King Blair is Gone! Long Live King Brown!

Oh, and Brown is every bit the criminal terrorist that Blair was. The guy is just putrid, but why wouldn't he be? These people are all torn from the same cloth and are picked to serve the same masters. I thought more of you would have caught on to this by now, but I guess not.

 

Thie main page of PrisonPlanet has some good links (many from mainstream sources) regarding the recent "bombings" in the UK, which you should all check out...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

 

I know what he said -

CORBIN: Prince Bandar declined an interview but his lawyers have admitted payments were made into Riggs Bank with the UK and Saudi Government's approval, just as Panorama has revealed. "Bandar was a signatory" they said "but the money went for purposes approved by the Saudi Ministry of Defence, not for him personally, the palace, an official residence. But the big question remains, why were such huge payments made by such a secretive and convoluted route, and what were they for? Here's a last word from the Prince on the subject of corruption.

BANDAR: We did not invent corruption. This happens since Adam and Eve. I mean Adam and Eve were of heaven and they had hanky panky and they had to go down to earth, so this is human nature. But we are not as bad as you think.

This does not prove and he does not say this deal was fraught with corruption.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6745233.stm

Prince Bandar "categorically" denied receiving any improper payments and BAE said it acted lawfully at all times….

Yes he may see ''commision'' payments as ''normal'' .
You may see them as ''bribes''.
BAE have said commission payments were made to Saudis in connection with this deal. All that BAE has ever rejected is any suggestion that the commission payments were illegal.

Ok Ok it COULD be true they COULD be deemed ''illegal''
Up until 2001, there were no laws in Great Britain against bribery - however, there are indications that the payments to Prince Bandar continued well after that date and as of 1977 such payments to foreign politicians have been outlawed in the United States [That is why it is being investigated in the US - as payments were made to a American account].

The payments have not been proven to be ''illegal payoff''.

We are both judging a case that has not been fully finished yet - so lets wait and see.
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news..._01_L01557747_RTRIDST_0_BAE-INVESTIGATION.XML

Wooow calm down you have seen the ''allegations'' you have seen the rebutals - BOTH of us are going off that.
The verdict is not in yet.
The only reason I questioned you because you were making allegations that have not been proven to be true.

NO you accuse him of LYING wich is completly different .
The rationale behind the war was a fraction about WMD [that you have conviently ignored and not responded too] and Saddams lack of compliance.
The case Blair made about WMDs was a very very small fraction of the rationale - they were based on media speculation that it seems you fell for.
I accuse YOU of lying becauase I think you are well aware of this and this is one of the reasons why you refused to respond to that point.

"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."

"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it. I simply point out, such evidence was agreed by the whole international community, not least because Saddam had used such weapons against his own people and neighbouring countries.

"And the problem is, I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam.

"The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power."


This why i think he did not LIE but said something he and many others believed at the time.
http://www.downingstreetsays.com/archives/000205.html

You can NOT make the case for him saying ''Brits could be attacked by Saddam's WMD in 45 minutes''.

You could make the case the British media did and THEY lied..

 

Yes I have noticed.

No and No - it has gone through ''change'' but this was occuring for a long time before 2003/4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/thefuture/

Yes they did their job but they got it wrong.
They do not ''Tow the party line'' - they have to be more certain of their reporting becauuse of the way it is set up.

I think standards have been slipping within the BBC for a decade or more - nothing to do with Blair [as coincidental as it may seem].
You won't see any critisim of the BBC with out concluding it is a ''whitewash'' - so it is futile me stating the many none goverment led criticisms there are.

There are far too many to post but here is one I think you maybe interested in:

Post 2004 :
[Hutton:]
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1442402,00.html

No it is NOT controlled by R.Murdoch.
Aside from the BBC all the other terrestrial networks use ITN.
Only as far as i'm aware The Sun The News of the world and The [Sunday] Times are owned by Murdoch.
Leaving The Mail the gaurdian The Mirror The Daily Express The Indy The Telegraph - the list goes on. He is not allowed to own more than a certain percentage due to the competition commision.

The only thing i'd agree with you about his press - is the influence.

YES [and the gaurdian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6718831.stm

[where do you think you got some of your quotes and assumptions from ?]

Just type into google any ''scandal'' you like post 2004 and add BBC.

 

VOTE FOR CHINA! You know they will give the US one hell of a kicking eventually...

 

And before I get banned... IT WAS A JOKE!

you peoples all seem to be getting way too heated over this subject, but it also appears that some people aren't allowed to express their opinions, whether they agree or disagree.

 

They probably could now.

 

China isn't going to attack the US, and if they really wanted to hurt us they don't need nukes or even bullets. All they'd have to do is quit loaning us the money we must borrow from them daily to keep our economy from sinking.

Yes, in case you don't have your facts together, the US must borrow $2-3 billion EVERYDAY, just to keep things going. If China decided to stop loaning us the money, the economy would crash tomorrow.

BUT, they (the government and media) will use the scenario of war with China (and Russia) to instill more fear into the public.... no doubt.

It's all one big chessboard to the people running the whole thing.

 

Fascism is thrown around too loosely nowadays, Blair was far from a Fascist.

 

skip...

you are wasting your time here.. as a general rule the average brit has been indoctrinated from an early age to know "the facts" it is too much for the mind to turn back from these known "facts". britain enjoyed a brief interlude from a feudal society in the sixties but has slipped back into its old ways.

any briton who wants to know about the world will already done something to find out about it and i don't mean reading newspapers. 1984 is already a reality in britain when i visited a couple of years ago i was amazed to see the huge surveillance towers with searchlights and cameras on the uxbridge road at west ealing.

heres something else i came across on google to wet your appetite

http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/03/uk_007_goes_int.html

 

Yes a few of the ''top management'' i.e Greg Dyke/Gavyn Davies did leave the BBC.
You said The goverment got rid of them and the management were changed [because of the events regarding the Andrew Gilligan affair] - wich is not that true.
If you mean a few chose to leave because of that ''scandal'' - then yes you are correct. They jumped they were not pushed.

''Director General Greg Dyke has quit as the BBC's crisis deepens in the wake of Lord Hutton's damning verdict.
The BBC's new Acting Chairman Lord Ryder also apologised "unreservedly" for errors during the Dr Kelly affair.

Mr Dyke's departure came 20 hours after BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies resigned following the Hutton Report and after the governors spent Thursday morning in crisis talks in London.

An emotional Mr Dyke told BBC staff at their central London headquarters: "I don't want to go. But if in the end you screw up you have to go." ''


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3441181.stm

''The inquiry and charter renewal were separate processes but where it was "relevant and appropriate" the Hutton conclusions would be incorporated.

One of the first jobs of the new BBC chairman would be to "take those conclusions and subject them to discussion" within the corporation.''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3444219.stm

I don't know when you saw him say what he said so do not know if they are the same ''interview'' - The panorama programme was broadcast on Monday 11 June 2007 2030 BST - wich is fairly recent.
Maybe you are right the BBC do not do good investigative journalism anymore and have just regurgitated the same information already ''out there''.
Maybe the quote they used was OLD ?.


The other link is fairly old because it relates to a older story.
It wass after 2003/4 the period [to paraphrase] : they lost their edge and were not critical of the goverment. I said there are far to many but the one I linked to was relevant [I thought].

Well maybe you are correct and maybe the BBC ''Documentary'' was just covering old ground. The quotes I gave and the link I gave are the most recent BBC ''investigative reporting'' on the subject.

I did say:

''Ok Ok it COULD be true they COULD be deemed ''illegal''
Up until 2001, there were no laws in Great Britain against bribery - however, there are indications that the payments to Prince Bandar continued well after that date and as of 1977 such payments to foreign politicians have been outlawed in the United States [That is why it is being investigated in the US - as payments were made to a American account].

I imagine that is a good reason why it is being investigated in the US.

I agree.
I hope for a fairly difinitive answer that no 'bribes'' were given or the accusations have merit.
I just hope if it does not come up with the answer you like - you don't deem it a ''whitewash''.

 

What ''facts'' do you mean ?. The last few posts of skips - his ''facts'' have been lacking.
No offence to him -

You mean some lights so the CCTV is effective at night - i'd hardly call them ''searchlights'' - plus they are cctv cameras on posts not ''huge surveillance towers'' - You're a little melodramtic don't you think ? . All pretty much requested by the local residents.

I'm not even going there hahahaha.

 

As of yet we can not confidently say these were ''technically'' ''illegal payments'' - i've backed down from my assuptions they are not..we shall have to see.
I agree that these payments are far from straightforward - they are as convoluted as the ''cash for peerages''.

I don't see how it proves your point.
If you are talking about the charter renewal - that was mooted a very long time before the Hutton report and the fracas between the BBC and the Gov'.
YES parts of the charter reflected the different paradigm caused by the Hutton report.
You said the charter renewal was BECAUSE of the Hutton report and/or the fracas between the BBC and the Gov'.
That is NOT true.
If you mean the change in management that is also not true - show me how your interpretation works with the info I gave.. The Gov' had no role in either of there departures [well maybe only in a indirect way because it was the Gov' they had issues with].

 

They left because of the findings of the Hutton report - wich was [as you know] about David Kelly's death in light of the supposed ''sexed up'' dossier.
The timing reflects the fact that it was due to the aftermath of the report - that is their given reasons.
So no I don't think it was due to the overall reporting of the Iraq war - but can see your point.
It certainly seems that way looking in from the outside - even I can appreciate that.
I'm sure it was the ''final straw'' that broke the camels back - as this was quite literally life and death.

I know there was not - I never said there were.
Your initial point was:
''Not only did the Blair gov't replace the management of the BBC, but the BBC charter was changed, wasn't it?.''

So no I still do not think the Blair gov' removed the top management.
Not wishing to be anymore pedantic - yes the charter was changed [I just say one influencing the other not a renewal because of].
Yes they did leave soon after the report but that was not your point I assumed.

Again - yes I do believe it has - hence me posting the ''old story'' earlier.
There are many e.gs of them still being critical of the Gov't or allowing critics on the BBC.
All imho they attempt to do now is not do the same mistakes that occured with A.Gilligan.

I believe yes they do check the facts harder - they also attempt to be not as sloppy as they were with the way they handled themselves and ultimately allowed AG the ability to ''shoot his mouth off''.

You may have thought the accusations aimed at the Gov't were fair and acuurate - but both sides appreciate that was not the case - even if it maybe through gritted teeth.

I'd like to see where the goverment have decided to delete facts from broadcasts. I can see that any story relating to the Gov't that is BBC led is first ''vetted'' by the Gov't. They have a very unique resposibility and ofcom regulations [they always have - like every media outlet] to abide by. The BBC is not omnipotent [as much as they think they are] even they get their facts wrong and have shoddy reporting.

I agree they are a toothless wonder nowadays and attempt controversial topics but C4 outstrips them every single time.

Greg dyke imho turned this into a personal issue and I believe allowed personal opinion to get in the way. That is another thread all on its own *cough*.

Ultimately we both will not know if the goverment filters the news storys - any further than making sure accuracy is maintained [aside from opinion].
I do believe they over self regulate themselves now and are more apparent in their bias. It is just because there image has been tarnished and the perceptions have altered - they simply can't get away with some of the shit they did in the past.

Self censorship and MORE vetting YES. I just think we disagree WHO is doing this.

"It's not a conspiracy. It's visceral. They think they are on the middle ground", Jeff Randall, former BBC Business Editor, in The Observer, Jan 15th, 2006
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

 

>>"You mean some lights so the CCTV is effective at night - i'd hardly call them ''searchlights'' - plus they are cctv cameras on posts not ''huge surveillance towers'' - You're a little melodramtic don't you think ? . All pretty much requested by the local residents.">>



i saw these things whilst riding the bus

we took a second look at these things, the locals had become used to seeing these towers, to a visitor they were shocking. oh well long live the revolution at least i don't have to live there! good luck to em