HOLLYWOOD EXPOSED: Harvey Weinstein Scandal BLOWS LID On Sick & Depraved Industry!

Source

Josh Sigurdson and Dan Dicks of Press For Truth break down the recent Harvey Weinstein scandal as Hollywood enters desperation mode.
Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood producer behind Pulp Fiction, Good Will Hunting, Shakespeare In Love and many other massive hits was recently accused of abusing women and forcing women to watch him in some unseemly private situations.
Following many including Ashley Judd of all people, Gweneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie coming out about this, the lid has begun to come off the entire depraved Hollywood industry where kids and adults alike are abused and used and forced into terrible situations.
Terry Crews who happens to be a big guy came out saying he was harassed and grabbed by producers, saying that this story goes far further than Harvey Weinstein, and there’s no doubt about that.
Rob Shneider, Cory Feldman, formerly Cory Haim before he passed away and Elijah Wood have come out about this horrible things that happen behind closed doors.
Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, Nelly, R Kelly, Woody Allen, Pete Townshend, the list of creeps in the industry goes on and on.
However, this is something we see in Britain at the BBC as well. We see it among billionaire investors, politicians from Dennis Hastert to Bill Clinton, advertisers like Jared Fogle and the list of sick degenerates grows by the day.
This links all forms of global elitism.
The do-good lefties in Hollywood and the music industry, Washington, finance and this needs to be called out in order to be stopped.
This story is breaking into the mainstream media after decades of independent media breaking these stories and being called crazy.
Is this the beginning of a massive expose’ of the entire global occult elite structure? Or is this just another media blitz?
We will find out soon enough

Who runs Hollywood? C’mon – latimes

 

Advertisements

Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson and the Westminster bubble

source


The BBC’s Nick Robinson (a former chair of the Oxford University Conservative Association) has desperately tried to discredit independent media by saying that criticism of the BBC is so persistent that it’s negatively affecting public perceptions of mainstream media, and also accused independent media of living in a “social media bubble”.

I’ll tell you what really negatively affects people’s perceptions of the BBC. It’s stuff like the BBC politics editor Robbie Gibb moving directly from the supposedly impartial BBC directly to Theresa May’s propaganda team at 10 Downing Street, BBC journalists like Laura Kuenssberg fabricating fake news stories to attack Jeremy Corbyn and being allowed to get away with it without punishment, and the shockingly biased BBC coverage of stuff like the Scottish Independence referendum (massive anti-Independence bias that was obvious to all but the most rabid of Unionists) and the General Election debates (Jeremy Corbyn getting relentlessly grilled on his sticky subjects while Theresa May was tossed one ridiculous softball question after another).

As for living in bubbles, it’s not the diverse range of independent media journalists who are living in a deluded political bubble, it’s clearly the mainstream media journalists who operate in the cosy Westminster clique alongside the politicians they’re supposed to be holding to account.

How else is it possible to explain that the political class and Westminster bubble journos were both so ridiculously out of touch with the public mood that their only debate about Theresa May’s vanity election was whether she’d end up with a super-majority of 100+ or a mega-majority of 150+?

Mainstream media journalists have become so absorbed in the Westminster political bubble that they’ve ended up uncritically repeating the tropes that are circulating amongst the privileged political class (many of whom went to the exact same elitist private schools as they did) instead of actually trying to hold the political class to account for their actions.

All too often mainstream journos just regurgitate these delusional tropes from Westminster bubble as if they’re news, whilst basically ignoring the serious real life issues faced by ordinary people (the lower orders) like the unprecedented ongoing Tory wage slump since 2010, the systematic abuse of disabled people, the housing crisis, and the critical state of the NHS, the education system, local government services, and the rail network.

Their total immersion in the insular Westminster bubble perspective is the reason so many mainstream media journos were flabbergasted and completely incapable of understanding how Theresa May lost her majority on election night.

The gradual realisation that independent media had a significant role to play in the result that took the mainstream journos by such surprise has got them fired up and angry.

They’re furious because they see themselves as the true and only legitimate gatekeepers of public opinion, and they can’t stand the idea that uppity plebs from ordinary backgrounds are now using social media to influence public opinion away from the predetermined news agenda favoured by the elitist establishment class of Westminster politicians, mainstream media hacks, and corporate fat cats.

People like Nick Robinson are outraged because they tried every propaganda trick in the book to guide the public into handing Theresa May a huge parliamentary majority, but we didn’t do as we were told, shopping around for news that better matches our own perception of reality than the ludicrous tropes that emanate from the Westminster bubble and get magnified by the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media.

Just hours after Robinson fearfully aimed both barrels at independent media the Tories shot a massive great hole in his already sinking argument by parachuting the former chair of the BBC Trust Rona Fairhead into the unelected House of Lords to take up a ministerial position in Theresa May’s government!

How on earth is anyone expected to believe that the BBC are actually an impartial public service broadcaster when these days they’re obviously more of a fertile recruiting ground for new members of the Tory government than an institution committed to holding the Tory government to account?

But Robinson and his ilk would have you believe that any critical coverage of the revolving door between the BBC and the Tory party, or the desperately deteriorating standard of BBC political coverage, is some kind of nasty conspiracy spread by sinister forces who are intent on upsetting the natural order of things.

As far as they’re concerned the intimate relationship between the BBC and the Tory government is all above board and nothing to worry about.

And it’s this complacency and complicity that is the main reason that their influence is being gradually eroded by independent media journalists who cover politics from outside the confines of the insidious Westminster bubble

Listen To The Warmongering & Lies Peddled By The BBC

Listen To The Warmongering & Lies Peddled By The BBC

Video: Listen To The Warmongering & Lies Peddled By The BBC That Led Up To Trump Bombing Syria!

 

 

Evidence of fakery in BBC “Saving Syria’s Children” is now undeniable

Evidence of fakery in BBC “Saving Syria’s Children” is now undeniable

By Catte | OffGuardian | June 14, 2017

For nearly two years now we have been following the dedicated work of Robert Stuart in exposing the possible fabrications behind the infamous BBC Panorama documentary “Savin Syria’s Children.” On June 11 he gave a public presentation summarising his work to date, which is also available as a PDF. As an overview of the evidence in the case, it is well worth reading. You can download it HERE. And below are some of the highlights.

First a brief reminder of the back story:

On August 29 2013, as the UK Parliament was about to vote on possible military action against the Assad government in Syria, the BBC’s 10 o’clock news aired a segment titled Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims ‘like the walking dead’ in which it was claimed a Syrian fighter jet had dropped an incendiary bomb containing a “napalm-type” substance on the playground of the Urm al-Kubra school near Aleppo. The BBC claimed its own team “inside Syria filming for [the documentary series]Panorama” had been witnesses to the victims arriving at the Atareb hospital, and it aired a segment of footage showing incoming casualties.This footage later formed the basis for the documentary “Saving Syria’s Children.”

The discrepancies and other problems surrounding this footage and the BBC documentary are legion. We have documented some of them here and here and here, and Robert Stuart’s blog offers a detailed database that puts it beyond doubt the BBC has not been entirely honest about the origins of and motives behind this film.

Stuart’s PDF highlights some additional areas of interest:

The reality of the alleged injuries

The injuries visible in the BBC footage have been questioned by medical professionals:

Can our readers see any sign of injury on this – thankfully – healthy-seeming little baby, let alone ’80% burns”?

Number and identity of victims

In a real event the number of victims, their names, backgrounds and photos should be reasonably consistent. Wide disparities would be hard to reconcile with something happening in the real world. Especially so in this case, given the people giving us the figures were allegedly there on the scene either treating the victims hands-on or filming it begin done. You’d expect a pretty clear and definite report on the numbers treated in the quite small Atareb hospital. But this doesn’t seem to be the case:

How is it that Dr Ahsan, who was right on scene, first claimed there were “25” victims, but in a later interview almost doubled the number to “40”, while Ian Pannell claimed there were “30” victims treated at Atareb that day, and Rola Hallam’s Hand in Hand For Syria website trumped them all, claiming “50” of the victims were brought to Atareb?

Did neither Dr Ahsan nor Ian Pannell, nor the Hand In Hand for Syria website make any effort to obtain a definitive account of the numbers they treated? Were they just grabbing figures at random?

Chronology

It ought to be possible, in today’s interconnected age, to determine when an event occurred with a maximum disparity of – say – one or two hours if the event occurred in a remote rural location and much less if it was in an urban setting with numerous witnesses. Of course some variation in the accounts of those present is to be expected, because humans are fallible and the events themselves are traumatic and confusing. But even so there is a minimal standard of consistency we need to demand.

Yet look at the huge disparity of timings offered up about this event:

The fact that different sources can place the alleged attack on the Url al-Kubra school as much as six hours apart is very hard to reconcile with any form of veridical reality.

Let’s remember there was a BBC camera crew right there to record these events. Even allowing for shock and confusion, we might expect Ian Pannell, the producer, and his award-winning cameraman, Darren Conway to pin down the timing pretty firmly. But Pannell says the events happened at “around 5:30”. Conway says “I don’t know, it was somewhere between 3 and 5.”

I don’t know”? “It was somewhere between...”? “Around 5:30”? This isn’t quite the stringent attention to detail we might expect from professionals in a war zone. Surely they can pin it down a bit closer than that? How come Pannell has ended up thinking it was at least two and a half hours later than the earliest time given by Conway? Didn’t they discuss the timing with one another after the event? Don’t they have phones or watches? Doesn’t any of their footage have a time code?

Dr Saleyah Ahsan

Dr Saleyah Ahsan, one of the two British medical personnel to appear in the Panorama documentary, and filmed attending to the alleged victims, is a former British Army captain, trained at the elite Sandhurst military academy, who served in Bosnia and went out to Libya to “support the revolution”, before staying on to give medical service to the “fighters” (presumably the NATO-backed “rebels”).

I’m sure we can all agree this is definitely not the profile of someone in Military Intelligence.

Interestingly, her ex-CO now runs medical simulation training exercises, as Saleyah herself revealed in passing when she was sent to cover the exercises by BBC Newsnight

The below images are of FAKE INJURIES provided by professional medical simulation firms. You might argue they look more convincing than anything seen on the BBC Panorama program.

Dr Rola Hallam & her shadowy dad

Saleyah’s connections are as curious as those of the other British doctor present during the filming of alleged casualties at the Atareb hospital, Dr Rola Hallam, executive on the board of the Hand in Hand For Syria charity, and whose father Dr Mousa al-Kurdi, may or may not be connected with the self-styled “Syrian National Council”, a supporter of the terrorists/“rebels” and a barely-concealed front for western-backed interests in Syria. He certainly seems to be no friend of the current Syrian president.

We say “may or may not be connected with the SNC”, because Rola Hallam is on record denying her father is a member of the SNC, while her colleague seems to be of a different opinion:

These women clearly need to work harder at co-ordinating their narrative.

* * *

The evidence for some form of fakery here is now undeniable. Not only are some of the major players shown to be previously involved in pro-western regime change narratives and/or politically active in the bid to unseat Assad, but the footage taken by the BBC itself shows clear signs of being less than real. The alleged injuries look questionable, not simply to lay people but to medical professionals. The narrative is inconsistent, the timing extremely convenient for the pro-west, pro-NATO agenda.

What does this mean in a wider context? If the BBC and elements of the British medical profession have – as seems highly possible – colluded to produce fake news of a fake event, how should we view other such convenient narratives involving alleged loss of life, implicating acknowledged enemies of the West, and seeming to justify more wars of intervention, more surveillance, more curbs on our freedom? What if an event were to happen in future in – say – Berlin, New York, London, Melbourne that has all the same hallmarks of questionable-seeming injuries, vague timelines, vague or poorly sourced victim-lists, and a seemingly pre-prepared perp that plugs right in to the west’s current hate-list or perpetual war agenda?

How parochial or racist is it for us to to assume fakery is a priori impossible when the victims are mostly white and have Facebook pages?

Imaginary Interior of Saydnaya Now Has Imaginary Crematorium – US State Department

Global Research, May 17, 2017
OffGuardian 16 May 2017

Remember “Saydnaya Military Prison”? It was the subject of enormous media attention a while back on the basis of a “report” from Amnesty International that turned out to have been fabricated in the UK by a virtual reality company “using 3D models, animations, and audio software, based on the admittedly baseless accounts of alleged witnesses who claim to have been in or otherwise associated with the prison.”

Well, the totally imaginary interior of Saydnaya now – according to US State Dept – has a totally imaginary “crematorium” added to it in which to dispose of all the totally theoretical corpses being generated by the completely unsubstantiated mass-murders. Here is the impressive and plausible Stuart Jones telling us all about it.

Yes, he lies about the “well-documented” chemical attacks. Yes, he manipulates and exaggerates and omits to the point of fraudulence in his summary of the “civil war.” Yes almost every detail of his claims about the goings-on in Saydnaya is based on Amnesty’s invented “report” and the completely unverified testimony of alleged inmates…

…but, but…they have satellite images!

In case you’re not getting the message WaPo kindly enhanced and simplified things:

See? That thing on the right that could be absolutely anything is actually a crematorium. The State Department “believes” it with all its heart and wants us to believe it too. As do the Guardian the WaPo and the BBC and every other mainstream outlet. They want us to ignore the total absence of any evidence whatsoever for any part of their narrative and simply take their word.

That’s a “crematorium”. And it’s being used to burn masses of bodies. Just like in the Holocaust.

Because Assad (and Russia) = Hitler.

We need to tear up the ceasefires and ignore the de-escalation zones and invade Syria.

Everyone got that?

BBC left red-faced after a desperate hunt for anti-Corbyn Labour voters leads directly into a trap @KatieHile @BBC bias

BBC left red-faced after a desperate hunt for anti-Corbyn Labour voters leads directly into a trap

Kerry-Anne Mendoza – The Canary May 10, 2017

The BBC has joined the wider media in amplifying the voice of anyone who claims to be a former Labour voter but refuses to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. But in a desperate hunt to find such voices, the BBC fell into a trap.

The ‘Silly Hat’ trap

It started with a voter from Manchester named Elliot (@langho), who sent a tweet parodying those ‘former’ Labour voters. He wrote that he would only vote Labour if Corbyn “wears a multicoloured cap with a propellor on top”.

But someone didn’t get the joke. Because very soon, he was approached by BBC Business and Economics Producer Katie Hile.

bbc email

Despite Elliot ratcheting up the parody in the messages, it was seemingly lost on Hile.

bbc email1

Click to enlarge

bbc email2bbc email3

Finally, after he could take it no more, Elliot filled Hile in on the joke.

bbc email4

According to her Linkedin profile, Hile has been Business Producer at the BBC‘s Business and Economics unit since November 2014. And she has served with the BBC since 2007. This was not a mistake by an eager newbie, but instead an example of how far the corporation is willing to push to support its narrative of Labour voters abandoning the party over Corbyn.

This is despite Labour’s membership rising to its highest levels, adding up to more than the membership of the other Westminster parties combined. And despite Labour winning by-elections and mayoral contests since Corbyn’s election as leader. But that may come as a surprise to the majority of voters, dependent on the BBC and other powerful outlets for their view.

BBC Bias

The problems with the BBC start at the top. The Director of News and Current Affairs at the BBC is James Harding, a former employee of the Murdoch press. He was editor of The Times newspaper when it exposed the identity of police blogger ‘NightJack’ by hacking the blogger’s email accounts. His legal team then covered up the hacking during a court case against the action. Harding has also gone on the record as ‘pro Israel‘.

Harding has presided over some of the worst years of BBC bias. When the BBC Trust found its own chief political editor Laura Kuenssberg guilty of misreporting on Jeremy Corbyn, Harding responded:

While we respect the Trust and the people who work there, we disagree with this finding.

And he went on to praise Kuenssberg as:

an outstanding journalist and political editor with the utmost integrity and professionalism.

Beyond Harding and Kuenssberg, multiple studies have supported the assertion that this bias exists. A 2013 content analysis of the BBC by Cardiff University found that:

  • The BBC consistently grants more airtime to the Conservatives, whichever party is in power.
  • On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespeople by more than 5:1 in 2007 and by 19:1 in 2012.
  • BBC coverage of the 2008 financial crisis was dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators critical of the finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.

Studies by the London School of Economics and the Media Reform Coalition have since found serious imbalance in reporting of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Turn it off

Such coverage has real-world impacts. It encourages vast swathes of the UK electorate to vote against their own interests; and against the interests of their loved ones and communities. Skewed coverage distorts our view of ourselves, each other, and what’s possible for us as a country. And that’s why it’s time to turn it off.

Source

Clear BBC bias against Jeremy Corbyn @NickRobinson #Jewishlobby

BBC Bias is Clear and Indisputable

By Craig Murray | April 20, 2017

Unless the BBC takes firm disciplinary action against Nick Robinson for this, they cannot keep pretending that the UK any longer holds free and fair elections. For a state broadcaster to show this level of venom and bias against the opposition leader is utterly unacceptable.

It is indisputable that Robinson’s history is as a high ranking Conservative Party activist. They dominate BBC News, as a plain matter of fact. They have changed the culture of the BBC so they no longer feel any need to disguise their Tory cheerleading.

This is an Uzbek style election.

 

%d bloggers like this: