To hear that the BBC will be sending teams of their own journalists into schools to teach children how to spot fake news is somewhat amusing if not just a little terrifying…it’s like sending Jimmy Savile into schools to teach the children how to spot a paedophile.

It’s not difficult kids…if it has ‘BBC’ on it then it’s a good chance of being fake news.

BBC to help students identify ‘fake news’

The BBC is launching a new scheme to help young people identify real news and filter out fake or false information.

The project is targeted at secondary schools and sixth forms across the UK.

From March, up to 1,000 schools will be offered mentoring in class and online to help them spot so-called fake news.

Ironically the BBC uses its announcement to spread fake, anti-Trump, news…

The term “fake news” was popularised by Donald Trump during his presidential election campaign last year.

He used the term to denigrate the output of the traditional news media, although it is also used to describe news stories that achieve significant traction despite being palpably false.

5 Live decided to explore the issue today and we had the intelligent, impartial, even-tempered Nihal to guide through the process.  LOL.  A man so unsuited to the job it is laughable.  For instance when a listener texted in that the BBC was as guilty of spreading fake news as anyone Nihal responded with derision and mockery in an aggressive and rude manner…he shouted out ‘bingo!’ as he received the message clearly indicating his attitude to criticism of the BBC. The texter said the BBC was the last place he would look for the truth and always used other media sources for his news.  Nihal snapped at him and told him ‘good luck with that…see how you get on’ as if no one can survive without the BBC feeding them its lies.

An irony that on a programme about fake news and echo chambers Nihal is unprepared to listen to other views and will only hear what he wants to hear.  But then that is Nihal, bigoted, racist and aggressively unpleasant….he likes to announce that Britain is a nastier and more racist place since Brexit….just one of the BBC’s favourite lies, along with ‘Islam is the religion of peace’, that they use to attack their opponents.  Nihal went on to tell us that ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ are not the same…there is a problem with ‘truth’.  No there is a problem with the BBC and its alternate facts.

Trump in no way invented nor popularised the term fake news…..it has been around for over a hundred years and the left-wing media used it extensively to attack Trump…Trump was not ‘denigrating’ news media but accurately describing their output. The BBC et al actually created the biggest bit of fake news….the myth of the ‘post-truth era’.  This is a deliberate attempt to shape the narrative in their own interest by claiming that only since Trump and Brexit has news become fake….see the title to the BBC video above….’Fake news and post-truth:  How th eworld changed in 2016′.  Except of course it didn’t change…or not at least in how it is reported….the media has always been completely untrustworthy.  What did change was Brexit and Trump….and the BBC hates that and shapes its news to paint both in as damaging a light as possible….ie fake news.

Look at the BBC video above when the BBC’s Allan Little claims there are now two Britains each with their own parallel truths as he shows the Boris Bus on screen and tells us that Leave promised us £350 million per week for the NHS.  This is post-truth politics he ridiculously claims…..however even if the bus did say what he claims, and it didn’t, politicians have been lying to us for, well, for ever.  That claim of a post-truth politics is fake news itself, an invented phantom bogeyman to scare people into doubting Brexit and Trump’s victorys were legitimate.  The BBC claims that this new ‘post-truth’ era is a danger to democracy…..the only danger to democracy is a massively powerful media organisation that is out of control and which is spreading misleading and false information about people and events it does not like.  Here you can see the BBC attacking Breitbart with false claims that it used a term, ‘Luegenpresse’ [lying press], that the BBC says was first used by the Nazis….unfortunately the term was coined long before the Nazis and is still in use in Germany today by the media there….including the left-wing media.  Just another classic attempt by the BBC to smear a political opponent with the ‘Nazi’ or Far-Right tag.

And the BBC can’t really claim that the term is not very apt in relation to its own output…Allan Little’s video above just one example of the lies and attempts to create the narrative that no one can be trusted except the BBC.

Lord Hall Hall says…

“By sharing our journalistic expertise, we want to give young people the skills and awareness they need to be confident about identifying the real news stories, and calling out the fakes.”

Get ’em young.  That’s the BBC plan…a somewhat sinister one that aims to position the BBC as the arbiter of truth and, in the eyes of a future generation, as the only trusted voice which they can rely upon for their news about the world.  This is not unlike the Nazis and Communists who always aimed to recruit and indoctrinate, brainwash, the young so that they would grow up into obedient and unthinking drones.

It is surprising that the government should allow the BBC to do this.  It is clearly an exercise in extending the BBC’s own influence and grip on the national consciousness and on the political discourse allowing it in future to have a powerful and dominant impact on what people see and hear in the news and thus potentially controlling how they perceive the world and then their reactions…such as how they vote.  This is a power grab by the BBC in a most sinister way, training, grooming, children to believe only one way of thinking is correct.

Here’s an interesting slip of the tongue from Buzzfeed:  Those Labour supporting media cheerleaders…like the BBC…

In short, Corbyn – like Donald Trump – needed his own media cheerleaders. Their rise has also resulted in a deep-seated distrust of supposedly Labour-supporting organisations such as the New Statesman – which was recently picketed over its anti-Corbyn stance – and the BBC, which until relatively recently was used to being under fire from the likes of the Daily Mail for being too left-wing.

No coincidence the NUJ was briefing Labour that the BBC needed its protection:

NUJ submission to the Labour Party consultation on fake news February 2017

Establish funding arrangements to ensure the future of the BBC as one of the world’s most respected and comprehensive news organisations

The role of the BBC as the bulwark that supports the UK’s broadcast media cannot be overstated. It is training academy, standard setter and commissioning hub for the industry, as well as being among the world’s most important media organisations and public service broadcasters. Tempting as many find it to find fault with aspects of its output, this should never detract from its importance, nor the need to ensure that it retains this vital role.

The BBC is also the UK’s most-trusted source of newsiv and is considered fair and impartial by the overwhelming majority of people in the UK. As such it is an exemplar of fair and balanced journalism (periodic issues notwithstanding).

Douglas Murray spots the BBC’s attempts to paint itself as the victim of fake news…

James O’Brien spreading ‘fake news’ via the BBC is a must-watch

The row about ‘fake news’ and the ‘crooked media’ appears to be ongoing.  And every time the BBC and other mainstream media mention it they present themselves solely as the victims of such phenomena.

As has John Redwood:

The BBC wants to change the news, not report it

The best way to spot fake  news is to look for the BBC logo….you can be pretty sure they are selling you something.

The BBC live blog on the Jerusalem story is currently being run by Becky Branford (who is a revolutionary marxist) and Mal Siret.

Yes, that’s the same Becky Branford who opposed Israeli plans in East Jerusalem, and the same Mal Siret who celebrated as “a stunning victory” the news that Jeremy Corbyn supported the Palestinian right of return.

Two completely biased Pro-Palestine/Anti-Israel reporters. Typical of the BBC.

Edit: Now they are also posting updates from Suzanne Kianpour who writes from Washington.

That’d be this Suzanne Kianpour.

https://www.instagram.com/p/sowbbZpSon/

BBC News itself is impartial and does not offer opinions

How then can they have an article which is entitled Prime Minister’s Questions: The verdict, featuring videos of BBC presenters giving their opinions verdicts?

"It was a time for forensic questioning" says @afneil on #pmqs but Mr Corbyn gave "a series of rather short speeches, a couple of which did not ended in any kind of question at all" #bbcdp pic.twitter.com/ZXj9kbBNJo

— BBC Daily Politics and Sunday Politics (@daily_politics) December 6, 2017

"More heat than light from both of them, it was not either of their finest hours" @bbclaurak on Brexit issues at #pmqs pic.twitter.com/zq9m4zpnoY

— BBC Daily Politics and Sunday Politics (@daily_politics) December 6, 2017

Perhaps Oxford need to update their thesaurus, because it wrongly claims that ‘verdict’ is a synonym of ‘opinion’.

I’m thoroughly disgusted that the BBC’s idea of education and entertainment almost always includes an underlying political element.

The latest attempt is Invasion! with Sam Willis which combats “the idea that we Britons are somehow unique”; they barely try to hide the support for mass immigration here. The argument is basically: “Britain historically had a lot of immigration, so you shouldn’t oppose further immigration” which is about as valid an argument as, “you used to wear a nappy, so you shouldn’t oppose wearing one now”.

According to Willis, claiming that we are “somehow unique” is a “myth” spread by people like Churchill, who claimed that we are an “island race”. Perhaps he should read Churchill’s ‘Birth of Britain’, because Churchill never supported such a silly myth, and I seriously doubt that anyone ever did. It’s obvious to anyone that we have a lot in common with people in many other places, in many important ways. That isn’t incompatible with a national identity. Willis’ myth itself is a myth, invented to mock people who oppose mass immigration. All the old history books speak at length about Roman, Norman, Celtic, Neolithic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking invasions. In some cases they even over-emphasise the impact of these events, the exact opposite of the “myth” the stupid British racist public are supposed to believe.

Churchill on the Bronze Age

Britain…as a whole was a backward country by comparison with the
Continent; primitive in its civilisation, stagnant and passive in its life, and
receiving most of what progress it enjoyed through invasion and importation
from overseas.

The BBC has stated in its news bulletins that the Manchester bomb attack could have been stopped.  In the web report they quote from a report saying that the attack coud have been stopped if… “the cards fallen differently.”

Could MI5 have stopped 2017’s attacks?

A major review of whether MI5 could have stopped any of 2017’s terrorism attacks has revealed details of opportunities that, had they been followed through, might have stopped two of them.

“MI5 … came by intelligence [on Abedi] in the months before the attack which, had its true significance been properly understood, would have caused an investigation into him to be opened.”

Those two pieces of undisclosed intelligence were thought to relate to crime, rather than terrorism.

Was this a missed opportunity? MI5 concluded that the intelligence was insufficient. But Mr Anderson’s review states: “It is conceivable that the Manchester attack… might have been averted had the cards fallen differently.”

Firstly that’s a totally meaningless statement…’if’ I had a time machine I could go back in time and fix everything with the knowledge I have now….if the cards had fallen differently is a nonsense statement…of course if things had been different…but they weren’t. Second the BBC misses out what was said before and after that claim.

Before we get to that let’s quote some more from the report, something of interest to do with the British people’s response….

The public response – like that of the police who reacted promptly to each attack – was impressive. Manchester came together in a moving demonstration of solidarity. The international headline which described London as “reeling” missed the mark: resilient, or resolute, would have been closer. Rather than divide the country, these shocking crimes united decent people of all races and religions in sympathy for the victims and condemnation for the attackers. Post-attack hate crimes, unacceptable though they are, cannot obscure this greater truth.

The BBC prefers to say that the British response was a wave of anti-Muslim hatred and a rising tide of ‘Islamophobic’ attacks.  I might suggest the people of this country have been incredibly tolerant and patient with the Muslim community considering what has happened over the last 25 years.

But back to ‘they could have stopped it’……

The report says…‘in a free society and against a worsening threat background, it is not realistic to expect everything to be stopped.’

And in relation to the Manchester attack in particular….

Salman Abedi (Manchester)
Abedi: summary
Like Khalid Masood (but 30 years younger), Salman Abedi was a closed SOI at the time of his attack, and so not under active investigation. MI5 nonetheless came by intelligence in the months before the attack which, had its true significance been properly understood, would have caused an investigation into him to be opened. It is unknowable whether such an investigation would have allowed Abedi’s plans to be pre-empted and thwarted: MI5 assesses that it would not.

So completely unknowable if the attack could have been stopped….if only things had been different…well yes.

That phrase ‘had the cards fallen differently‘ was in fact part of a paragraph praising MI5 and the police whose systems were working well….and is a rather strange and casual line as it suggests a perfect knowledge of things they didn’t know and is a throwaway comment based more on hope than fact….

Nor could it be said of the attacks under review, save in the case of Finsbury Park, that MI5 and the police were entirely blindsided. Khalid Masood (Westminster) and Salman Abedi (Manchester) had both been subjects of interest, and Khuram Butt (London Bridge) remained under active investigation. Substantial and appropriate coverage was in place around key individuals, and mechanisms designed to assess risk were working as intended. MI5 and CT Policing got a great deal right: particularly in the case of Manchester, they could have succeeded had the cards fallen differently.

The report goes on to admit that this is purely the opinion of one man using knowledge gained after the event against the judgement of MI5’s professional opinion….The author claims he ‘offers no view’ but then strangely suggests it is possible MI5 could have stopped the atatck but we can’t know because that is pure speculation based upon a high degree of inherent uncertainty…in other words he doesn’t have a clue but is hedging his bets with some mealy mouthed words…

In relation to the question of whether the Manchester attack could or should have been stopped (2.37 and 3.15 above), I offer no view on whether the re-opening of an investigation into Salman Abedi in early 2017 would, as MI5 concludes “on the clear balance of professional opinion”, have been unlikely to result in the pre-emption of the gathering plot. While that may be right, I prefer to emphasise my agreement with the other point made in this connection: that “there is a high degree of inherent uncertainty in speculating as to what might or might not have been discovered”.

We are also told how difficult MI5’s job is…and yet the report can claim maybe, possibly, if only, had things been different….the attack could have been stopped….

The Director General of MI5 recently described the work of his staff in the following terms:
“They are constantly making tough professional judgments based on fragments of intelligence: pin pricks of light against a dark and shifting canvas.”

After immersing myself in the minutiae of these investigations, that strikes me as an accurate description of MI5’s counter-terrorism work. The reason why the judgements can be “tough” is that they are made against a background of imperfect information, and yet frequently require staff to choose which of a number of current and potentially deadly threats is most deserving of scarce investigative resource.

So pretty much nonsense to  suggest the Manchester attack could have been stopped.  The BBC of course grabs the headline that makes the most sensation…entirely irresponsible as it creates anger amongst victims and their families and expectations that can never be fulfilled…..as the report says…

‘in a free society and against a worsening threat background, it is not realistic to expect everything to be stopped.’

Hitler could have been stopped ‘had the cards fallen differently’.…but they didn’t.  And of course the BBC played its part in that banning Churchill and his anti-Hitler speeches from the airwaves in case he ‘offended’ the Germans.  Sounds very familiar today.

You have to wonder about May, is she incredibly stupid, incredibly devious or both?  How is it possible that she could ever conceive that the DUP [or any sensible UK citizen] would accept Northern Ireland being annexed by the EU?  How could she not realise that such an agreement would also fire up the SNP, and the devious little chancer Khan, the end result being the complete disintegration of the UK, the remnants being swept up by the EU?  Is that her plan?  Have to think it must be…she can’t be so stupid not to realise the consequences of her actions.  ‘Regulatory alignment’ maybe a somewhat vague and woolly phrase but it points very definitely in one direction….people say it does not mean staying in the single market and the customs union but in essence it does…and regardless, the SNP and Khan et al will be using it to leverage their own interests.  Stupid move by May…or genius…if you’re a Remainder….just unlucky the truth got out before the ink was dry.

The BBC has been telling us this was Ireland’s moment, the time when it had the most leverage to get a deal on its terms….complete tosh….it had no leverage whatsoever.  So it vetoes any deal due to border issues, then what?  Hmmmm…let’s forget any deal at all and go to the WTO and then impose a border….Ireland loses either way.  It had no leverage….just another BBC fantasy…fake news.

We have mentioned before that it is curious how the BBC makes no comment on an unelected foreign power, the EU, trying to engineer the annexation of Northern Ireland in an attempt to smash the UK.  The BBC is very, very concerned about supposed [no proof at all of that collusion] Russian interference in American politics via a few paultry ads on Facebook and yet when the EU tries to muscle in on British internal politics in an attempt to destroy our sovereignty and our nation the BBC says nothing.  At least Putin is elected unlike Druncker and Barnum.

Apparently the DUP has ‘derailed’, ‘blocked’ and ‘rejected’ the deal….the DUP is to blame for the end of an ‘historic agreement’.  Er…..just why is it historic?  It’s just one phase on the way to more negotiations…the referendum was historic…but you don’t see the BBC cheering for that oddly enough…it must be because the BBC recognised May’s deal for what it was [along with that offer of £40+ billion and the acceptance of ECJ rule]….total surrender and the end of a real Brexit.  Whilst the DUP gets the blame it is interesting to note the contrasting language the BBC has always used for the EU who have been completely intransigent and stubbornly opposed to any compromise of its demands and which has refused to negotiate until its demands have been met in full.  Who was to blame for that?  The British, who ‘failed to provide clarity’ or it is ‘up to Britain to make the next move’ or it is ‘up to Britain to come up with an offer acceptable to the EU’.  The EU has never derailed, blocked or rejected any negotiations if you believe the BBC.

It’s never the EU’s fault……some advice for the breathless BBC….

The DUP, the BBC told us, ‘some might say’, is too powerful and influential…Peter Hain [the world’s most slippery and dishonest politician….lots of competition though] told us [amongst much else] that it was the DUP tail wagging the dog.  Hmmm….he doesn’t seem at all concerned about the reality….the EU is controlling the narrative and it gave the veto on negotiations to the Irish government who gave it to the IRA in essence.  What we hear is that if any sort of border is set up the IRA will start its terrorism again…which is odd as it has decommissioned all of its arms…hasn’t it?  LOL.  The Irish government, Remain politicians like Hain and Blair, and the BBC, all use the threat of a reborn IRA to scare everyone…to blackmail them with threats of violence…a tactic no doubt learnt from our Muslim ‘community leaders’ for whom it has worked so well.

David Trimble nails it…though is more circumspect in naming the real culprits…Sinn Fein being the political wing and mouthpiece of the IRA….

The real reason why the border has become such an issue is that Sinn Fein is -trying to exploit Brexit to break up the UK.

What Leo Varadkar is doing is trying to appeal to Sinn Fein voters. He hasn’t learned the lesson that some Irish nationals have painfully learned in Northern Ireland: that you can’t out-Sinn Fein Sinn Fein. All he is doing is validating its position. For its own reasons, the EU is egging him on.

It just shows you how desperate the EU and Irish nationalists are that they’re -clutching at these straws.

Hain was given free rein to spout his nonsense on Adrian Chiles’ show..absolutely no challenge to anything he said even as he came up with the old Remain lie about the referendum ballot paper not mentioning leaving the single market and the customs union….no, but the choice was to stay in or leave the EU…and as the EU’s ‘redline’ is membership of the single market, and with that free movement of people, it is obvious that leaving the EU is also leaving the single market….as was pointed out again and again during the referendum debates by both Leave and Remain.

May, incredibly naive, stupid or cunning?  The BBC’s excited reaction, and the SNP’s and Labour’s, gives the clue….the deal was one that would finish off Brexit in all but name.

It is ironic though that it was the BBC, along with a Belgium MEP, that dashed Remain hopes and revealed the plan to the world…..

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said she had been told by Belgian MEP Philippe Lamberts that the UK had made a concession on the Irish border.

She said Mr Lamberts had said the UK was prepared to accept that Northern Ireland may remain in the EU’s customs union and single market in all but name.

The Irish press then picked it up and ran with it….and the rest is history as the DUP spoke up for Britain and the Union and kiboshed the betrayal.  The DUP, worth every penny of that £1 billion.

Brexit saved thanks to the DUP https://t.co/oc02KTbDKf

— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) December 5, 2017

Brendan O’Neil in the Spectator:

The EU says it is Ireland’s mate and trusts it to make big decisions. It really doesn’t. It wants Ireland to do one thing and one thing only: wound Brexit. Ireland is being played like a fiddle. It is being used by an EU that is still reeling from our brilliant Brexit sucker-punch and which is so desperate to preserve its flagging authority that it is willing to pit Ireland against Britain; the Irish government against the British people; Irish concerns against British democracy. This is cynical, divisive and dangerous. An oligarchical institution that has demonstrated nothing but contempt for Irish and British voters and which is so speedily losing the plot that it’s happy to stir up tensions between nations in order to do over a democratic vote? With each passing day I grow happier and happier that I voted for Brexit.

This piece by Robin Swann, leader of NI's Ulster Unionist party, strongly supports DUP position. Let no-one fool you into thinking DUP only represents its own voters. It is supported by ALL Unionists in NI. And in GB. ???????? https://t.co/6oAhHWXW2A

— Yes Brexit (@YesBrexit) December 5, 2017

The BBC were ecstatic yesterday as it thought Brexit was broken by May’s double dealing….getting a bit shriller today as the Remain joy is dashed….ironically by the BBC’s own reporting of the slippery concession May made to the IRA.

Lots to talk about I’m sure…list it all here…..

Bamboozled by Brexit? Don’t worry, remainer Sofia Bettiza will “explain”. The video largely consists of people negatively affected by Brexit though, and doesn’t have time to explain much. Is she biased? Yes: Sofia Bettiza – “Britain, please don’t Vote Leave!”

President Donald Trump has dramatically scaled back two public outdoor parks, or national monuments, in Utah. The policy is likely to provoke lawsuits from Native American tribes and environmental groups. But it will be welcomed by ranchers and business interests who view such monuments as federal land grabs.

Now guess the headline:

1. Anger as Trump shrinks Utah Monuments
2. Trump’s shrinking of Utah Monuments is welcomed
3. Mixed reaction as Trump shrinks Utah Monuments

You don’t need me to tell you the answer. I think if everyone in America supported Trump’s decision except one person, they’d still go with headline 1 and highlight that person’s views.

Who knew?  Andrew Marr told us this morning that Moscow is ‘one of the great Muslim cities of Europe’ and that Russia has a ‘very, very powerful Muslim identity’.

Really?  Muslims make up 14% of Moscow’s population and just over 10% of the population nationally….88% of the population of Russia is Christian….maybe Marr thinks that cathedral in Red Square is a mosque.

The BBC is outraged that Trump Retweets something from ‘Britain First’, and I would suggest he had no idea who the group were as he was apparently linked to the Tweets by Anne Coulter and you have to suspect he thought ‘Britain First…America First..what’s not to like?’ without knowing they were somewhat different.  In contrast the BBC is not outraged by a religion that teaches its followers to hate, if not kill, Christians and Jews, to kill gays, to kill those who leave the religion, to kill adulterers, to take slaves, to turn those slaves into sex slaves, to take land and treasure ‘in the name of Allah’, to treat women as second class citizens.

What’s  not to like….and yet they attack Trump who criticises such fanaticism.  Funny old world.  And now they try and spread Islam by ‘normalising’ it and making it seem more acceptable and more widespread than it is.

Stupid and dangerous.

Good old Auntie.