BBC 4

ONGOING BATTLES WITH THE BBC OVER 'SPOOKS' AND MASONIC CONNECTIONS
FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Case Reference Number FS50447991

Dear IMO,

Thank you for your response - I follow everything that you say and have empathy for your concerns and those of other license-fee payers. In terms of where we go from here I would strongly suggest that you re-submit the request with a new scope. I say this because legally the Commissioner can only make a decision on the request dealt with by the authority in accordance with Part I of the Act.

Although it would be improper of me to help word a request, I am willing to provide assistance to allow you to formulate a request on your own accord. In other jurisdictions, public service broadcasters subject to FOI legislation are more often subject to a statutory exhaustive list of ‘eligible’ information prescribed for disclosure. Without having to read through the Australian legislation, just as an example, you can see this summarised here:

http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/foi.htm

This should start you off in terms of information that you should request and then could argue was not held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ here in England & Wales. As I am sure you are aware, English common law in essence gives weight to the expression, “judges make it up as they go along”. So in response to your email, indeed, it may be that Parliament did not intend the derogation to operate in the manner that it does now. The Justice Committee will next week publish its findings on post-legislative scrutiny of the FOIA and so we will need to wait to see if anything BBC-related is mentioned. This might be relevant in any future case brought against the corporation.

I am willing to assist you further. For the time being however, in the instance of the case with reference FS50447991, can I proceed to close this for the reasons already said? All the BBC will be told is that the complainant – i.e. you – has withdrawn the complaint. No further details will be mentioned. I will be leaving the ICO and my last day of service will be on 31 August 2012. But we have time to get new requests in and for me to deal with any appeals should you wish to bring these to the Commissioner’s attention.

I hope this email is helpful and I look forward to hearing from you again.

Yours sincerely,

Calum Liddle

------------------

OUR MODIFIED BBC FOI IN LIGHT OF THEM LYING ABOUT THE 'SPOOKS' DRAMA

Thank you for the response in relation to our FOI request.

Further to that response and also discussion with the commissioners office, if we had been informed earlier that Kudos were responsible for the Spooks drama we would have modified our FOI request accordingly.

Therefore in light of the BBC admission that they now do not hold that information please provide the following under a modified FOI request.

1. All correspondence between the BBC and Kudos on Spooks and the use of UGLE building for that backdrop?

2. How much of BBC licence payers money was used to fund 'SPOOKS'?

3. Who within the BBC sanctioned the use of Kudos to use the UGLE building?

4. All paperwork provided to the BBC by Kudos on the overall cost of that drama paid with BBC licence payers money with a breakdown of who received payments in particular in relation to the use of the UGLE building?

5. The BBC promoted the UGLE building during the run up to the drama screening, who within the BBC made the decision to do so?

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • THE BBC'S GREAT 'FREEDOM OF INFORMATION' AVOIDANCE SCHEME
    From: casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk (Freedom of Information office)

    Case Reference Number FS50447991

    Dear IMO,

    I am aware that the BBC has informed you of their renewed stance with regards to the status of the requested information; the corporation does not hold the information. External productions, as you may know, are ‘purchased’ by the BBC. The production company Kudos would hold the information in this instance. It is unfortunate that this was not made clear from the outset and only became known upon approaching a Decision Notice.

    I would like to offer you options on how you now wish to proceed with this case in light of this development:

    [1] You may - given the information above - wish to withdraw the case and ‘fight another day’ where requested information is in the hands of the BBC, or

    [2] I could write a short Decision Notice but this would merely state that the BBC does not hold the information and find against you. This would satisfy your rights at section 50(1) of the Act. However, your rights of appeal are based on merit and it is unlikely that the Tribunal would accept this case, rather, it is likely to be dismissed on application for a hearing.

    Given the nature of your organisation I thought it might be useful to highlight a tool used by journalists in similar instances; some information, for example communications with the BBC, are often held by public authorities whom are not subject to the derogation i.e. the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Obviously in this instance Kudos is a private enterprise and is not subject to FOIA whatsoever. However, bear this in mind when seeking information in the future; information might be held by another public authority (on occasions as well as the BBC) but will not be subject to the derogation. I am eager to speak with you and I would urge you to call me (01625 545 598) so we can have a chat about the case and perhaps the use of the derogation for future FOI requests that you might intend to make.

    Regardless, please do let me know which of the following options you would like me to take. I am happy to facilitate either path.

    Thank you for your patience.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Calum Liddle Case Officer

    --------------------

    OUR RESPONSE

    Dear Mr. Liddle

    Thank you very much for your advice regarding the BBC FOI that is greatly appreciated . However, and we make this crystal clear, no matter what use of the 'LAW' the BBC use to avoid scrutiny, they themselves regularly use FOI to expose other authorities that fall under FOI yet continue to wriggle out of many FOI requests using what seems to be deliberate avoidance.

    None the less WE as licence payers have a right to know what companies are being funded by the BBC as it is OUR licence money that are funding their enterprises. SO over and above FOI requests it is a duty of them to be open and transparent and that is something they clearly are not. We therefore have the right to know that if a company subcontracts for the BBC that there are sufficient lines of communication that should fall under FOI remit.

    The fact the BBC lied on the first occasion should be sufficient to warrant some punishment for failing to provide accurate information as we could effectively word our FOI to ensure they fully complied. It is outrageous that the BBC are able to use both the commissioner and the courts to avoid such scrutiny and we will continue to show the utter failure of ALL of these arena's to expose what the BBC are effectively doing to protect an agenda that fails time and again the peasants while providing promotion of the biggest press barons on the planet like Murdoch, Harmsworth , the Barclay Brothers and Richard Desmond to back up the vast inequality across the UK . That is NOT what the BBC should be favouring and is clearly operating in a political way to favour the present government and the cruelty being inflicted on some of the most vulnerable and poorest sections of UK society. That we are determined will NOT happen with money provided by our membership.

    We therefore would expect the BBC to hold correspondence that has been passed between them and Kudos and that individuals within the BBC sanctioned various aspects of the SPOOKS drama as it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for them to avoid releasing that information. We ask therefore that they either provide that information or we modify our FOI to ensure they cannot avoid such scrutiny .

    Or the appeal is considered on that basis as we will not , like other requesters, allow the BBC to get away with any more of their wild FOI avoidance activities. We have in fact at least three or more FOI's that they have used the tactics to avoid and which we will raise on appeal after this one is finished or before the time factor runs out.

    Yours Sincerely

    IMO International Mens Organisation

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • BBC DRAG THEIR HEELS ON CONNECTIONS WITH FREEMASONRY
    FIRST THEY LIE THEN THEY PASS THE BUCK, THE GOOD OLD BBC (BLOODY BIG CON).

    Dear International Men’s Organisation

    I have been contacted by the Information Commissioner’s Office in connection with your complaint in respect of request reference number RFI20120374, which was made to the BBC on 4 April 2012:

    1. All relevant correspondence that dealt with the BBC contract and use of the United Grand Lodge of England when those premises were used for the BBC drama 'SPOOKS'.

    2. Please provide if licence payers money was paid to UGLE for permission to use the building as the backdrop to the drama?

    3. Please provide the names of all senior staff that negotiated with UGLE for the use of their building?

    4. The details of any meetings between the BBC and UGLE members?

    I understand that the BBC replied to your request on 8 May 2012, informing you that the requested information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and therefore fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. I would like to offer some further clarification in respect of this response which I hope will assist in resolving your complaint.

    I can confirm that the information you have requested is not held by the BBC. This is because the programme ‘Spooks’ is produced externally by an independent production company – Kudos – rather than being an ‘in-house’ production by the BBC. Any negotiations with UGLE about the use of the building would have been conducted by Kudos as the producers of the programme; no negotiations were conducted with UGLE by the BBC, nor were any payments made by the BBC to UGLE. In this case, as the programme was externally produced, the BBC does not hold details of any lower level budgetary costs which may have been incurred in the making of the programme and which would be determined by the independent production company.

    Programmes produced by independent production companies fall under the “Terms of Trade for Independent Television Productions Commissioned by the BBC”; further information about the Terms is available on the following link:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/how-we-work/business-requirements/terms-of-trade.shtml

    bbc trust I apologise that this was not made clear in the initial response you received. However, I should add that if the requested information were held by the BBC on this occasion, it remains the case that it would be outside the scope of the Act. The following paragraphs provide further explanation in this respect. You have requested information about the activities and costs involved in creating a programme broadcast by the BBC. As you are aware, the BBC is only subject to the Freedom of Information Act in respect of information held for purposes other than journalism, art or literature. A recent Supreme Court judgement has given a clear definition of what the phrase ‘journalism, art or literature’ means in the Act and what types of information it will cover; the Supreme Court found that, “…the composite expression “journalism, art or literature” seems to be intended to cover the whole of the BBC’s output in its mission (under article 5 of its Royal Charter) to inform, educate and entertain the public. On that comprehensive approach the purposes of journalism, art or literature would be, quite simply, the purposes of the BBC’s entire output to the public.” [70]

    This means that, in cases where the requested information is directly related to the creation of the BBC’s broadcasting output, it will fall outside the scope of the Act. Information about costs incurred and activities undertaken in the making of a programme – the output – are created and used for the purpose of managing the production and its associated budget; the information is a key part of the editorial decision making process by which the programme itself is created. It will continue to be held to inform the editorial process of reviewing and planning for future programmes. The Supreme Court made specific reference to information about production costs, saying, “If financial information is directly related to the making of a particular programme, or group of programmes, it is likely to be held for purposes of journalism … costs referable to its broadcast of “EastEnders”, about its annual budget for “Newsnight” and about the price paid for its right to cover the winter Olympics in Turin in 2005/06, was held at an operational level in order to assist in the making of editorial and creative choices and so was held partly (and, if relevant, predominantly) for purposes of journalism.” [42] I have included below the link to the Supreme Court judgement, should you wish to read this in full:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0145_Judgment.pdf

    I have also included links to several recent decisions by the Information Commissioner which provide further details of the role of programme-related contracts, correspondence and costs within the editorial and creative process.

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2012/fs_50421691.ashx

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fs_50353677.ashx

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2012/fs_50422017.ashx

    I hope that you will find this useful.

    Yours sincerely Louise Lander

    Advisor BBC Information Policy and Compliance
    2252 White City, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ
    T: 020 8752 6689

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • BBC WEATHER GIRL STRUGGLES TO REMOVE TONGUE FROM THE ROYAL ARSE VIDEO


    More fawning by the BBC reporters who use any trick in the book, including weather forecasts, to promote the vile royal mafia
    BBCARRIED AWAY: BBC ADMITS ARAB SPRING COVERAGE FAIL VIDEO
    BBC USE RIGHT WING VIEWS AND STATS TO BACK UP THEIR ATTACKS ON THE POOR VIDEO
    THE GREAT BBC TV LICENCE SCAM VIDEO
    PETER HITCHEN EXPOSES THE BBC'S HYPOCRISY AND SECRECY VIDEO
    OUR ONGOING FOI APPEAL REGARDING THE BBC AND FREEMASONRY
    From the Information Commissioner’s Office 11 June 2012

    Case Reference Number FS50447991

    Dear IMO,

    Your FOIA complaint against the BBC

    I am writing from the Information Commissioner’s Office about the complaint that you have made about how the above public authority handled your request for information dated 04 April 2012. This letter has a single purpose; to explain my preliminary verdict in this case.

    In order to achieve this purpose, it will have four parts. The first part will explain some key principles of the legislation. The second will provide an appraisal of the correspondence. I will then explain my preliminary verdict and why I have come to that verdict. I will then present action points and timescales to enable your case to proceed in a manner that you choose.

    (1) Some key principles about the operation of the Act

    I believe that there are two key points that should be made at this point in my investigation. They are:

    1. The Commissioner can only consider the operation of the Act The Commissioner only has the power to consider the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “FOIA”). The Commissioner appreciates that you have concerns regarding any BBC agreement with the United Grand Lodge of England with regards to the use of their premises for the corporation’s drama ‘SPOOKS’, but the Commissioner is unable to compel the public authority to provide information outside its obligations under the Act.

    2. The BBC is only a public authority under the Act in respect to some of the information that it holds The BBC is an unusual public authority because Parliament decided that it should not be required to provide information that was held for the purposes of ‘art, journalism or literature’. The Commissioner has had considerable litigation about what this means with the BBC over the years that the legislation has been in force. In summary, if the information is held in the process of creating journalism, art or literature then it falls outside the Act. This is the key issue in this case and I will discuss the relevant authorities later.

    (2) Summary of the correspondence

    On 04 April 2012 you requested information in the following terms:

    “1. All relevant correspondence that dealt with the BBC contract and use of the United Grand Lodge of England when those premises were used for the BBC drama 'SPOOKS'.

    2. Please provide if licence payers money was paid to UGLE for permission to use the building as the backdrop to the drama?

    3. Please provide the names of all senior staff that negotiated with UGLE for the use of their building?

    4. The details of any meetings between the BBC and UGLE members?”

    On 08 May 2012 the BBC issued a response. The BBC explained that it did not believe that the information was embraced by the Act because it was held for the purposes of ‘art, journalism or literature’.

    (3) My preliminary verdict in this case I can confirm that my preliminary verdict is that the BBC was correct that the information was excluded from the Act. I want to use this opportunity to explain why I believe this is so.

    The BBC is only covered by the Act if the information that has been requested is held for “purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”. The information that falls within the purposes of journalism, art and literature is derogated; this is because the BBC has no obligations to consider it under the Act. This provision has created considerable litigation between the Commissioner and the BBC. As a result, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have explained their view about when the derogation will apply and their decisions are binding on the Commissioner. The High Court considered the scope of the derogation in the cases of the BBC v Steven Sugar and the Information Commissioner [EW2349] and the BBC v the Information Commissioner [EW2348]. In both decisions Mr Justice Irwin stated:

    “My conclusion is that the words in the Schedule mean the BBC has no obligation to disclose information which they hold to any significant extent for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, whether or not the information is also held for other purposes. The words do not mean that the information is disclosable if it is held for purposes distinct from journalism, art or literature, whilst it is also held to any significant extent for those purposes. If the information is held for mixed purposes, including to any significant extent the purposes listed in the Schedule or one of them, then the information is not disclosable.” (para 65 EA2349 and para 73 EW2348). This issue was appealed to the Court of Appeal in the case Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and another [2010] EWCA Civ 715. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. The leading judgment was made by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR who stated that: “On this issue, again I am in agreement with Irwin J. In my view, the BBC's interpretation is to be preferred: once it is established that the information sought is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, it is effectively exempt from production under FOIA, even if the information is also held by the BBC for other purposes.” (para 44) … provided there is a genuine journalistic purpose for which the information is held, it should not be subject to FOIA.” (para 46)

    The Commissioner interprets the phrase “to any significant extent”, when taken in the context of the judgments as a whole, to mean that where the requested information is held to a more than trivial (or insignificant) extent for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes the BBC will not be obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act. This is the case even if the information is also held for other purposes. This year at the Supreme Court in Sugar (Deceased) (Represented by Fiona Paveley) v BBC, UKSC 4 on appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 715, the appeal was dismissed on the basis that, even if information is held only partly for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, it is outside the scope of FOIA.

    Thus, provided there is a relationship between the information and one of the purposes listed in Schedule 1, then the information is derogated. The information relevant to the request need not be journalistic, artistic or literary material itself. All the BBC must evidence is that the information is being used in order to create output, in performing one of the activities covered by journalism, art or literature. If it is, then the information falls outside the scope of the legislation. The Court of Appeal has also helpfully accepted a definition of what constitutes journalism that was introduced in the Information Tribunal. This definition was worded as follows:

    “107. The first is the collecting or gathering, writing and verifying of materials for publication.

    108. The second is editorial. This involves the exercise of judgement on issues such as:
    * the selection, prioritisation and timing of matters for broadcast or publication,
    * the analysis of, and review of individual programmes,
    * the provision of context and background to such programmes.

    109. The third element is the maintenance and enhancement of the standards and quality of journalism (particularly with respect to accuracy, balance and completeness). This may involve the training and development of individual journalists, the mentoring of less experienced journalists by more experienced colleagues, professional supervision and guidance, and reviews of the standards and quality of particular areas of programme making.”

    The Commissioner has adopted a similar approach with regard to art, one of the other two limbs of the BBC derogation. In his view, art is comprised of the same three elements, that is:

    · The preparation and creation of the artistic output.

    · The editorial process.

    · The maintenance and enhancement of the standards and quality of artistic output.

    In essence, in this case, one is considering any BBC agreement with the United Grand Lodge of England with regards to the use of their premises for the corporation’s drama ‘SPOOKS’, besides other information, namely, the details of meetings and the names of staff involved in any negotiation process. I find this information relates to the Commissioner’s interpretation of art. It is well established artistic practice for editors - in preparation for recording - to establish film locations. This is a process which involves negotiation and the conclusion of a contract where necessary. The costs too, therefore, fall well within this artistic remit; securing the locations required for artistic purposes in the production of broadcast output. It follows then that the Commissioner also considers the second element of art to fall within the definition above - the editorial process – to be relevant in this instance. Decisions regarding programme content and production output reflect editorial choices taken in a creative environment. Editors must be able to make artistic judgments independently. Who the BBC wishes to negotiate with in order to secure locations is a matter for editors in their exercising of judgement and their decision making process in the realms of creativity and art.

    For this reason and for clarity, I will take this opportunity to explain that the BBC is correct to cite the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The derogation protects freedom of expression and the rights of the media under the ECHR. The Commissioner finds in this case that the disclosure of any of the requested details would impinge the BBC’s editorial independence. This is because editorial decisions could be influenced or compromised and artistic production could be swayed by those outside of the creative environment. The BBC must have editors who can conduct their artistic skills freely with any and all parties as they independently see fit to do so - free from external interference. Disclosure on this occasion would threaten such a right and impinge the free flow of creativity and artistic broadcast output. The Commissioner also finds that the requested information is held for purposes that fall within the third definition of art. The information that pertains to your request will be used as part of the BBC’s review of the standards and quality of programming output, and might influence or still play a part in any future programming. Future creative decisions will refer to information gathered from this instance; location viability, post-production quality and value for money are just some examples. In future production, editorial decisions will be taken with a view to maintain output quality, particularly where this might affect the standards and quality of broadcast output. It is necessary to consider whether information was still held genuinely for the purposes of the derogation on 04 April 2012. It is not material whether the information is also held for other purposes too, providing that it is held genuinely for the purposes of ‘art, journalism or literature’.

    The Information Tribunal has also explained that the status of information should be judged against the following three criteria:

    The purpose for which the information was created;

    The relationship between the information and the programmes content which covers all types of output that the BBC produces; and The users of the information.

    The Commissioner has carefully considered the arguments of both sides to consider the status of the information. On this occasion I find that the information was intimately involved in the broadcasting output of the corporation at the time of your request and remains so, therefore, after considering all the circumstances in this case the Commissioner is satisfied that the BBC genuinely holds the information for the purposes of the derogation. The Commissioner is unable accept public interest arguments as a means to justify the disclosure of derogated information.

    In view of the above, my preliminary view is that the information, despite the arguments that you have presented to the Commissioner, falls outside the Act. The BBC has no obligations in relation to timeliness because it is not a public authority in respect to information that falls within the derogation. The Commissioner has no statutory powers as the regulator of the Information Acts to compel disclosure. I want to confirm that I am perfectly happy to draft a Decision Notice in this case, however, it is very likely to follow the lines of this initial verdict.

    (4) Actions required

    Please take one of the following options, as soon as possible, and in ten working days in any event, so by 25 June 2012:

    1. It may be the case that you are prepared to reluctantly withdraw this complaint at this point given the information above. This does not mean that you are satisfied with the situation, but that you understand that any Decision Notice you will receive will be highly likely to uphold the position of the BBC and find against you. You would not then be able to appeal this case to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights).

    2. The alternative is that you want to proceed to a Decision Notice. I am happy to draft this notice, but as explained above it is highly likely to uphold the position of the BBC. Unfortunately due to our internal approval procedure it is likely to take some time for an appropriate Decision Notice to be issued and I did not want to keep you waiting any longer than necessary. You would be entitled to appeal the Decision Notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) should you want to. I would appreciate if you choose this option to provide your arguments about why you disagree with the preliminary verdict that is outlined above.

    If I do not hear from you by then, I will proceed on the basis that you have chosen option one and that you are prepared to withdraw this case. If you want to discuss this case further, you are welcome to call me directly using the number below or you can reply to this email leaving the subject line unchanged (so that [Ref. FS50447991] remains). I am happy to discuss this verdict with you and perhaps go over anything that you wish me to clarify. I appreciate that the content of this letter is likely to be disappointing to you. However, I believe it is right to make the situation as clear as possible from the outset. I hope that you find this email clear and helpful.

    Calum Liddle Case Officer

    Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

    T. 01625 545598 F. 01625 524510 www.ico.gov.uk

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • BBC SNEAK IN QUEEN SICKBAG WHILE ROYALIST HARMSWORTH'S DM MOANS ONCE AGAIN

  • We are sick of complaining about the royal propagandist tax dodging Harmsworth's Daily Rag
  • BBC ALLOW TWO ROYALIST BULLSHITTERS TO TALK UP THE ROYAL MAFIA VIDEO


    THE ROYAL PARASITES HAVE DESIGNED THE BEST WAY OF CRUISING THROUGH LIFE AT EVERYBODY ELSE'S EXPENSE. NON-STOP PARTYING, WINING AND DINING ACROSS THE GLOBE PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS AND EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT TOLERATE HER FREE FOREIGN TRIPS, AND HER SPOKESMEN HAVE THE CHEEK TO CALL IT WORK.
  • Diamond jubilee events: taxpayer likely to foot most of the bill
  • BBC USE 2003 IMAGE FROM IRAQ TO INCITE WAR AGAINST SYRIA


    When it is time to justify the invasion of a country that is of no threat to Allied forces, mass media deception kicks into high gear to sway public opinion. Only a few years after the “Watch-out-Saddam-is-gonna-nuke-us-all-with-weapons-of-mass-destruction” fabrication, mass media is now being flooded with horrible stories from Syria to incite people in Western countries to think “I hope we go in there and clean up this mess”. However, as it is often the case in war propaganda, lies, fabrications and deceit are used to justify military action.

    A recent example of this is the BBC using a horrifying picture from 2003 in Iraq to illustrate an alleged massacre that happened in Houla, Syria. When a “reputed” news source such as BBC gets caught using fake pictures to demonize a country, one can wonder what other fabricated BS appears in the news and goes unnoticed. Here’s an article on BBC’s “mistake”.

    Oops, BBC: Iraq photo to illustrate Houla massacre?

    With the shock of the Houla tragedy ringing across the world, the BBC has released a story with a harrowing picture of rows and rows of children’s bodies awaiting burial… But isn’t that post-Saddam Iraq? ­Photographer Marco di Lauro who took the shot grabbed by the BBC says he nearly “fell off his chair” after finding the picture on the network’s website with a caption reading: “Photo from Activist. This image – which cannot be independently verified – is believed to show bodies of children in Houla awaiting funeral.” The picture was actually taken on March 27, 2003; it depicts an Iraqi boy jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad. The image, which is published on Marco di Lauro’s website, is part of his story Iraq, the Aftermath of Saddam.

    Marco di Lauro takes photographs for Getty Images picture agency, his works have been published across Europe and the US. But the indication that the BBC picked his image from the internet, not from official stock worries him somewhat. “What I am really astonished by is that a news organization like the BBC doesn’t check the sources and it’s willing to publish any picture sent it by anyone: activist, citizen journalist or whatever. That’s all,” the photographer told The Daily Telegraph. “Someone is using someone else’s picture for propaganda on purpose,” he added.

    A BBC spokesman says the picture, illustrating Sunday night’s story “Syria Massacre in Houla Condemned as Outrage Grows,” was taken down “immediately” when the source was identified. “We were aware of this image being widely circulated on the internet in the early hours of this morning following the most recent atrocities in Syria. We used it with a clear disclaimer saying it could not be independently verified,” he added. These words about information “which cannot be independently verified” have become a trademark of media coverage of the 14-month conflict in Syria. Before UN special envoy Kofi Annan brought his peace plan to the troubled Arab country, the Syrian government had remained reluctant to open borders to most international journalists.

    But even now the bulk of information comes from people calling themselves opposition activists – via amateur videos uploaded to YouTube or eyewitness reports. But sometimes it looks that the mantra “cannot be independently verified” serves as a disclaimer to publish information which wouldn’t stand a chance of ever being verified.

    - Source: RT

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • BBC RADICAL FEMINIST CLAPTRAP THEIR NEWSROOM DOMINATED BY WOMEN VIDEO
    BBC CREATE CRAZY MASS HYSTERIA USING SMALL FLAME PROPAGANDA VIDEO
    THE OLYMPIC TORCH WILL BURN YOUR EYES OUT VIDEO
    BBC USE MORE EXCUSES TO AVOID SCRUTINY OF FEMALE VIOLENCE WITHIN THEIR RANKS
    bbc foi violence

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • BBC THINK THEY CAN AVOID FOI REQUESTS ON MASONIC FUNDING
    The BBC will go to any lengths to avoid answering Freedom of Information requests. Despite them regularly using FOI's for their own investigations, when it comes to their own methods of operating they think they can avoid exposure by using vague arguments to justify non disclosure of important information that proves their agenda is being controlled by forces connected with secret societies.

    In particular the Duke of Kent at the United Grand Lodge of England using his freemason henchmen to ensure the Royal parasites and her murderous lackeys can remain free from exposure of how they operate with impunity with cop assassins in the met and psychiatric lackeys chemically lobotomizing activists who are victims of their evil thuggery. Our own members have faced unbelievable persecution for daring to challenge HER and her judicial henchmen who continue to murder with impunity. We will be appealing this refusal to disclose information.



  • Freemasonry is the curse of Scotland that shields scoundrels and Paedophiles from prosecution
  • BBC IN BED WITH UK'S FREEMASON THUG COPS VIDEO

    NEVER have the BBC shown such sympathy towards protesters than when its the UK's thug cops. Not only do they positively promote a COP protest but they send reporters on the very bus that takes them to London. Watch any of the BBC's other reports on protests from ANY OTHER GROUP and they show very little sympathy and wouldn't be seen dead filming them on buses heading to the march.

  • Police march : One protest we DO NOT SUPPORT (freemasons need wiped out of the UK police mafia)
  • UK cop mafia police themselves as protest calls for role reversal
  • Terrorism – and its handmaid, "fear politics" – is the jealously guarded preserve of the Met(A licence for freemason cops to print money)
  • BBC'S USUAL PATHETIC RESPONSE TO FOI REQUESTS


    OUR RESPONSE

    Attention of Stephanie Harris

    With regards the first of three responses to our recent BBC FOI requests we inform the BBC that what they 'believe' is acceptable and NOT acceptable in that the BBC think using TV licence payers money to promote, NOT only ultra rich press barons propaganda, but also lawyers and judges associated with the British Crown is absolutely not acceptable to the public and we have a growing readership that support that view. There is a very clear arrogance to this response. We have been investigating and exposing the BBC hypocrisy of using public money to promote the wealthy at the utter expense of the implied peasants that pay for you and other BBC lackeys salaries. The BBC apparently use FOI requests with gay abandon while having a complete disregard to being fully accountable and transparent and that we intend to reverse, meantime we ask that an immediate appeal is raised regarding this matter.

    It is totally unacceptable for the BBC to promote companies that are providing biased and prejudiced articles that support the right wing BBC editorial stance and is against the BBC charter and we will endeavour to ensure all avenues are used to force the BBC to reply accurately , truthfully and to be fully accountable for using our money to promote such vile right wing propaganda generated by crooks such as Rupert Murdoch and his SUN and Times that are regularly featured on the BBC breakfast show.

    IMO

    PS we assume our two other FOI requests are in the pipeline as one of them is about to exceed the 20 working day limit?

    -------------------------------

    ORIGINAL REQUEST

    This is an FOI request with 20 working days to reply

    1. During BBC Breakfast how many newspapers owned by wealthy right wing press barons are promoted by the BBC using their front pages?

    2. During BBC Breakfast how many newspapers not owned by wealthy right wing press barons are promoted by the BBC using THEIR front pages?

    During BBC breakfast 24 April 2012 only the following newspapers were being promoted using BBC TV licence payers money.

    TELEGRAPH (Owned by Sir David Rowat Barclay and Sir Frederick Hugh Barclay . The Sunday Times Rich List of 2007 estimated their wealth at £1.8 billion)

    DAILY MAIL (Owned by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere who ranked 51st in the Sunday Times Rich List 2006 with an estimated wealth of £1,020 million)

    THE TIMES (Owned by Rupert Murdoch who according to the 2011 list of Forbes richest Americans, Murdoch is the 38th richest person in the US and the 106th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $8.3 billion.)

    THE SUN (Owned by Rupert Murdoch who according to the 2011 list of Forbes richest Americans, Murdoch is the 38th richest person in the US and the 106th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $8.3 billion.)

    GUARDIAN (Owned by The Scott Trust Limited. Liz Forgan was appointed the sixth Chair of The Scott Trust in 2003, the owner of the Guardian newspapers hence becoming Britain's first female newspaper proprietor.She joined the BBC in 1993 to become Managing Director, BBC Network Radio where she developed the format for BBC Radio Five Live and launched the DAB digital radio service.She left the BBC in February 1996 over a disagreement with John Birt, then BBC Director General, over the decision to move BBC Radio News from Broadcasting House to Television Centre. Liz Forgan was awarded Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for services to Radio Broadcasting in 2006 and previously awarded the OBE in 1998, also for services to Radio Broadcasting.

    We have been unable to obtain her exact financial wealth but she was from an aristocratic family and went to private schools and then to Oxford as a top executive at the BBC and Channel 4 she would have commanded substantial salaries and could NOT be classed in any way as very DIFFERENT from the other press barons above. She is also a radical feminist using the Guardian to further her feminist agenda. As she has been directly connected with BBC programming over many years that alone would be cause for serious concern as to WHY the BBC continue to promote a newspaper she heads.)

    BBC CONTINUE SICKLY FAWNING UNCRITICAL COVERAGE OF WORLD'S TOP PARASITE VIDEO


  • 'Who's Who' cater almost exclusively to the Royal parasites and their many masonic henchmen
  • BBC ONLY PROMOTE NEWSPAPERS OWNED BY WEALTHY RIGHT WING PRESS BARONS VIDEO


    This is an FOI request with 20 working days to reply

    1. During BBC Breakfast how many newspapers owned by wealthy right wing press barons are promoted by the BBC using their front pages?

    2. During BBC Breakfast how many newspapers not owned by wealthy right wing press barons are promoted by the BBC using THEIR front pages?

    During BBC breakfast 24 April 2012 only the following newspapers were being promoted using BBC TV licence payers money.

    TELEGRAPH (Owned by Sir David Rowat Barclay and Sir Frederick Hugh Barclay . The Sunday Times Rich List of 2007 estimated their wealth at £1.8 billion)

    DAILY MAIL (Owned by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere who ranked 51st in the Sunday Times Rich List 2006 with an estimated wealth of £1,020 million)

    THE TIMES (Owned by Rupert Murdoch who according to the 2011 list of Forbes richest Americans, Murdoch is the 38th richest person in the US and the 106th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $8.3 billion.)

    THE SUN (Owned by Rupert Murdoch who according to the 2011 list of Forbes richest Americans, Murdoch is the 38th richest person in the US and the 106th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $8.3 billion.)

    GUARDIAN (Owned by The Scott Trust Limited. Liz Forgan was appointed the sixth Chair of The Scott Trust in 2003, the owner of the Guardian newspapers hence becoming Britain's first female newspaper proprietor.She joined the BBC in 1993 to become Managing Director, BBC Network Radio where she developed the format for BBC Radio Five Live and launched the DAB digital radio service.She left the BBC in February 1996 over a disagreement with John Birt, then BBC Director General, over the decision to move BBC Radio News from Broadcasting House to Television Centre. Liz Forgan was awarded Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for services to Radio Broadcasting in 2006 and previously awarded the OBE in 1998, also for services to Radio Broadcasting.

    We have been unable to obtain her exact financial wealth but she was from an aristocratic family and went to private schools and then to Oxford as a top executive at the BBC and Channel 4 she would have commanded substantial salaries and could NOT be classed in any way as very DIFFERENT from the other press barons above. She is also a radical feminist using the Guardian to further her feminist agenda. As she has been directly connected with BBC programming over many years that alone would be cause for serious concern as to WHY the BBC continue to promote a newspaper she heads.)

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE