradigm con job. The ‘due to birth’ bunch are those whose positions and wealth the government du jour always favour and protect.

Callaghan and Major represented the elite no less because of their backgrounds. Guess that makes them sell outs, but that’s politics greasy poll for you. Corbyn didn’t seem to be of that ilk, evidenced imo by the full on assault on his leadership from tptb and all their greasy poll climbers. Can you judge someone by their enemies? Corbyn’s enemies seemed to be everyone that maintains our inequitable status quo.

originally posted by: McGinty
Can you judge someone by their enemies? Corbyn’s enemies seemed to be everyone that maintains our inequitable status quo.

Corbyn's enemies were anyone with half a brain. The fact that he presided over a collapse in support indicates that he was unpopular. Arguably, his defeat broke the status quo as people who were expected to vote Labour did not. I think the 2019 General Election was a shift in UK politics and I don't think the "old balance" will be restored.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: McGinty
Can you judge someone by their enemies? Corbyn’s enemies seemed to be everyone that maintains our inequitable status quo.

Corbyn's enemies were anyone with half a brain. The fact that he presided over a collapse in support indicates that he was unpopular. Arguably, his defeat broke the status quo as people who were expected to vote Labour did not. I think the 2019 General Election was a shift in UK politics and I don't think the "old balance" will be restored.

That’s a good observation that his loss broke the status quo. Indeed it was a fundamental shift in some regions. But I guess there are status quos and status quos.

Surely you can agree that there’s a very long standing and inequitable status quo in terms of wealth distribution?

And if so, then isn’t a fundamental shake up of that status quo long overdue?

I guan see why the privileged would like it just the way it is, but for the rest - the vast majority - some change, some redress would be welcome.

Many people doubt what they read and hear in the news. In the United States, for example, a 2012 Gallup poll asked people “how much trust and confidence” they had in the accuracy, fairness, and completeness of the news reports of newspapers, TV, and radio. The answer from 6 out of 10 people was either “not very much” or “none at all.” Is such distrust justified?

Consider the following factors:

-MEDIA MOGULS. A small but very powerful number of corporations own primary media outlets. Those outlets exert a strong influence on which stories get covered, how they are covered, and how prominently they are covered. Because most corporations are designed for profit, decisions made by media outlets can be motivated by economic interests. Stories that may hamper the profits of the owners of a news organization may go unreported.

-ADVERTISING. In most lands, media outlets must make money in order to stay in business, and most of it comes from advertising. In the United States, magazines get between 50 and 60 percent of their revenue from advertising, newspapers 80 percent, and commercial television and radio 100 percent. Understandably, advertisers do not want to sponsor programs that cast an unfavorable light on their products or style of management. If they do not like what a news outlet is producing, they can advertise elsewhere. Knowing this, editors may suppress news stories that cast a negative light on sponsors.

-DISHONESTY. Not all reporters are honest. Some journalists fabricate stories. A few years ago, for example, a reporter in Japan wanted to document how divers were defacing coral in Okinawa. After not finding any vandalized coral, he defaced some himself and then took photos of it. Photos can also be manipulated to deceive the public. Photograph-altering technology has become more effective, and some manipulations are practically impossible to detect.

-SPIN. Even if facts are as solid as bricks, how they are presented depends on the judgment of the journalist. What facts should be included in a story, and which should be left out? A soccer team, for example, may have lost a match by two goals. That is a fact. But why the team lost is a tale that a journalist can tell in many ways.

-OMISSION. In arranging facts to create a compelling story, journalists often exclude details that would introduce complications or unresolved issues. This causes some facts to be exaggerated and others to be diminished. Because television anchors and reporters may sometimes need to tell a complex story in a minute or so, important details can be skipped.

-COMPETITION. In recent decades, as the number of television stations multiplied, the amount of time viewers spent watching just one station fell drastically. To keep viewers interested, news stations were compelled to offer something unique or entertaining. Commenting on this development, the book Media Bias states: “The [television] news became a running picture show, with images selected to shock or titillate, and stories shortened to match an [ever-shorter] attention span on the part of viewers.”

-FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. Accurate reporting is not as easy as some might think. What seems to be a fact today may be proved wrong tomorrow. The earth, for example, was once believed to be the center of our solar system. Now we know that the earth circles the sun.

A Need for Balance

While it is wise not to believe everything we read in the news, it does not follow that there is nothing we can trust. The key may be to have a healthy skepticism, while keeping an open mind.

The Bible says: “Does not the ear itself test out words as the palate tastes food?” (Job 12:11) Here, then, are some tips that will help us to test out the words we hear and read:

-PROVIDER: Does the report come from a credible, authoritative person or organization? Does the program or publication have a reputation for seriousness or for sensationalism? Who provide the funds for the news source?

-SOURCES: Is there evidence of thorough research? Is the story based on just one source? Are the sources reliable, fair, and objective? Are they balanced, or have they been selected to convey only one point of view?

-PURPOSE: Ask yourself: ‘Is the news item primarily to inform or entertain? Is it trying to sell or support something?’

-TONE: When the tone of a news item is angry, spiteful, or highly critical, it suggests that an attack is under way and not a reasoned argument.

-CONSISTENCY: Are the facts consistent with those in other articles or reports? If stories contradict one another, be careful!

-TIMELINESS: Is the information recent enough to be acceptable? Something thought to be correct 20 years ago may be discounted today. On the other hand, if the news item is a breaking story, it may lack complete and comprehensive information.

So, can you trust the news media? Sound advice is found in the wisdom of Solomon, who wrote: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.”—Proverbs 14:15.

See also my signature, where you can also find a link to an article with more tips on how not to become a victim of propaganda (promoted by the media or otherwise). There is a preceding page that belongs to the same article though, it's called:

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

a reply to: bastion

Grant Shapps has stated that Tory donors 'have no influence on policy'.....who on earth is he trying to kid?

Does he really think people believe this nonsense?
Just how gullible and naive does he think we are?

The Tories have also countered that Labour has its own 'membership group - the Rose Network.

I would suggest that a £250,000 donation buys you a damn sight more privilege and influence than a £5,000 contribution.

www.bbc.co.uk...