Why did the all-powerful BBC refuse to tell the truth about Mr Corbyn?
Theresa May surely has only herself to blame for the Tories’ appalling performance on Thursday. Even before the polls closed it was impossible to find a Conservative MP who thought she had run a good campaign.
But there is another group of people who certainly made a contribution to the outcome and should be hanging their heads in shame this morning. I am speaking of the BBC.
Our national broadcaster accounts for about 50 per cent of news output in this country via its multiple television, radio and web outlets. It is immeasurably more influential than any other news channel or newspaper. That is why it is so important it fulfils its sacred duty to invigilate politicians without fear or favour.
In the case of Jeremy Corbyn, it failed miserably over the past few weeks…..Auntie was laughably indulgent over the past few weeks.
The once head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, said:
Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to this nation.
Today, Britain goes to the polls. And frankly, I’m shocked that no one has stood up and said, unambiguously, how profoundly dangerous it would be for the nation if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister. So let me be clear, the leader of the Labour Party is an old-fashioned international socialist who has forged links with those quite ready to use terror when they haven’t got their way: the IRA, Hizbollah, Hamas. As a result he is completely unfit to govern and Britain would be less safe with him in No 10.
Why has the BBC not made the slightest attempt to investigate that…in fact why has the BBC done the complete oppsosite and fed us the lie that Corbyn is the best man to defend us from terrorism?
Why did Corbyn do so well in the election? Having one of the most powerful and influential news broadcasters on-side might have helped. There is no doubt that the BBC corrupted annd undermined the democratic process and helped rig the election in Labour’s favour.
The Conservatives made an historically bad decision to hold a general election when they already had a majority, a slim one but a majority, and that, as they should have noted as a caution, had been won against all the odds and the punditry. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. May of course had repeatedly stated that there was no need for another general election only to change her mind in what looked a very opportunistic way. They then made a catastrophic misjudgement in hammering their core vote…the householders who want to pass on their earnings to their children to help them in the future (On top of cutting fuel allowance and the triple lock for Tory voting pensioners). May had learnt nothing from the Tory voting ‘white van man’ national insurance fiasco and subsequent u-turn. She compounded the error by back-tracking on it and changing her mind, whilst refusing to admit she’d changed her mind. Two u-turns whilst proclaiming herself in her main battle-cry to be ‘Strong and Stable’…powerfully undermining her own campaign and the founding principle for her appeal to the electorate…that only a strong and stable leader could deal with the Brexit negotiations.
The other major influence on the outcome of the election were the terrorist attacks which suddenly brought in to play a whole new narrative about police numbers, funding and security. May, having been Home Secretary and having overseen cuts to the police was all too easily put in the frame for the blame…lack of funding led to the attacks was the simplistic message…a message that was all too effective especially as it met with little scrutiny and examination from the BBC despite clear evidence that police funding was not the issue when it comes to identifying and stopping these killers….after all the police actually already knew who these people were and what they were about.
May made one final ‘error’…one that made sense, but it only made sense if the BBC were neutral and took a non-partisan view…which naturally they didn’t and perhaps the Tories should have factored in the BBC’s hatred of them. [The BBC are back to calling them the ‘nasty party’ as they seek alliance with the ‘socially conservative’ DUP’…question…are Muslim conservatives ‘nasty’ then?] May decided not to take part in any of the debates between the leaders…having seen the TV debates and listened to some on the radio you’ll know they are total nonsense and a bearpit for loud voices chanting well rehearsed soundbites and attack lines…the audience learn nothing. The BBC however decided this was a good opportunity to attack May and its presenters constantly criticised her for not appearing in the leaders’ debates telling us she was scared….here’s the BBC’s US correspondent, James Cook, giving us his two penneth worth….
I'll tell you what voters don't like. Unnecessary elections. Especially when the leaders who call them refuse to engage in the campaigns.
— James Cook (@BBCJamesCook) June 9, 2017
She was dodging the public, debates and interviews long before that.
— James Cook (@BBCJamesCook) June 9, 2017
Now that’s a complete lie isn’t it? May was out on the stump, she appeared in many interviews and did several audience question and answers as well as one-on-one with interviewers. She in no way ‘dodged the public’ nor rigorous interviews…and of course put herself up for election, the biggest ‘interview’ of all. So just a BBC lie….but one that was spread and encouraged throughout the campaign…naturally a Labour narrative.
BBC presenters relentlessly attacked May for appearing on the One Show telling us this was a soft interview and she was ‘dodging the public’, however when Corbyn did the same interview he was applauded, not a word of criticism from his fellow travellers at the BBC.
And therein lies the real problem. The BBC.
The Power and the Inglorious Bias
The BBC is extraordinarily powerful and yet unaccountable with politicians too afraid to tackle its blatant partisan support for Labour and its extreme liberal ideology that it propagates without fear of any genuine censure and retribution. The BBC is by far the most trusted and goto source for news relying as it does on past reputation, the audience’s innate attachment to it based upon years of ‘brainswashing’ as they grew up watching its programmes and ‘bonding’ with the BBC, putting aside any qualms about bias because they love Top Gear or Poldark or David Attenborough…and of course because the BBC pumps out relentless propaganda on its own behalf telling us how fantastic, how trustworthy, how accurate, how much better quality it is when compared to other news sources…and of course only it can be trusted to deliver the news in an era of ‘post-truth alternate facts’ and ‘fake news’…which is an irony because the BBC is the biggest peddler of fake news out there and is completely untrustworthy as we will show here in an account of how the BBC corrupted British democracy and rigged an election.
The Tories lost it but with a little help from their enemies
It wasn’t all the Tories’ failure but a highly successful campaign by Corbyn, or rather his team, which completely reframed how Corbyn and his fellow disasters-just-waiting-to-happen, Abbott and McDonnell, presented themselves, their policies and ideologies. From being actual terrorist supporting, far-left, Britain-hating extremists they had a complete make-over, new suits, new hairdos and new policies that were astonishing u-turns after decades of saying the complete opposite. However they got away with it because the BBC did not challenge them at all. May was pilloried and vilified for her u-turns, McDonnell was allowed by Marr to whitewash over his avowed Marxism despite clear evidence that he was a Marxist including an incriminating video, only Andrew Neil making any attempt to seriously challenge him, Abbott waffled about a change in hairstyle and Corbyn got away with murder as he dumped his career-long love of terrorists, denied his ambition to thwart all anti-terror legislation and to claim he had always supported shoot-to-kill, actually lying in an ITV interview with Peston about a Kuenssberg interview with him in which he claimed he only opposed shoot-to-kill in the 1980’s in NI…that was a total lie…one that the BBC itself challenged at the time when the BBC Trust ruled in Corbyn’s favour that Kuenssberg had misquoted him…she hadn’t…Corbyn had lied but now that the election was ongoing the BBC suddenly forgot that Corbyn had supported shoot-to-kill, and then lied on Peston, and were presenting him as a man who could be trusted to deal with a terrorist threat…also failing to register his long, long support for such terrorists…Muslim ones as well as IRA.
Putting the record straight by bending the truth
A classic example of the BBC’s highly partisan favouring of Corbyn and the whitewashing of his past is this interview with Boris by Mishal Husain ‘putting the record straight’ as she tells it, Husain insisting that Corbyn supports shoot-to-kill and has said so many times…she makes no note that this is a massive opportunistic u-turn on terror and shoot-to-kill by Corbyn preferring instead to make this strident defence of Corbyn against all the documented facts…
Note how Husain, whilst being very unwilling to talk about Corbyn’s voting record on terror laws, and indeed stopping Boris talking about that, tried to turn the tables by cherry-picking one example when Boris opposed a terror measure…the 90 days detention. This is highly selective and unbalanced…Corbyn just about voted down every anti-terror law he could, and boasted about it, Boris votes against one and this somehow absolves Corbyn for his career long pro-terror stance? I don’t remember Boris honouring IRA murderers or calling Islamic terrorists ‘friends’ and inviting them into parliament…I do however remember Corbyn doing that. Husain just ignored all the inconvenient facts that showed Corbyn to be the terrorist’s friend.
Those who control the past control the present
Quite extraordinary how the BBC can totally ignore Corbyn’s past, his celebrated steadfast refusal to change his ideology in 30 or more years and now his astonishingly convenient and well-timed change of heart on terrorism. Extraordinary when you compare it with how they absolutely slaughtered May for her u-turns and how they now conduct a relentlessly negative and critical ‘exposé’ of the DUP’s ideology, very definitely adopting a censorious tone towards them that is utterly at odds with the indulgent, see-no-evil tone used for Corbyn….the DUP’s sins are being climate sceptics(or ‘deniers’ as the BBC maligns them), opposition to abortion and to same-sex marriage….compare that with Corbyn’s unfaltering, until now, support for terrorists, his failure to tackle anti-Semitism in his party, his desire to abolish NATO, MI5, the Police and the Army and his ruinous economic policies and you wonder who is really the major threat to Britain, world peace and stability.
The BBC lionised him and covered over his extremism in this profile and highlighted his unchanging policies as a notable part of his career…
He has refused to cave in and now has a chance to fight a general election on his own terms – making the case for a different kind of government in line with the principles he has held, more or less unchanged, since he first entered politics more than 40 years ago.
Strange now that the BBC should make little to no comment about his astonishing make-over and revision of his policies just as an election came into sight.
Greed is good
Consider this…Corbyn is all for fairness, community and an equitable spreading of wealth…and yet one of his major vote catching policies, dumping student loans, is the exact opposite of that appealing as it does to the greed in people, the individual’s self-interest at the expense of the community. Rather than take responsibility for their own further education and career advancement Corbyn presented the young with a vote-winning proposition they couldn’t refuse whatever it cost society…free university places. Greed and self-interest is now good under Corbyn…everything that he is supposedly against. No comment from the BBC?
Safe in his hands
What of that narrative that if only we had more community police officers on the beat we’d gather more intelligence and be able to identify these terrorists? Complete nonsense. These people were already on the radar, the problem was that the police could not arrest them and charge them as it was not an offence to merely think certain thoughts, not even to have an ‘ISIS’ flag in your possession as the Muslim who walked freely through Westminster with one draped around his shoulders proved. One reason of course is the lack of legislation allowing stricter laws that cracked down on ‘thoughts’, legislation so often opposed by…Jeremy Corbyn. The BBC refuses to allow the salient facts about anti-terrorism to take hold in the public narrative that we have one of the most efficient and effective counter-terror forces in the world…we make arrests every day and have stopped 18 attacks in the last few years….whatever happened to the wise old words that the BBC used to trot out….the terrorists only have to get lucky once, we have to be lucky everyday? Oh hang on…after the Manchester attack they quote this…
“We used to say that a terrorist only has to be lucky once. We have to be lucky all the time.”
Funny though how that doesn’t seem to apply here for May….the attack isn’t just a terrorist getting ‘lucky’ it’s May’s fault for cutting police budgets….despite pumping in billions more into security and intelligence and the fact that there are 23,000 people ‘of interest’ on the radar…an impossible number to monitor effectively….but remarkable that they know of them all… no?
As Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, noted in a piece in Thursday’s Daily Telegraph that Corbyn’s response was ‘nakedly political’.
Sir Richard — who is no Tory stooge — wrote that ‘if you ask professionals in the police, they would recognise that creating 10,000 jobs for community policing won’t have the slightest effect on the problem of Islamic terrorism’.
Remarkable that the BBC has ignored the fact that Labour in 2015 were proposing to cut the police budget by a further 10% above what the Tories had already cut. Consider that the police budget has not been cut since 2015 by the Tories and yet they get criticised for the level of funding and that Labour would have cut further…how is it possible that this is not worthy of comment from the BBC?
How is it not worthy of comment that Labour’s ex-shadow home secretary and now Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and Corbyn, have both opposed the counter-terror Prevent programme?
Foreign Policy black propaganda…The Jihadist’s narrative
Corbyn came straight out after Manchester to blame foreign policy for radicalising Muslims…this has long been a BBC narrative as well…it is an utterly false and dangerous narrative, one that is embedded in the Muslim community as a whole and which feeds the Jihadi recruit conveyor belt…it is an entirely false line of propaganda.
The other incredibly dangerous and false narrative is that these terrorists are not driven by religious ideology, that they are somehow perverting the teachings of Islam. The fact is they are not, ISIS is living history, a revolution that is televised in full technicolour as the Islamic State re-enacts what Muhammed did 1400 years ago as he blitzed the Middle East with a tiny force and established what would become Muslim dominance of the area and beyond….and they are doing it in obedience to the teachings of the Koran and its commands to ‘defend Muslims’ who are under attack…the BBC has been telling Muslims they are under attack, that the West is at war with Islam, for over a decade now. Any wonder so many British Muslims believe that? Where is the counter narrative that tells the real story?
The BBC’s ‘flagship’ current affairs programme, Newsnight, broadcast a profile of Corbyn, a profile put together by a left-wing supporter from the New Statesman, Stephen Bush. This turned out to be a somewhat narrow, dishonest profile, more idolization, an acclamatory tribute, that airbrushed away any controversial aspects of the Corbyn ideology and turned him into a moderate, reasoned and statesman-like politician well respected by everyone. Newsnight then balanced that with a somewhat narrow, dishonest protrayal of May…but this time far from being a glowing, positive tribute as Corbyn received we had a snide, sniping, extremely negative attack from Tory wet, Matthew Parris…a fanatical Remain supporter who hates the fact May is actually going to carry out what the voters expect…Brexit.
The BBC had from the beginning of the campaign targeted May and her slogan ‘Strong and Stable’ relentlessly mocking and deriding it and its use making people embarrassed to use it such is the power of the BBC to intimidate and police what you can and cannot say in public, people now self-censoring themselves in case they get ridiculed by the BBC. The BBC had successfully undermined the Tory’s main theme…..and they couldn’t believe their luck when May did a u-turn on care. The BBC did not do a similar attack on Corbyn despite the fact that he used his ‘For the many not the few’ slogan again and again, naturally. Nor did the BBC bother to note he had stolen the slogan not just from Blair but that the LibDems had used it in 2010. The BBC knew Corbyn was seen as disorganised, weak and incoherent economically so they set out to destroy the Tory message that they represent the only alternative providing in contrast a strong and stable government…and when have you heard a serous attack on Corbyn’s economics….consider that the IFS has said he would impose a rate of tax not seen in peacetime Britain before and you have to ask how the BBC could avoid taking him to task over this.
When May made her speech reacting to the London Bridge attack Laura Kuenssberg claimed that this was an ‘intensely political speech’ hinting that it may be just campaign rhetoric..if you listen to the speech you will hear a perfectly measured speech from the Prime Minister that would be exactly what you might expect from any PM in such a crisis…this was not campaign rhetoric but reasoned comment that laid out how the government might respond, as any member of the public would want to know. Corbyn, who made a massively political and factually wrong statement after Manchester placing the blame on foreign policy and cuts to police budgets, escaped any negative comment and cirticism from the BBC…quite possibly, not only because they support him, but because they fully back that narrative as well…so far from being impartial they were promoting two of their favourite things…the Labour Party and the narrative that terrorism is just blowback from the West’s actions in the Muslim world…thus we must make amends and open our borders to all the refugees.
Right-Wing online trickery
The BBC has targeted Social Media and blamed it for the rise of Trump and Brexit despite the fact that it is dominated by the Left. Facebook was pumping out left-leaning ‘news’ before it got caught and all the tech bosses are of the left and anti-Trump. It suits the BBC narrative however to portray Social Media as a place that ferments and promotes Right-Wing narratives and discontent, the BBC hoping to discredit what are its biggest rivals now for the attention of the young and the news agenda.
It has continued that false narrative into this election as it claims the Tories have conducted an aggressive and highly negative attack campaign online whilst on the other hand Labour have had a far less aggressive, far lower profile and far more positive campaign aimed at getting people to vote rather than using social media to attack the other side….this articel is almost all about the Tories…the Tories bad, Corbyn good…
The Conservatives seem to be targeting Facebook users in marginal constituencies with anti-Jeremy Corbyn attack adverts, designed to draw away the Labour faithful.
Labour are also using Facebook advertising, but their messages are not focused on leaders and their personalities.
The Conservatives are paying for numerous adverts that attack Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn or his close allies, particularly John McDonnell and Diane Abbott. They broadcast a broadly negative message – warning people about the perceived threats of a Corbyn-led government.
Negative political adverts are particularly widespread in the United States, where parties routinely attack the credibility of a candidate and try to alienate their natural supporters. Donald Trump’s election campaign, for example, directed anti-Clinton Facebook adverts at potential Clinton supporters, including African-Americans and young women.
Change of tone for how they describe Labour…
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have also been pushing adverts on social media, though with a different tone. Labour ads on Facebook focus on positive messages, often using the party’s election slogan: “For the many, not the few”.
Oh…and that’s it for the analysis of Labour’s use of Social Media…that’s despite the fact that Labour are using highly negative attack ads….I saw them every day on YouTube…and there’s stuff like this…an utter fabrication, faked news…
Such attack ads by Labour supporters drove the anti-Tory narrative aimed at young voters….
The post was one of many to swarm Facebook by groups in favour of Jeremy Corbyn.
An analysis of the site’s content suggests it may have cost the Tories their majority by driving young Labour supporters to the polls.
Millions used the social network to share articles praising Jeremy Corbyn and trashing the Tories and Theresa May.
These ‘posts’ are likely to have had a powerful effect on Facebook’s predominantly youthful users, who are increasingly reliant on social media as their main source of news.
Of the top 20 most popular political subjects talked about on Facebook, almost all of the discussion topics about Labour cast it in a positive light.
By contrast, six of the seven most popular topics about the Conservatives were deeply critical.
Is it not odd how the BBC could miss all that or indeed how they forget that it was the Left who dominated and originated the use of social media as a means to manipulate the vote…..the Facebook founder even helping Obama…
Army of helpers
With the help of Facebook founder Chris Hughes – who devised an innovative internet fundraising system – the campaign eventually attracted more than three million donors. They donated about $650m (£403m) – more than both presidential contenders in 2004 combined.
Mr Obama had the money for four times as many campaign offices as Mr McCain and a vast army of campaign staff and volunteers. They developed and exploited a vast database of information about potential donors and voters in every key state.
Everyone who visited the Obama website was asked to sign up to get more information. Everyone who did so was asked to contribute, or volunteer. If they did, they received several follow-up calls and messages asking for more money, or more assistance.
The 2008 Obama Presidential campaign made history. Not only was Obama the first African American to be elected president, but he was also the first presidential candidate to effectively use social media as a major campaign strategy. It’s easy to forget, given how ubiquitous social media is today, that in 2008 sending out voting reminders on Twitter and interacting with people on Facebook was a big deal.
The huge success of Barack Obama’s campaigning during his 2008 presidential campaign, when he raised over half his money online and organised huge numbers of “offline” events via the internet.
Tory use of social media is being presented by the BBC as a rather scheming, underhand and dishonest way of tricking voters and manipulating the election…the same tactics by Obama and Labour are applauded with any negative issues airbrushed out of the story. Once again a very selective and partisan narrative from the BBC.
The BBC is always ready to police our language and will often refuse to use language that it claims is too negative or that presents only the narrative of one side. Famously of course ‘Terrorism’ is one word that it is reluctant to use despite the fact that it is easily defined and clear when something is a terrorist act…the BBC though has trouble when Muslims commit terrorist acts…then it becomes conflicted as it believes, as said above, that Muslims are only reacting in response to Western aggression and therefore theirs’ is the justifiable violence of Freedom Fighters and Resisters. The BBC series, ‘The Honourable Woman’, was based upon this theme, the evil Israelis forcing Palestinians to use terrorism as they had no other weapon to combat the all powerful IDF.
The BBC though are quite happy to adopt and use the language of one side when it suits, such as the ‘Bedroom Tax’, or the ‘Dementia Tax’, when such language is used in a derogatory fashion meant to malign and demonise a Tory policy.
How different when it came to Labour’s ‘Garden Tax’…not only would the BBC not use the term but actually refused to talk about the subject at all, John Humphrys dismissing it out of hand when raised on the Today show by a Tory MP, claiming that it wasn’t in the Labour manifesto…when of course it is in there.
And also, thanks to Toobiwan for reminding me, there is ‘Hard Brexit‘and ‘Soft Brexit’, two terms that the BBC is happy to use despite the fact that such things do not exist…as May says ‘Brexit means Brexit’...the purported ‘Soft Brexit’, ie Corbyn’s favoured approach of a tariff free trade deal with all that entails, ie, free movement, is not Brexit at all and is in fact just continued memebership of the EU…in other words a lie…a lie that the BBC is happy to peddle.
Finally, at least all that I can remember off the top of my head, there’s Nick Robinson’s and Dimbleby’s demand that Corbyn get a good Press. Bias? Just a bit.
The BBC has been involved in one of the most blatant attempts to steal an election that we will witness, an astonishing corruption of the democratic process, a rigging of the election that very nearly put a terrorist sympathiser in No10. Putin must be taking notes.
The BBC is running out of lives.