Reporting Rumour as Fact…and not bothering with facts at all

 

The BBC went out of its way to hunt down Leave voters who may be having doubts, all part of the Remain spin campaign to suggest Brexit was ‘stolen’ by people who didn’t undertsand what they were voting for and when they found out regretted it….except that’s baloney…the truth is it is Remain voters who have turned and expect Brexit to be implemented in due course as efficiently as possible…but oddly you don’t see the BBC rushing to report and highlight this story..

New poll suggests more than two thirds of people ‘now support Brexit’

A total of 68 per cent of respondents would like to see Britain withdraw from the EU, the latest YouGov figures show. 

Some 45 per cent said they were Eurosceptics, while 22 per cent said they wanted the Government to ignore June’s election result. 

A total of 23 per cent – described as “Re-Leavers” – said that they voted Remain last year, but now believe the government has a duty to carry out the will of the British people.

 

Nor is there a rush to report this…a report that tells of a Democrat insider leaking DNC emails….just why would the BBC not want to make that well known?  Could it be because it might just sow seeds of doubt about just who hacked the DNC’s and Clinton’s emails?…….

Seth Rich, Murdered DNC Staffer, ‘Leaked Thousands of Internal Emails to WikiLeaks’

Murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich “leaked thousands of internal [DNC] emails to WikiLeaks” and that the FBI is in possession of their correspondence.

Oddly whilst not wanting to promote any story that might be a positive for Trump the BBC is still pumping out what is at present completely unfounded claims, from a paper that is infamously anti-Trump, as fact.  The BBC have doubled up on their previous claims last night and have backed them up with absolutely no evidence but just a lot more speculation..otherwise known as gossip.

The BBC implies Trump’s assertion of his right to share facts with the Russians as an indication of guilt whereas of course all it indicates is that he shared facts about the terrorist threat….it says zilch about what those facts were or their security classification…

Trump defends ‘absolute right’ to share ‘facts’ with Russia

The BBC links two items together suggesting an association…

In his tweet early on Tuesday, Mr Trump said: “As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety.

“Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against [IS] & terrorism.”

A report in the Washington Post said Mr Trump had confided top secret information relating to an IS plot thought to centre on the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

Mr Trump’s move is not illegal, as the US president has the authority to declassify information.

Nice touch that last line….suggesting he did ‘declassify’ sensitive information that perhaps he shouldn’t have.

How about this…

The BBC’s Anthony Zurcher in Washington says this was a carefully constructed defence of the meeting, in which President Trump frames any revelation of intelligence information as a calculated move to advance US national security priorities.

A ‘carefully constructed defence’?  LOL…he just tweeted what happened….Zurcher is the one trying to construct a case against Trump implying that Trump is guilty but trying to get out if it by his ‘carefully constructed defence‘….and of course the meeting would have been precisely to advance US national security priorities…Zurcher frames this as if it was merely some kind of excuse by Trump when it was very obviously the background to the meeting.

Then once again we get the BBC’s conviction that Trump is guilty…

What happened in the Oval Office?

The intelligence disclosed came from a US ally and was considered too sensitive to share with other US allies, the paper reported.

Others at the meeting realised the mistake and scrambled to “contain the damage” by informing the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA), says the Post.

The Washington Post carefully constructs its own defence as it acknowledges it is reporting junk news…

“Our story says that the nature of the information provided would have allowed the Russians to ‘reverse engineer’ to discover the sources and methods. He said so much that they could figure it out.”

Hmmm…that could apply to absolutely any intel….as said in previous post everyone knew that laptops were to be banned on aircraft….Trump told the Russkies exactly that according to his staff….we could work out why and that this must be due to intelligence received…and that must have come from inside ISIS….if the Press knew then how is it suddenly a security breach to reveal the same limited intel to the Russians who could have read it on the BBC website?

Zurcher knows this story is junk…..he admits it is political…

After all, the controversy that swirled around the White House on Monday night was never legal, it was political.

And yet he still reports it as if the claims are true.

The BBC have even called up the old fraud Frank Gardner to add his weight to the claims…where is his evidence that anyone called the NSA and the CIA after the meeting and if they did, where’s the evidence of what they talked about?  Perhaps, and most likely, it was a courtesy call to update them on a meeting that the President had just had with the Russians….something the CIA and NSA would want to be kept up-to-date with.

Gardner has no evidence at all and yet talks as if this is all fact…but note the careful get-out word…’reportedly’…

Golden rule: Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent

Despite the denials issued by the White House that any actual intelligence sources were revealed to the Russians, whatever was said in that Oval Office meeting was enough to alarm certain officials and, reportedly, to alert the CIA and NSA.

They in turn will have needed to warn the country that supplied the intelligence. There is a golden rule in the world of espionage that when one government supplies intelligence to another it must not be passed on to a third party without permission of the original supplier. The reason is simple: it could put the lives of their human informants at risk.

 

So despite there being absolutely no evidence that Trump compromised any intelligence or that anyone contacted the CIA or the NSA to ‘alert’ them to the ‘danger’ the BBC is reporting this as fact with a few weasel get-out words that they can point to if challenged about their peddling of politically motivated gossip as news.

This is a mud flinging exercise on a grand scale intended to discredit Trump, paint him as reckless, dangerous and untrustworthy with intelligence and high office…labelling him as unfit to be in Office…the BBC doesn’t care about the truth, it just flings the mud and knows that whatever the truth is that mud will stick and will add to all the other slurs they chuck at Trump in the hope that the American people will say enough is enough.

The BBC is hoping for, and working to engineer, regime change.  So very Russian nyet?

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Reporting Rumour as Fact…and not bothering with facts at all

  1. JimS says:

    Frank Gardner says, ” There is a golden rule in the world of espionage that when one government supplies intelligence to another it must not be passed on to a third party without permission of the original supplier. “

    But if the BBC gets to hear of it they will blab to the whole world, ‘we are just the messenger, we aren’t responsible for the consequences’.

       29 likes

    • Alan says:

      Yes…BBC and Guardian not so mindful of that ‘golden rule’ when they were aiding and abetting the West’s enemies by providing access to highly sensitive stolen intelligence…ala Snowden….nor at all mindful of those ‘lives of their human informants’…but then again these both are organisations that back terrorists and promote their causes.

         22 likes

    • john in cheshire says:

      We just have to remember how the far-left bbc behaved during the Falklands war and the first Iraq war. They were forever leaking information of benefit to our enemies.

         19 likes

  2. Owen Morgan says:

    “Hacking” and “leaking” tend to be used by the Beebyanka as if they were interchangeable, but they certainly are not. Hacking is perpetrated by an outsider, always illegal, often amateurish and, of necessity, random. Leaking is, by definition, done by an insider; he knows the value of his leaks, because he has legitimate access to the files which he is letting loose on the world. Leaking may be just as illegal as hacking, but the leaker always has a better chance than the hacker of getting to the sensitive stuff.

    I am firmly convinced that the Climategate file dump was a case of leaking, not hacking. Similarly, the embarrassing Democrat e-mails which came to light last year were leaked, not hacked. When Hillary Clinton, or “Professor” Phil Jones insists that an inadvertent disclosure is the result of “hacking”, it is a way to impute criminality to the release of the data, deflecting attention from the explosive content.

    The Democrats have been banging on about Russian influence in the 2016 election, but there is no evidence of anything of the sort. The hacks of the last few days do not support the Democrats’ claims, precisely because they are hacks and, as such, bear no resemblance to the methodology of the leaks during the 2016 election campaign.

       16 likes

    • Richard Pinder says:

      The BBC weatherman, Paul Hudson, received the first emails on the 12th October 2009, after Hudson, who is thought to be the nearest thing to being a qualified causational climate scientist, at the BBC, posted an article called “Whatever Happened To Global Warming”.

      The whistleblower is probably known to Paul Hudson and the BBC, and is thought to be a young man who worked or studied at the University of East Anglia, and lived in the north Norfolk area that can receive Look North weather reports from Paul Hudson. He is thought to have been let off by the Norfolk Constabulary, because the University of East Anglia did not want to make him a martyr by pressing charges, and wanting the Climategate reality to go away. Also the young man was not found to be a supporter of UKIP or the Tories, but probably frequents the Weatheraction website of the brother of the Leader of the Labour Party, which would have confused the Police agenda.

      The BBC has retrained Paul Hudson, and Hudson will keep his job, as long as he keeps secret about the BBC’s Climategate secrets. The BBC’s Climategate secrets have been filed in BBC Broadcasting House, room 101, with the Balen Report, by Colin Tregear.

         3 likes

  3. Payne by name says:

    It certainly says something about the BBC in the amount of headlines and opening paragraphs that they have within single quotation marks.

       8 likes

Leave a Reply