Friday, August 09, 2013
BBC FoI Query - BBC Confirm - Ain't Nobody Here But Us Corrupt Fascist Whores
Some time ago I sent an FoI Act query to the BBC about the public admission by Brian Taylor that the BBC maintained a strong political bias against UKIP and whether the BBC as an organisation (or Brian himself since it also went to him) wished to retract, clarify or otherwise alter their position. They didn't:
Dear Mr Craig
Freedom of Information request – RFI20131011
Thank you for your request to the BBC of 12 July, seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
A few weeks ago I was at a "Brian's Big Debate" in which I said that the BBC provide far less airtime to UKIP spokespeople than our standing in the polls warrants and that the BBC was thereby failing to live up to its legal Charter duty of "balance". He forcefully replied that the BBC select for coverage on the basis of elected Parliamentary representation (though I assume he meant purely the Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments & for programmes not originating in Scotland, purely the Westminster parliament As you may know UKIP is the 2nd party, currently, in the EU Parliament, the only UK body in which results are proportional to voters wishes so I assume that has never paid any part in your calculations .In the most recent council elections all 3 main parties posted within 6% of each other but presumably those elections don't count towards your formula either. At the time Mr Taylor cut off any further debate on that subject.
However it is clear from what he said that far from this being a denial of bias it is an open official admission of it. That you do indeed quite deliberately censor coverage according to some formula, ignoring the interest of voters, who are your customers and from whom you demand a licence fee not varied according to electoral representation. For example UKIP is clearly among the main 3 parties in polls for UK coverage and at 8-9% regularly in Scotland, also outpo9lling the LDs & Greens, yet UKIP's coverage is well under 1% of UK, let alone Scotland, making the BBC mathematically at least 95% corrupt.
Not, in principle, different from the way broadcasters in the old USSR used to limit news coverage to
what leaders of the elected party wanted ignoring both facts (in the way the BBC openly censor dissent and lie to promote the evidence free catastrophic global warming scare) and what their listeners might have wanted (granted more difficult to measure there).
Doubtless if you wish to retract this admission of censorship you will let me know, with full details.
I would like to ask, under the Freedom of Information Act, what that mathematical formula is and when it came into effect? For example when the SDP was formed, or even before, it was not censored from the airwaves on the grounds that zero people had been elected under their standard. Since this is entirely an editorial matter the exception of protecting journalistic sources, regularly used by the BBC, cannot be applicable to the formula.
A further point is that pure amounts of coverage do not reflect the attitude applied. For example most interviews with UKIP seem to ignore policies (such as our economic policies which, as you know, could get us out of recession very quickly if the ruling parties wished) in favour of some variety of "some people say you are racists, how do you answer them". If unbiased you must usually open interviews with Tory/Labour/LibDems with a variant of "Some people say yours are a party of war criminals and produce unrefuted evidence for it" or greet Green representatives with "Some people say that the green movement has killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined and can prove it".
Again, under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to request examples of when this has been done - mathematically the BBC must have tens of thousands of examples, though I confess to never once having heard one.
####################################################
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”. The BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.....
#####################################################
Well I already knew there was a journalistic out and that the BBC use it even to prevent them answering the number of times the BNP have been on Question Time.
However "not obliged" to answer is completely different from being obliged not to answer. So their refusal to deny being totalitarian censors is a deliberate premeditated decision.
In legal affairs courts are required to construe any ambiguity in a document against the drafter and thus this clear refusal to deny being corrupt totalitarian propagandists can only be seen, after Brian Taylor's admission of totalitarian censorship, as a deliberate confirmation of that.
The Formula
We can make a go of reverse engineering the formula, based on results.
Previously proven the BBC give at least 40 times more coverage per vote to the Greens than UKIP so it isn't simply that they censor to suppress small parties. It must be that they censor purely on the basis of state approval, the greens being the spume on the wave of the government campaign for more power through ecofascism.
We also know that the BBC have no slightest compunction about lying as per their claim that UKIP are deliberately refusing to engage in debate on their policies. Indeed from this it proves that the BBC are committed not only to lying but going further. A simple lie is a denial of the truth. The BBC officially go far further not merely denying the truth but asserting the exact 180 degree opposite of the truth.
We also know they will lie and censor in the Nazi cause to promote racial murder, genocide, child sex slavery and the dissection of living people because they did that over the Yugoslav wars.
The only formula that can be reverse engineered out of that is that the BBC will tell absolutely any lie, to promote absolutely any obscenity in the cause of statism/totalitarianism/fascism or the related Nazi cause. This in turn means that it is an organisation for which no person who is not a corrupt obscene lying whore could ever work. Granted this does go some way beyond what Brian admitted but it is the only thing that fits and Brian is certainly unconstrained by any ravages of honesty it still fits the information available and nothing else does.
By the legal definition of "obscenity" as something that "tends to deprave and corrupt" the BBC and everybody connected to are provably far and away the most obscene things in Britain. Indeed their level of obscenity cannot be less than that of those who were, rightly in my opinion, hung for participating in Auschwitz.. Of course those at Auschwitz ran the risk of being shot or sent to the Russian front (much the same thing) if they objected whereas all that would happen to the thieving parasites at the BBC if they did they same would be having to work for a living.
Nothing personal to anybody at the BBC - the rules of logic and mathematics are inexorable.
Dear Mr Craig
Freedom of Information request – RFI20131011
Thank you for your request to the BBC of 12 July, seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
A few weeks ago I was at a "Brian's Big Debate" in which I said that the BBC provide far less airtime to UKIP spokespeople than our standing in the polls warrants and that the BBC was thereby failing to live up to its legal Charter duty of "balance". He forcefully replied that the BBC select for coverage on the basis of elected Parliamentary representation (though I assume he meant purely the Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments & for programmes not originating in Scotland, purely the Westminster parliament As you may know UKIP is the 2nd party, currently, in the EU Parliament, the only UK body in which results are proportional to voters wishes so I assume that has never paid any part in your calculations .In the most recent council elections all 3 main parties posted within 6% of each other but presumably those elections don't count towards your formula either. At the time Mr Taylor cut off any further debate on that subject.
However it is clear from what he said that far from this being a denial of bias it is an open official admission of it. That you do indeed quite deliberately censor coverage according to some formula, ignoring the interest of voters, who are your customers and from whom you demand a licence fee not varied according to electoral representation. For example UKIP is clearly among the main 3 parties in polls for UK coverage and at 8-9% regularly in Scotland, also outpo9lling the LDs & Greens, yet UKIP's coverage is well under 1% of UK, let alone Scotland, making the BBC mathematically at least 95% corrupt.
Not, in principle, different from the way broadcasters in the old USSR used to limit news coverage to
what leaders of the elected party wanted ignoring both facts (in the way the BBC openly censor dissent and lie to promote the evidence free catastrophic global warming scare) and what their listeners might have wanted (granted more difficult to measure there).
Doubtless if you wish to retract this admission of censorship you will let me know, with full details.
I would like to ask, under the Freedom of Information Act, what that mathematical formula is and when it came into effect? For example when the SDP was formed, or even before, it was not censored from the airwaves on the grounds that zero people had been elected under their standard. Since this is entirely an editorial matter the exception of protecting journalistic sources, regularly used by the BBC, cannot be applicable to the formula.
A further point is that pure amounts of coverage do not reflect the attitude applied. For example most interviews with UKIP seem to ignore policies (such as our economic policies which, as you know, could get us out of recession very quickly if the ruling parties wished) in favour of some variety of "some people say you are racists, how do you answer them". If unbiased you must usually open interviews with Tory/Labour/LibDems with a variant of "Some people say yours are a party of war criminals and produce unrefuted evidence for it" or greet Green representatives with "Some people say that the green movement has killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined and can prove it".
Again, under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to request examples of when this has been done - mathematically the BBC must have tens of thousands of examples, though I confess to never once having heard one.
####################################################
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”. The BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.....
#####################################################
Well I already knew there was a journalistic out and that the BBC use it even to prevent them answering the number of times the BNP have been on Question Time.
However "not obliged" to answer is completely different from being obliged not to answer. So their refusal to deny being totalitarian censors is a deliberate premeditated decision.
In legal affairs courts are required to construe any ambiguity in a document against the drafter and thus this clear refusal to deny being corrupt totalitarian propagandists can only be seen, after Brian Taylor's admission of totalitarian censorship, as a deliberate confirmation of that.
The Formula
We can make a go of reverse engineering the formula, based on results.
Previously proven the BBC give at least 40 times more coverage per vote to the Greens than UKIP so it isn't simply that they censor to suppress small parties. It must be that they censor purely on the basis of state approval, the greens being the spume on the wave of the government campaign for more power through ecofascism.
We also know that the BBC have no slightest compunction about lying as per their claim that UKIP are deliberately refusing to engage in debate on their policies. Indeed from this it proves that the BBC are committed not only to lying but going further. A simple lie is a denial of the truth. The BBC officially go far further not merely denying the truth but asserting the exact 180 degree opposite of the truth.
We also know they will lie and censor in the Nazi cause to promote racial murder, genocide, child sex slavery and the dissection of living people because they did that over the Yugoslav wars.
The only formula that can be reverse engineered out of that is that the BBC will tell absolutely any lie, to promote absolutely any obscenity in the cause of statism/totalitarianism/fascism or the related Nazi cause. This in turn means that it is an organisation for which no person who is not a corrupt obscene lying whore could ever work. Granted this does go some way beyond what Brian admitted but it is the only thing that fits and Brian is certainly unconstrained by any ravages of honesty it still fits the information available and nothing else does.
By the legal definition of "obscenity" as something that "tends to deprave and corrupt" the BBC and everybody connected to are provably far and away the most obscene things in Britain. Indeed their level of obscenity cannot be less than that of those who were, rightly in my opinion, hung for participating in Auschwitz.. Of course those at Auschwitz ran the risk of being shot or sent to the Russian front (much the same thing) if they objected whereas all that would happen to the thieving parasites at the BBC if they did they same would be having to work for a living.
Nothing personal to anybody at the BBC - the rules of logic and mathematics are inexorable.
Labels: BBC, British politics, Rise of modern fascism
