Liberate your mind from state sponsored propaganda
An enduring myth about the BBC is that it is an impartial news organisation, but such an idea could not be further from the truth.
The BBC established itself as an instrument of British propaganda during the 1926 General Strike, when supporters of the strike nick-named it the British Falsehood Company (BFC). Since then, the British establishment has used the BBC to shape public opinion by selectively reporting on events at home and around the world.
Currently, the BBC is overseen by the BBC Trust, whose members are selected by the Queen, on the advice of government ministers. The 12 Trustee members set the strategy for the BBC and then have it implemented through their appointment of the BBC's Director General.
The BBC is not impartial. There are numerous topics of interest to the British people that the BBC will either not report on, or that it actively side-lines and denigrates. Long term investigative journalism should include the following crucial subjects:
1. Crimes by the State Against the People 1.1 Ministry of Defence (MoD) Activities 1.1.1 - On-going Weather Modification Experiments
How can the BBC promote the arguments of man-made global warming, without paying attention to clandestine experiments and operations to manipulate global weather systems for the purposes of military and economic superiority? Currently, there is a great deal of controversy over Chemtrails, which is the release of chemicals from jet airplanes into the atmosphere. These are not the normal condensation trails or 'contrails' that used to be associated with high altitude flying. They are deliberate attempts to manipulate weather systems, with no concern for the effects on public health or wildlife. It is said that this is achieved through an aerosol cocktail of potentially dangerous chemicals that are sprayed into the air behind aircraft, thereby creating a fine mist and haze that hangs over large parts of Britain. The UK is actually a signatory to the 1976 UN Weather Weapons Treaty, whereby it has agreed within paragraph 1 of Article 1, "not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party." The problem is that the terms of this agreement are not defined. What is really meant by "military or .. hostile use"? Also, why do the effects have to be "widespread, long-lasting or severe" and why do they have to be a "means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party"? Within paragraph 1 of Article 3, it states that "The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes". That is the 'Get Out of Jail Free Card' for the British government and all other foreign governments that are signatories to the treaty. It means that there is no restriction on weather modification experiments in the UK if they are committed by agencies of the UK government. Historically, this has always involved the MoD and it has been able to do this without any public oversight. If this is news to you, it is because the BBC does not investigate, let alone report on matters of this kind. Why is that? Why is it so silent on such a serious threat to people's health and the environment?
1.1.2 - On-going Testing of Chemical and Biological Agents on the Public
How can the BBC sit back without investigating activities undertaken in Britain that deliberately put the public in harm's way? Official secrets do not justify mass poisoning, so why is the BBC mute on this subject? In addition to 'weather modification experiments', the MoD has undertaken secret tests for over 30 years, to understand how potentially harmful substances, including bacteria, are spread throughout the population after they have been released from MoD controlled sites. When a Guardian journalist asked if the MoD is still undertaking such tests, their spokeswoman said that "It is not our policy to discuss on-going research". Who then is the MoD answerable to? Is the MoD really there to protect the citizens of the UK or is its remit much narrower and only concerned with protecting the British establishment? Maybe the common people should just accept that they are fodder for MoD testing, however much damage it does to them, their families or the environment. The BBC will never question this arrangement, so why should you?
2. Actions by the State that Undermine Democracy 2.1 International Treaties That Usurp Parliament 2.1.1 - The undemocratic expansion of the European Economic Community (EEC) into the European Union (EU).
How can the BBC always claim that it is unbiased with regard to the EU and the recent referendum, when it has never questioned the relentless march to a federalist Europe? Why has the BBC never questioned the transfer of powers from Parliament to Europe when they were never part of the original 1975 referendum to remain in the 'Common Market'? Why is the BBC content to allow such breaches of democratic sovereignty to go unchallenged? Why is the BBC happy to accept that we are where we are, instead of insisting that any powers transferred to Europe that fell outside of the original referendum question in 1975 are illegal and treasonous and should be repealed?
2.1.2 - The unchecked expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
Why does the BBC never ask questions about the expansion of NATO and the implications that this has for Britain? The North Atlantic Treaty was originally formed to counter the possibility of an armed attack by the Soviet Union and was therefore meant to be a defensive coalition. Since the cold war ended, the original 12 member states have been bolstered by a further 16 nations, mainly from countries in Eastern Europe. The result is that NATO is now close to the border of the Russian Federation and as such is perceived by Russia as an aggressive, rather than a defensive collaboration. Why does the BBC never report on this? Furthermore, NATO currently accounts for over 70% of the global military budget. Why has the BBC never questioned this? Why has the BBC never asked questions about the level of Britain's involvement in this bloated and out of control organisation?
2.1.3 - The unexamined growth of the United Nations (UN) and its aims.
Why does the BBC never delve into the growing operational remit of the UN and its associated costs? Britain provides about 5% of the UN's annual budget, which amounted to more than $5.5 billion in 2013 but the BBC never questions this level of expenditure. Given the controversy over the UN's Agenda 21, why has the BBC never launched an investigation into this policy and its underlying assumptions about mankind's relationship with the environment? Why has the BBC bought into the idea that everything that the UN does is good? Why does the BBC never question the structure and actions of the UN? Is it really a union of nations or a subversive power that undermines the freedoms of people around the world? Why does the BBC avoid analysis of how Agenda 21 is affecting legislation in Britain, when it is supposed to be a non-binding resolution?
2.1.4 - The secret discussions to set up the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP).
The plans to implement TTIP are nothing short of a scandal, yet the BBC seems to be extremely shy about reporting on what is happening. The Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) is intended to create a trading block or 'common market' between Europe and the United States of America. The U.S. is already in similar talks to set up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will effectively eliminate trade restrictions from Canada down to Mexico. In essence, TTIP is part of a set of worldwide agreements that will eliminate trade restrictions. This is being sold as progressive and a good thing. However, this process is completely undemocratic, both in the way that it is being negotiated and in terms of its implementation. Once implemented, it will give multinational corporations rights above those of nation states. If the UK signs up to this outlandish agreement, our national sovereignty will be cast aside. Current regulations for the control of the banking industry, food safety and healthcare and for the right to privacy and to govern ourselves will be destroyed. The irony of all this is that the BBC loves to produce documentaries about how Britain stood up to tyranny during the Second World War, yet it is happy to see the rights that our ancestors fought so heavily for, given up and passed over to the new tyranny of international corporatism.
2.2 Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB) That Usurp Parliament
Why does the BBC never look into the operation of NDPBs (also known as Quangos)? Such organisations perform government actions without actually being part of the structure of government. As such, they operate without the level of scrutiny that normally applies to formal executive agencies. The people that run NDPBs are appointed, rather than formally recruited or elected. The financial details of NDPBs are consolidated together for accounting purposes and described collectively as General Government. NDPB do not include public corporations or public broadcasters like the BBC and Channel 4 but this is really a matter of classification, rather than a substantial difference in their modes of operation. Is this why the BBC dares not look into such a shady branch of government? Could it be that NDPBs are used to enforce the actions agreed through international treaties, so that people are unaware how their democratic rights are being usurped?
2.3 The Unchecked Growth of the Surveillance Society
Over the years and without the consent of the British people, Britain has become a surveillance society, with a CCTV camera for every 11 people. According to Edward Snowden, the American whistle blower, the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has developed a system called Tempora, which Snowden described as "the most invasive network intercept program anywhere in the world". He said that it is the world's first 'full take' (content and metadata) on everything. Snowden said that GCHQ is a bigger threat to privacy than America's National Security Agency (NSA) and that it uses illegally collected information with few constitutional checks on its activities. In other words, GCHQ is operating outside of the law and where laws do exist in this area, they are inadequate to control GCHQ's activities. Snowden argues that a citizen should never have to justify their right to privacy; otherwise it is not an automatic right. Snowden also said that the lack of mainstream media interest in such dangers to privacy is a "dis-service to the public". This of course includes the BBC. The fact that the BBC never delves into how Britain has descended into a police state, means that you must question the stance of the BBC on such serious matters and the extent to which it controls and stifles legitimate debate.
2.4 The Role of CO2 in Global Warming
Why is the BBC promoting the idea of man-made global warming, when there is no evidence to support it? Also, why does the BBC imply that anyone who questions this unproven theory is a deluded idiot? You only have to look at the treatment of former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson and the current head of Weather Action, Piers Corbyn. Both argue that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 drives temperature changes on earth. In fact, while there is a relationship between CO2 and global temperatures, it is not one where CO2 drives rises in temperature. Instead, it is the other way around. Increases in the earth's temperature drive rises in the level of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere. Furthermore, CO2 is not a toxic gas; it is plant food that is good for the environment. This may sound like heresy but that is because the BBC has invested heavily in this idea. It has done so to justify restrictions on what people do, how they do it and the taxes that they pay. It is pure propaganda on a massive scale. Protecting the environment is of course an important thing. However, claiming that a theory is true when it is just an unproven hypothesis is a form of scientific terrorism that only serves to scare the public, so that people will meekly submit to whatever restrictions the state deems necessary for fixing the 'problem'.
3. Actions by Secret Societies that Undermine Democracy 3.1 The Freemasons
Why does the BBC never investigate to what extent Freemasons and other secret societies shape British society? It has been said that there is no way of progressing through the ranks of the police unless you are a Mason. How true is this? If it is true, then surely the public has a right to know and to be aware of the extent to which it affects the ability of the police to do their job properly. The problem is that membership of a secret society is a conflict of interest to anyone serving the public. Why does the BBC never investigate the insidious nature of such organisations to pervert justice and to hamper the ability of public bodies to honourably fulfil their duties?
4. Instruments of the State That Are Contrary to Democracy and the Law 4.1 The Official Secrets Act
Everyone in Britain is subject to the Official Secrets Act, whether they have signed it or not. The Act protects state secrets but it does so in a completely unbalanced way. If the state engages in actions that are undemocratic or illegal but which fall under the umbrella of secrecy, it can avoid the scrutiny and oversight that normal government activity would be subject to. More disturbing is the fact that when individuals object to their participation in questionable activities by the state and feel the need to blow the whistle on wrong doing, their rights are secondary to those of the establishment organisations involved. Protecting secrets is important but when such legislation is used to cover up state sanctioned crimes, then the balance of power has tipped to a dangerously undemocratic point. However, while the BBC reports on breaches of the Official Secrets act, it has never seriously challenged the current system or sought to rectify the legal imbalance by seeking amendments that protect whistle-blowers from prosecution, especially when the actions of whistle-blowers are in the public interest and for the public good. Why is the BBC content to retain legislation that protects state secrets, irrespective of whether those secrets concern unlawful activities?
4.2 The Secret Services
Related to official secrets are the activities of the intelligence services. In 1987, former MI5 officer Peter Wright published his book Spycatcher. In it, he claimed that MI5 had conspired to discredit the democratically elected Prime Minister Harold Wilson. In other words, a highly secretive government organisation took actions to undermine the very government that it was supposed to be serving. It makes you wonder who is really in charge; is it the nation's people or a shadowy group of conspirators that use public money to manipulate events to their advantage and at the expense of the public good? Why does the BBC never question this arrangement? Why are the secret services not subject to greater oversight and scrutiny?
4.3 The City of London and the Banking Sector
Why is it that the BBC never questions the role of the City of London in domestic and foreign affairs? The City of London is a City and County within London that is not London. It acts as a separate state within the UK, having achieved 'independence' because of loans that it made to the Crown. As such, it acts like an offshore tax haven, even though it is located at the heart of the UK. The City of London even has its own representative in parliament called the Remembrancer, whose role it is to protect, promote and enhance the status of the City, and to look out for political dissent against its privileges. The importance of the Remembrancer is illustrated by the position of its seat in parliament, which is opposite that of the Speaker. Yet, how many people know about the existence of this professional lobbyist for the banking sector? Is it really appropriate for a cabal of bankers to have such a prominent role in the affairs of state, particularly since the City has obtained exemptions from the very laws and taxes that it helps to shape? Given the financial crisis in 2008 and the on-going call for 'austerity', why is it that the BBC never asks questions about this archaic arrangement?
4.4 The Defence Notice (D Notice) System
The D Notice system was established in 1912 and is a gentleman's agreement between the state and the media. It was originally established to protect information that the state regarded as sensitive. It is said to be an entirely voluntary system, with no legal authority for enforcement but it can lead to legal sanctions if news organisations do not do as they are told. D Notices continue to be issued on the authority of the Defence Press & Broadcasting Committee to media organisations, thereby withholding information from the public on whatever the Committee decides, even if it is not a matter of national security. A good example of where the D Notice system has been mis-used is in the suppression of information about Prince Phillip and the rumours of his various affairs whilst being married to the Queen. Not only are there alleged to be a significant number of such notices on this subject, they will remain in place for decades to come. If you have never heard of the D Notice system before, it is because the BBC has done a good job of hiding it from you. Given this, how can anyone continue to believe that the BBC is an independent and impartial news organisation?
5. Inaction by the State That Undermines Democracy and the Law
As well as having a duty to report on actions by the state that are questionable and newsworthy, the BBC also has an obligation to report on inaction by the state, particularly when failure to act is highly questionable and definitely newsworthy. The problem is that the state is often happy to do nothing, when taking action would expose wrong doing. Worse still, is that the BBC is compliant in allowing such inactivity to go unchallenged, particularly when it affects democratic rights and the legal process.
5.1 The Royal Family
It seems to be a taboo for the BBC to report on aspects of the Royal Family that may be controversial. Maybe that is because the sovereign is responsible for selecting and appointing the members of the BBC Trust. However, royalty is supposed to be subject to the law just as everybody else is. So, why is it that the BBC always fails to ask awkward questions about the British monarchy and the British aristocracy?
5.1.1 - The failure of the Queen to perform her sworn duties.
While the Queen is just portrayed as a figurehead, she does have the power to with-hold Royal ascent. At her coronation, the Queen swore an oath to govern according to UK laws and customs and to use her power to cause Law and Justice to be executed. Whilst it is very unusual for a monarch to with-hold Royal ascent, it is a power that the Queen possesses, particularly if she is asked to do something that is contrary to the interests of the people. Unfortunately, the Queen has subjugated herself and her people to the whims of politicians that only have their own interests at heart. According to the British Constitutional Group (BCG), the UK is in danger of losing protections from ancient constitutional documents. Why then will the Queen do nothing about this and why does the BBC continue to hide these facts from the British people?
5.1.2 - The failure of the police to interview Prince Charles about the death of Lady Diana.
Following the death of Lady Diana, a letter came to light where she warned of a plot by her X-husband (Prince Charles) to arrange for her to die in a car accident. The point is that if any other woman in the UK had written such a letter predicting how she would die, then her X-husband would undoubtedly be a prime suspect. The problem is that the police never interviewed Prince Charles on this matter. Even worse, the BBC never reported on this monumental failure by the police to perform their duty and to uphold the law. Instead of asking questions about such an injustice, the BBC just let the inaction of the police go unreported.
5.1.3 - The failure of the police to interview Prince Charles about his friendship with Jimmy Savile.
Since his death, it has become apparent that Jimmy Savile was a depressingly odious individual and he is now regarded as the most prolific predatory sex offender in British history. The problem is that he was a good friend of Prince Charles. So, why is it that Prince Charles has never been interviewed by the police about his relationship with this now notorious criminal? It could be that Prince Charles's relationship with Jimmy Savile was completely innocent. Prince Charles may have been completely unaware of what Jimmy Savile was getting up to. However, people who worked at the BBC at the same time as Savile have since admitted that rumours about the knighted disc jockey were rife. Surely then, the police have an obligation to understand what Prince Charles knew about Savile. Unfortunately, the police failed in their duty to interview the Prince and once again the BBC chose not to report on a how those responsible for upholding the law failed to pursue a significant lead in their investigations.
6. Actions by the BBC that Undermine Democracy and the Law 6.1 The Case of Tony Rooke
The case of Tony Rooke highlights how sinister the BBC can be. Mr Rooke became aware of the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre complex in New York. Everyone knows that the two towers collapsed but few people know about the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane. The official line is that World Trade Centre Building 7 (WTC7) collapsed because it suffered secondary damage from the attacks, which led to a fire breaking out that eventually caused the building to fall down. The problem is that the BBC reported on the collapse of WTC7 twenty two minutes before it actually fell. When the building did eventually collapse, it did so at free fall speed, meaning that there was no resistance from its internal structures. The problem is that for a building to collapse in this way, if must have been subject to a controlled demolition. As such, the only way that the BBC could report on such an unlikely outcome, was if the BBC had advanced knowledge of the terrorist attacks and advanced knowledge of where the damage would occur. Mr Rooke believed that the BBC had deliberately deceived the public on this matter and so refused to pay his TV license, as he argued that it would mean funding an organisation that was linked to terrorism. Subsequently, the BBC took Mr Rooke to court for non-payment of the license fee. The result of the trial was that the judge accepted Mr Rooke's argument about the BBC's advanced knowledge. As such, the outcome of the trial was somewhat ambiguous. Mr Rooke did not have to submit a back payment for the time that he did not pay the license fee. He was not fined for non-payment of the license fee but he did have to pay the court costs. This is an extra-ordinary outcome and yet the BBC never reported on it. Furthermore, if you search the BBC website for details about the case, you will be unable to find anything about it. The BBC has supressed all details on this and is now using copyright law to prevent people from viewing the footage where the BBC reporter announced that WTC7 had collapsed, while it was still standing behind her.