Omission, obfuscation, obnubilation, obscurantism...

---

...or, in plain English, downright lying. Unbelievably the BBC is STILL reporting the petition calling on the government to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU without ANY mention of the false signatures, multi-thousand repeat and joke signatures etc. The BBC is a multi-billion pound organisation that pretends it is impartial, it would take a child 10 seconds to discover the complete joke this petition is [LINK].



At least they have stopped saying it is the fastest-growing on record or the best-supported proposal in the history of the Commons, or other such 'keep this non-story' going piffle but to openly report it as genuine and as if it were corruption free is plain lying.



Also, the 'million person march' - a number easily debunked by anyone who can see - is now also officially debunked (it was really officially debunked the same day, anyone who has ever see a crowd of just a single football game knows how ridiculous the claims were). The BBC get around this unfortunate truth by saying things like "the organisers say" and can therefore leave their lying "million joined Brexit protest" headline in place.



The BBC are cunts but the cunting cunts in Parliament take the biscuit. However, just for info, remember who is voting for what when you come to help destroy these treacherous cunts at the ballot box: there are a cohort of 30 "Conservative" MPs who really need to be pilloried.

No, the irony of me using BBC info is not lost.

Omission, obfuscation, obnubilation, obscurantism...

---

...or, in plain English, downright lying. Unbelievably the BBC is STILL reporting the petition calling on the government to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU without ANY mention of the false signatures, multi-thousand repeat and joke signatures etc. The BBC is a multi-billion pound organisation that pretends it is impartial, it would take a child 10 seconds to discover the complete joke this petition is [LINK].

At least they have stopped saying it is the fastest-growing on record or the best-supported proposal in the history of the Commons, or other such 'keep this non-story' going piffle but to openly report it as genuine and as if it were corruption free is plain lying.

Also, the 'million person march' - a number easily debunked by anyone who can see - is now also officially debunked (it was really officially debunked the same day, anyone who has ever see a crowd of just a single football game knows how ridiculous the claims were). The BBC get around this unfortunate truth by saying things like "the organisers say" and can therefore leave their lying "million joined Brexit protest" headline in place.

The BBC are cunts but the cunting cunts in Parliament take the biscuit. However, just for info, remember who is voting for what when you come to help destroy these treacherous cunts at the ballot box: there are a cohort of 30 "Conservative" MPs who really need to be pilloried.

No, the irony of me using BBC info is not lost.

Obfuscating obscurantism...

---

BBC = Ministry of Truth. Irony lost on BBC

"Is it time to rein in the BBC?" writes David Hardy on Comment Central. Firstly the most amazing thing is that David is a university lecturer by profession! Clearly he has avoided the brainwashing that effects a large majority of the UK population's educators. Apart from that the article is spot on concentrating on the BBC's coverage of Donald Trump. Their crazed obsession is patent and getting more blatant, they simply don't care anymore. The daily lies, spin and omission that is their news and political coverage has been going on for at least 25 years - much longer really but 25 years since I have been highlighting it to anyone who'll listen.



David's piece is excellent: "Relentless. Bitter. Juvenile. BBC coverage is also hysterical and quite frankly has now become a national embarrassment. This is not journalism. It’s political activism, pure and simple."

Just as Mark Mardell's Obama coverage was so painfully pathetically obsequious as to be almost unreadable, so Jon Sopel's and Anthony Zurcher's (BBC North America editor and North America Correspondent respectively) coverage of Donald Trump is equally unreadable due to their equally pathetic "coverage": they have NO interest in news or facts, they want unresearched tabloid gossip, hearsay and fake news, which they will then trumpet to the world.

James Cook, another of the BBC's North American 'correspondents' (ha!) takes the biscuit: "[Trump] has sought to undermine the free press, repeatedly dismissing inconvenient or critical journalism as 'fake news'." No James, he outs fake news as fake news. Can you name anything that The Donald has called fake news that wasn't fake news? He has been right every time. I nominated BBC in the fake news awards, the list was endless and they break their Charter EVERY day.

"For make no mistake, the BBC is determined to do all it can to undermine the Trump presidency in just the same way it is attempting to sabotage the Brexit vote. While a toothless political class looks limply on, the national broadcaster grows ever more audacious, emboldened by lack of regulation and timorous politicians the BBC is an organisation now out of control."

The BBC will never disappear completely but it must be broken up. Broadcasting and Production must be completely separated. Most of their TV channels and radio stations can go. It needs root and branch reform of the news and political coverage. Let them be the public service broadcaster they should be. Apparently the BBC's Mission is to "inform, educate and entertain"; by lying, by omitting, by focusing on their own agenda does not inform, educate nor entertain.
Their Values state that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Laughable. NO THEY ARE NOT! Financed by a tax collected on threat of gaol they are extremely partisan, glaringly biased and clearly dishonest. THERE IS NO DOUBT.





Update: As if on cue, Brexit Central with a David Keighley report on the blatant bias, undeniable. [LINK to PDF]

Obfuscating obscurantism...

---

BBC = Ministry of Truth. Irony lost on BBC

"Is it time to rein in the BBC?" writes David Hardy on Comment Central. Firstly the most amazing thing is that David is a university lecturer by profession! Clearly he has avoided the brainwashing that effects a large majority of the UK population's educators. Apart from that the article is spot on concentrating on the BBC's coverage of Donald Trump. Their crazed obsession is patent and getting more blatant, they simply don't care anymore. The daily lies, spin and omission that is their news and political coverage has been going on for at least 25 years - much longer really but 25 years since I have been highlighting it to anyone who'll listen.

David's piece is excellent: "Relentless. Bitter. Juvenile. BBC coverage is also hysterical and quite frankly has now become a national embarrassment. This is not journalism. It’s political activism, pure and simple." Just as Mark Mardell's Obama coverage was so painfully pathetically obsequious as to be almost unreadable, so Jon Sopel's and Anthony Zurcher's (BBC North America editor and North America Correspondent respectively) coverage of Donald Trump is equally unreadable due to their equally pathetic "coverage": they have NO interest in news or facts, they want unresearched tabloid gossip, hearsay and fake news, which they will then trumpet to the world. James Cook, another of the BBC's North American 'correspondents' (ha!) takes the biscuit: "[Trump] has sought to undermine the free press, repeatedly dismissing inconvenient or critical journalism as 'fake news'." No James, he outs fake news as fake news. Can you name anything that The Donald has called fake news that wasn't fake news? He has been right every time. I nominated BBC in the fake news awards, the list was endless and they break their Charter EVERY day.

"For make no mistake, the BBC is determined to do all it can to undermine the Trump presidency in just the same way it is attempting to sabotage the Brexit vote. While a toothless political class looks limply on, the national broadcaster grows ever more audacious, emboldened by lack of regulation and timorous politicians the BBC is an organisation now out of control."

The BBC will never disappear completely but it must be broken up. Broadcasting and Production must be completely separated. Most of their TV channels and radio stations can go. It needs root and branch reform of the news and political coverage. Let them be the public service broadcaster they should be. Apparently the BBC's Mission is to "inform, educate and entertain"; by lying, by omitting, by focusing on their own agenda does not inform, educate nor entertain. Their Values state that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Laughable. NO THEY ARE NOT! Financed by a tax collected on threat of gaol they are extremely partisan, glaringly biased and clearly dishonest. THERE IS NO DOUBT.

Update: As if on cue, Brexit Central with a David Keighley report on the blatant bias, undeniable. [LINK to PDF]

Omniloquent observer opines on our obscurantic omphaloskepsis...

---

Brendan O'Neill on the button again, in Spiked-online "In 2017, our response to terrorism became dangerously passive."... "2017 might prove to be the year we caved in to terrorism.". Writing about the official response and our own response.

"In 2017 we witnessed the rise of the terror amnesia industry – an informal but effective effort by the political class and opinion-forming set to shush serious discussion about terrorism; to tame strong emotions post-terror; to make people forget, in essence, the latest bloody destruction of their fellow citizens, or at least stop thinking about it. 'Don't look back…'"

'The terror amnesia industry', yes indeed. The immediate 'Beware of backlash', 'Beware of Islamophobia', the hiding of facts the under-reporting or omission of facts...and in fact the over-reporting and highlighting of anything to deflect attention.

"This is how deeply the West’s moral cowardice now runs: we are not even permitted to name the ideology that motors the murder of our fellow citizens...."A nation that fails to get angry about the slaughter of its children, and which won’t even allow frank discussion about the ideology used to justify that slaughter, is a nation that has lost its moral anchor.

So very true. 

Omniloquent observer opines on our obscurantic omphaloskepsis...

---

Brendan O'Neill on the button again, in Spiked-online "In 2017, our response to terrorism became dangerously passive."... "2017 might prove to be the year we caved in to terrorism.". Writing about the official response and our own response.

"In 2017 we witnessed the rise of the terror amnesia industry – an informal but effective effort by the political class and opinion-forming set to shush serious discussion about terrorism; to tame strong emotions post-terror; to make people forget, in essence, the latest bloody destruction of their fellow citizens, or at least stop thinking about it. 'Don't look back…'"

'The terror amnesia industry', yes indeed. The immediate 'Beware of backlash', 'Beware of Islamophobia', the hiding of facts the under-reporting or omission of facts...and in fact the over-reporting and highlighting of anything to deflect attention.

"This is how deeply the West’s moral cowardice now runs: we are not even permitted to name the ideology that motors the murder of our fellow citizens...."A nation that fails to get angry about the slaughter of its children, and which won’t even allow frank discussion about the ideology used to justify that slaughter, is a nation that has lost its moral anchor.

So very true. 

Overt omissions III...

---

The current tranche* of deeply disturbing and highly incriminating emails from Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton (and the Obama administration in general) is just so massive that ignoring it should be a criminal act. Current MSM reporting...almost zilch. The below for instance:

Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers. For interest, HERE and HERE my previous thoughts on the Benghazi disgrace. Again: "Trump needs to blow this thing up."



* from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign Chairman and former President Clinton's ex Chief of Staff

Overt omissions III...

---

The current tranche* of deeply disturbing and highly incriminating emails from Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton (and the Obama administration in general) is just so massive that ignoring it should be a criminal act. Current MSM reporting...almost zilch. The below for instance:

Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers. For interest, HERE and HERE my previous thoughts on the Benghazi disgrace. Again: "Trump needs to blow this thing up."

* from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign Chairman and former President Clinton's ex Chief of Staff

Obsidional omissions...

---

When the truth is secondary - a phenomenon becoming increasingly more prevalent (especially with the BBC, IMHO); a situation that any 'normal' person should be uncomfortable with; without further comment from me but linking to Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph ("Why Mandela owed a huge debt to Thatcher": FW de Klerk) and to EU Referendum (more discussion; "anything which strays from the "narrative" is ignored, while the bubble-dwellers drown out the truth with their prattle").

Obsidional omissions...

---

When the truth is secondary - a phenomenon becoming increasingly more prevalent (especially with the BBC, IMHO); a situation that any 'normal' person should be uncomfortable with; without further comment from me but linking to Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph ("Why Mandela owed a huge debt to Thatcher": FW de Klerk) and to EU Referendum (more discussion; "anything which strays from the "narrative" is ignored, while the bubble-dwellers drown out the truth with their prattle").

Overt omission...

---

Sorry to go about the same thing but this is just obscene. My update in the post below is driving me mad. Barely a day has gone by and already the BBC are wiping the story from it's pages: hardly any mention or links to the stories about the NHS on the BBC webpages for News, UK news, England News etc. The only link is the features sidebar with such heavyweight news issues as "How you can make lunch at your desk that bit nicer". Gross and partisan bias by omission, white-washing any possible cloud to darken the Labour horizon with this true multiple death causing scandal...and especially while they pound the Coalition and trumpet 'a humiliating U-turn/climb-down' (would you rather Gove ploughed on and forced his better idea upon you Twigg? You cunt) re exams etc and of course the hugely important Huhne affair still merits multiple links and reams of pages. Do NOT trust the BBC.

Overt omission...

---

Sorry to go about the same thing but this is just obscene. My update in the post below is driving me mad. Barely a day has gone by and already the BBC are wiping the story from it's pages: hardly any mention or links to the stories about the NHS on the BBC webpages for News, UK news, England News etc. The only link is the features sidebar with such heavyweight news issues as "How you can make lunch at your desk that bit nicer". Gross and partisan bias by omission, white-washing any possible cloud to darken the Labour horizon with this true multiple death causing scandal...and especially while they pound the Coalition and trumpet 'a humiliating U-turn/climb-down' (would you rather Gove ploughed on and forced his better idea upon you Twigg? You cunt) re exams etc and of course the hugely important Huhne affair still merits multiple links and reams of pages. Do NOT trust the BBC.

Ongoing omissions...

---

Omissions, not emissions! The BBC continue to omit half of many stories (when they feel like it): usually the bits damaging to the Coalition are not omitted and anything bigging-up Labour (but not mentioning 13 years of New Labour) is always trumpeted (fine example here, WTF?) Today's half truths: "Government criticised as deaths on UK roads go up" [Link] (and screen shot to observe stealth edits). What's omitted? Well first there's the usual tactic of putting the bad stuff 'above the line': "The government has been criticised for a lack of leadership after the first increase in road deaths for nearly a decade"..."Our correspondent says the coalition ditched national targets when it came to power..." 8 paragraphs of this followed by the sub heading "Shocking": then you have to scroll down and see at least some of the real story.
"Road deaths might have gone up but – with the exception of last year – the number of people killed or seriously hurt on our roads still remains the lowest since national records began."...and the 'Shocking' is in fact "It is shocking that road accidents are the main cause of death among young adults aged 16-24...". OK so they put it but at the end you say but less than one minute 'research' by Ows reveals that the rise is only due to the fact that there was a massive fall in 2010 (over 15% down with traffic levels 2% down that year). Click on image to enlarge clear downward trend...I won't politicise the near flat-lining years on that graph.

Ongoing omissions...

---

Omissions, not emissions! The BBC continue to omit half of many stories (when they feel like it): usually the bits damaging to the Coalition are not omitted and anything bigging-up Labour (but not mentioning 13 years of New Labour) is always trumpeted (fine example here, WTF?) Today's half truths: "Government criticised as deaths on UK roads go up" [Link] (and screen shot to observe stealth edits). What's omitted? Well first there's the usual tactic of putting the bad stuff 'above the line': "The government has been criticised for a lack of leadership after the first increase in road deaths for nearly a decade"..."Our correspondent says the coalition ditched national targets when it came to power..." 8 paragraphs of this followed by the sub heading "Shocking": then you have to scroll down and see at least some of the real story. "Road deaths might have gone up but – with the exception of last year – the number of people killed or seriously hurt on our roads still remains the lowest since national records began."...and the 'Shocking' is in fact "It is shocking that road accidents are the main cause of death among young adults aged 16-24...". OK so they put it but at the end you say but less than one minute 'research' by Ows reveals that the rise is only due to the fact that there was a massive fall in 2010 (over 15% down with traffic levels 2% down that year). Click on image to enlarge clear downward trend...I won't politicise the near flat-lining years on that graph.

Obvious omission...

---

LOL! Look at a word cloud of the BBC coverage of Boris Johnson's London Mayoral Election win "BBC - Boris Johnson wins second term by tight margin"; click on the image to visit word cloud by Billy no mates on Wordle. [Edited: 'dead' image/video removed] Needless to say, even glancing at the small image - with only six or seven words clearly visible - it isn't hard to get what the BBC prefer to talk about. Also, reading the BBC London Political Editor Tim Donovan's Ken love-in, could it be that's because Boris - on other issues - thinks he's talking fucking bollocks.

Obvious omission...

---

LOL! Look at a word cloud of the BBC coverage of Boris Johnson's London Mayoral Election win "BBC - Boris Johnson wins second term by tight margin"; click on the image to visit word cloud by Billy no mates on Wordle. [Edited: 'dead' image/video removed] Needless to say, even glancing at the small image - with only six or seven words clearly visible - it isn't hard to get what the BBC prefer to talk about. Also, reading the BBC London Political Editor Tim Donovan's Ken love-in, could it be that's because Boris - on other issues - thinks he's talking fucking bollocks.

Obvious omission...

---

LOL! Look at a word cloud of the BBC coverage of Boris Johnson's London Mayoral Election win "BBC - Boris Johnson wins second term by tight margin"; click on the image to visit word cloud by Billy no mates on Wordle. Needless to say, even glancing at the small image - with only six or seven words clearly visible - it isn't hard to get what the BBC prefer to talk about. Also, reading the BBC London Political Editor Tim Donovan's Ken love-in, could it be that's because Boris - on other issues - thinks he's talking fucking bollocks.