Pravda, Tass, BBC

Pravda, Tass BBC. Where is the connection?

Pravda and Tass, as some may remember were the mouthpieces of the soviet Union. The official organs. Pravda in English "Truth" and Tass, officially the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union were well known back in the days of the cold war. Nowadays we hear less of them.

Both were coordinated and censored by their government. It is probably true that certain trivialities were not necessarily moderated by the party but in the main anything that might be referred to as "News" was strictly controlled by Kruschev, Breschnew, Gorbatschev and consorts.

So how can one even imagine a similarity between these party mouthpieces and the BBC?

Simple. Recent issues have shown that the BBC is also strictly ruled by the UK government. Do they really freely report on current affairs? Looking at our recent article on "Lying by Ommission" it would seem not.

Actually the BBC might be better at misinformation than their Soviet counterparts. For those of us who ever followed the strictly socialist terminology of the UDSSR, including East Germany (DDR) we were constantly confronted with extreme bellicose, antagonistic rebuttals of western actions and heroic claims of the success of their forces and government. The people's heroes.

It was blunt, almost childish and not even their own inhabitants would be taken in by the rhetoric.

For those of us who ever followed the strictly socialist terminology of the UDSSR, including East Germany (DDR) we were constantly confronted with extreme bellicose, antagonistic rebuttals of western actions and heroic claims of the success of their forces and government. The people's heroes.

How much more subtle and persuasive is our dear "Beeb".

Recently a listener called during the night to Radio 5 (Solent) and dared to voice his opinion about Mr. Trump being elected as US president, the arrests and sentencing of people he felt had been unfairly prosecuted for merely voicing an opinion.

We need to be honest. You haven't always been able to voice your opinion in our great country previously. Try calling the King names in the 16th century? You might end up on Tyburn tree, if you even got that far.

But the listener was duly rebutted by a loyal BBC presenter who insisted that Trump was a liar (implying always), that Robinson was only sentenced because of contempt of court and that the lady who received a custodial sentence for repeating a twitter tweet had been inciting riots.

So it would have been wonderfull to ask this prime example of woke labourism if he had never lied? Well if you have ever done that once, then it would be valid to cally you a liar for the rest of your life. If as many poor Jews and socialists realised as they went to the gas chambers you had dared to speak out against the rulers, then you would have been sentenced and if you repeated your statements it was contempt of court. Nothing to do with common sense right or wrong of course. Repeating or liking a tweet stating that you felt Islamists were taking over the country got you, according to the presenter, rightly a severe sentence. Freedom of expression or "god forbid" freedom of speech.

Starmer is now almost violently attempting to clear his and his buddies illegal influence on the press and police by stating we were all too stupid to understand what was going on after the Stockport slaughter so they had to keep the lid on all reporting. He also claims that terrorism is new. What world has this man being living in? It certainly proves he is not fit to govern this nation.

Illegal? Because the rules of democracy are clear that the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary must be independant of each other. We have already reported that the UK is severly lacking in separation of power between the Legislative and Executive but Starmer's influence over the police (are they judiciary?) and the courts, including scheduling and sentence severity, is beyound the pale.

To claim this is a new type of terrorism is another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. Of course with our insular lack of learning from others it may be possible that there are deluded people who believe what the PM is bleating. We remember other attacks in the USA, Europe and also in the UK which have been obvious since the beginning of the century at the very latest.

The BBC is starting to report on the Southport catastrophy but only because the public outcry is unstoppable. How long did they manage not to report on the gang-rape outcry. They completetly ignored the petition which, even if useless in these times, had gathered around three million signatures. The birds were chirping it from the rooftops but the BBC was too busy feeding its own nestlings.

Pravda: I hear you chirping.

Based on the news that the suspected perpetrator had pleaded gulty Jeremy Vine at 12:48 on 21.01.2025 stated "We now know he did it". BTW a confession is not always considered to be proof but I doubt if Mr. Vine has got that far. In some jurisdictions confessions are never accepted as evidence.

The BBC is starting to report on the Southport catastrophy but only because the public outcry is unstoppable. Based on the news that the suspected perpetrator had pleaded gulty Jeremy Vine at 12:48 on 21.01.2025 stated "We now know he did it". BTW a confession is not always considered to be proof but I doubt if Mr. Vine has got that far. In some jurisdictions confessions are never accepted as evidence.

Does the BBC now have a new exclusive lease on the truth called "in depth". It sort of follows opinions from Laura Kuenssberg, probably the most biased journalist the BBC ever let loose on our population.

Remember her in the Garden with Dominic Cummins. She was seething with rage. Unbiased? Move on.

In addition to the In Depth truth suggestions, there is also another attempt to prove that the BBC has not only leased the truth but purchased it lock stock and barrel called BBC Verify

Of course they will avoid any analysis of uncomfortable subjects.