jack irvine Drum editor responds to Irvine's claims he was 'brought to heel' by libel lawyer.
    Media / UK

    As The Drum started asking questions of media owners last week about their relationship with Levy & McRae, and The Sunday Herald was preparing an editorial setting out its position in the affair, PR man Jack Irvine (pictured) dispatched a press release to media news desks. It gives an insight into his operating style and The Drum publishes it here in full, together with our response to its claims.

    20/03/2010 21:13

    Issued by Jack Irvine, Chairman of Media House International Ltd.

    I am informed that The Sunday Herald will be carrying a story saying that solicitor Peter Watson is a shareholder in Media House. It appears that they are trying to suggest, following the Steven Purcell affair, that he has a conflict of interests because of his advisory role with several newspaper groups. The Sunday Herald’s Managing Director Mr Tim Blott was presented with documentary proof yesterday that Mr Watson is a trustee for my children and as such has no pecuniary advantage in Media House. I reported The Sunday Herald to the PCC last week for failing to contact me and allow me to present my side of the story over the handling of the Purcell affair. The result was a one sided hatchet job by Tom Gordon and Paul Hutcheon.

    It appears they have learned nothing and I have only learned of this evening’s story from my newspaper sources.

    Strangely the original questions concerning the shareholdings came yesterday from Richard Draycott, Editor of The Drum, a small circulation magazine. Equally strangely Mr Draycott had to be brought to heel recently over another magazine in his group, The Firm, which made lurid allegations against senior Scottish law officers. The lawyer involved in curbing Mr Draycott’s irresponsible approach was none other than Mr Peter Watson. Draw your own conclusions.

    (Members of the press were then invited to contact Irvine via his home telephone number)

    The Drum’s Response

    First of all let’s get the main points mentioned in Jack’s letter out of the way. The Sunday Herald states that it has worked within the Press Complaints Commission codes and will defend itself vigorously against any claims to the contrary. And issues relating to connections between Jack Irvine and Peter Watson have been reported elsewhere, and readers are now able to draw their own conclusions about the points that have been raised. However, Irvine brings another case into the public domain when he says that "Mr Draycott had to be brought to heel" over an article published by The Drum’s sister magazine The Firm, a legal title.

    Mr Draycott does not edit The Firm. He had no involvement into the investigation that dealt with this story. Therefore allegations that his "irresponsible actions" were curbed are just plain silly in every way. The Firm story in question, which like the Purcell issue has not been reported in Scotland as widely as one might expect, related to concerns about the role of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Elish Angionlini in not prosecuting an alleged member of a paedophile ring around the time she was appointed Procurator Fiscal for the North East 10 years ago. The victim has been named as Hollie Greig. The Firm found reporting this story difficult as the Crown Office did not initially respond to some of its requests for information. It wanted to find out specifically when she was appointed, and specifically when the decision not to prosecute was taken.

    The Lord Advocate was unhappy with The Firm’s initial coverage and threatened libel action through Levy & McRae. Why is this relevant to readers of The Drum? The Lord Advocate is an appointed member of the Scottish Government. It is unusual for an individual holding a high public office to resort to the laws of libel. South of the Border, for example, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, has announced a review of the laws of libel following concerns that they are now being used to stifle free speech and the freedom of the press.

    However, through the legal correspondence The Firm was able to get the information it had initially requested. The Lord Advocate had been appointed to her role in Aberdeen the day after the decision not to prosecute was taken. The Firm, although not understanding why the Crown Office would not initially furnish it with the information it had asked for, never believed the Lord Advocate had behaved improperly. And it cooperated to amend its article which stated the Lord Advocate was ‘not involved, no connection, unaware’ as far as the decision not to prosecute was concerned. You can read The Firm's resulting article here.

    However, subsequent correspondence from Levy & McRae contradicted this position. When this was pointed out Peter Watson said it was an error on his part. The defamation procedures were abandoned shortly afterwards and Levy & McRae referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission. The case was settled without an adjudication being made. The Firm continues to monitor this case with interest.

    Was The Firm’s editorial judgement affected by the threat of libel action? At one stage the Lord Advocate suggested The Firm could find itself in the Court of Session within hours. The Firm is a small independent publication and defending such an action could have potentially put the magazine out of business. So, the financial risk would have been front of mind, although it is difficult to say whether that affected its editorial judgement. But at the end of the day The Firm did not contribute to the Lord Advocates costs. The question remains: Who did? Was it the Lord Advocate herself, or the Scottish Government? This issue is now the subject of a Freedom of Information request.

    But other public bodies have been involved in suing the Scottish press in the past. The Drum will now be writing to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny McAskill – a former Levy McRae employee – and asking him to run a review of the Scottish libel laws, similar to the one Justice Secretary Jack Straw has announced in England. Specifically we would like him to examine whether the current rules are seriously undermining freedom of speech in Scotland. And we would also like him to examine when it is appropriate for public money to be used to protect the reputation of public servants.

  • PETER WATSON Levy & McRae lawyer behind threats across the internet
  • How Peter Watson of Scottish Law Firm Levy and McRae Seems to Turn Up Everywhere

    jonathan harmsworth A look at who owns the British media will soon show why their editorial is always based on the establishment looking down at us lesser mortals from their ivory towers. Those towers are looking very shaky of late.

    Harold Jonathan Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere

    He held various positions in Associated Newspapers and was Managing Director of the Evening Standard when the sudden death of his father Vere Harmsworth, 3rd Viscount Rothermere resulted in his becoming Chairman of Associated and of its parent Daily Mail and General Trust plc just before his 31st birthday. One notable change he has instituted is requiring directors to retire at age 75.

    He ranked 51st in the Sunday Times Rich List 2006 with an estimated wealth of £1,020 million. In March 2008 it was announced that his wife's sister, Lady Francis Russell, had married Mark Thatcher. Rothermere is a supporter of the Conservative Party leader David Cameron. The Viscount is registered as "non-domiciled" in the UK. This status was inherited from his father, the 3rd Viscount, who spent most of his life as a resident of France. This status allows Harmsworth to pay tax in France.

  • Associated Newspapers

    israeli muzzle Contrary to the stated U.S. and Israeli policies to “incentivize” Palestinians to choose state-building over “resistance models,” Israel is undermining Palestinian civil society, said Jared Malsin in a lecture Tuesday night about press rights in Israel.

    Malsin, a Jewish-American journalist, spoke on his experience working for two-and-a-half years in the West Bank for Maan, a Palestinian news agency. This January, upon returning from a vacation in Prague, he and his girlfriend were taken by Israeli officials in Tel Aviv for questioning and were not allowed to enter the country. After hours of questioning, Malsin was detained in jail for a week before he was released, he said — an experience that exemplified a violation of press rights in the region. Several students, including Leah Cogan ’13 and Riyad Seervai ’13, said they came to the lecture — which was co-sponsored by Common Ground, Puzzle Peace, and Brown Students for Justice in Palestine — because of Malsin’s compelling background. “We kind of turn a blind eye” to the implications of activists’ actions and how they are received, Cogan said. She also hoped to hear more about the “impetus” that drove Malsin, a 2007 Yale graduate, to Israel, she said. But Malsin did not discuss his detainment in detail until the very end of the lecture, focusing instead on how Israeli officials’ actions in his case were consistent with their usual actions. “We can’t isolate Israel’s violations of the freedom of the press from what I’m going to argue is an overall effort to undermine Palestinian civil society,” Malsin said. One Palestinian journalist in a car clearly labeled as belonging to the media was shot by an Israeli tank, Malsin said.

    “He actually filmed his own death,” Malsin said, an example of Israel’s “deliberate attacks” on Palestinian civil society. Israel is undermining “any institution” that would give Palestinians a nonviolent or not extreme “outlet” for their frustrations, Malsin said. A common question in U.S. discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, “Where is this Palestinian Gandhi?” Malsin said. “Israel, perhaps knowingly … has jailed all the Palestinian Gandhis.” According to Malsin, U.S. portrayals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are problematic. “It’s a problem not of quantity, but of quality,” Malsin said. “The challenge is that the Palestinians are either stigmatized as terrorists, or they’re just completely invisible.” Malsin also described the challenges of working as a reporter in the region. Small aspects of daily life “are the things that affect journalism the most,” he said. As a Jewish-American working for the Palestinian cause, “Malsin’s voice is definitely a very intriguing one,” said Rahel Dette ’13 in her introduction of Malsin before the lecture. Dette said she first met Malsin in the West Bank before she came to Brown.

    Many of the audience’s questions after Malsin’s lecture focused on his position as a Jewish-American working for Palestinians. Malsin had always been interested in the Middle East, he told The Herald. He called the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “one of the greatest, most interesting stories in the world” and said it was a “privilege” to report on it.

    Malsin ended his lecture by talking about his desire to return to the West Bank. “I hope to go back, and I will,” Malsin said.



    Toffs at the top

    A report has revealed that more than half of the UK's top 100 news and current affairs journalists were privately educated. According to a survey by the Sutton Trust, 54 per cent of leading national newspaper editors, columnists, broadcast editors and news presenters went to school in the private sector. Private school pupils account for just 7 per cent of the school population. The report also reveals that 33 per cent of the top 100 went to grammar schools, and 14 per cent attended comprehensive schools. Comprehensive schools currently educate almost 90 per cent of children. The Trust claims journalism has become more private school-dominated over the past 20 years with the number of top journalists coming from the sector increasing by 5 per cent. In 1986, 49 per cent of the top 100 journalists were privately educated, while 44 per cent attended grammar schools and 6 per cent went to comprehensives.

    The report says: "Without exception every journalist we spoke to agreed that news and current affairs is increasingly becoming a preserve for those from more privileged backgrounds — more often than not those educated in private schools. In particular there is perceived to be a systematic bias at the beginning of careers towards those who are well off and from the London area." It claims the perception was based on the belief that privately educated journalists were more likely to:

    1. Survive the low pay and insecurity that are endemic at junior levels in news journalism;
    2. Afford the costs of living in London and postgraduate journalism courses;
    3. Have family contacts within the industry.

    The survey also reveals that of the 81 per cent of the leading journalists in 2006 who had been to university, more than half were educated at Oxbridge, including a third who went to Oxford. Among the 1986 sample, 78 per cent were university graduates, 67 per cent of whom had been to Oxbridge, including two-fifths to Oxford. Among Oxbridge-educated national editors are Roger Alton, of The Observer, Lionel Barber, of the Financial Times, John Bryant, at the Daily Telegraph, Alan Rusbridger of The Guardian and Peter Wright of the Mail on Sunday. But the survey also shows that some national editors made it to the top without a university education. They include Robert Thomson of The Times, Richard Wallace at the Daily Mirror, Dawn Neesom at the Daily Star and the News of the World's Andy Coulson. Oxbridge educated broadcasters include Adam Boulton of Sky News, Channel 4's Krishnan Guru-Murthy and the BBC's David Dimbleby and Matt Frei. The BBC's John Humphrys and ITV's James Mates and Trevor McDonald did not go to university.

    A section in the report about nepotism says: "Family ties remain a powerful force in the newsroom. There are countless examples of sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, partners and former partners who have followed in the footsteps of relatives in pursuing successful careers in journalism." The report further reveals that the proportion of women among the top 100 news journalists increased from 10 per cent in 1986 to 18 per cent in 2006.

    Lee Elliott Major, news editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement, who led the research, said: "What the research does not suggest is that editors routinely favour those from privileged educational backgrounds. But it does point to a systematic bias towards the better off at the crucial entry level into national news organisations." NUJ national newspapers officer Barry Fitzpatrick told Press Gazette: "Clearly we are concerned about anything that would appear to restrict or limit entry into the profession. We're very concerned with the current situation where entry into the industry is quite an expensive career choice. Because of low pay and the cost of people's degrees and qualifications it means that people from poorer backgrounds and families simply don't have journalism as an option. "Again the report does highlight that position.

    We would agree with that as one of the conclusions it makes." Sutton Trust chairman Sir Peter Lampl, who set up the Trust in 1997 to promote social mobility by providing educational opportunities to young people from non-privileged backgrounds, said: "It cannot be healthy for our media leaders to come mostly from backgrounds that are so different from the vast majority of the population. The newspaper and broadcasting industries are not attracting a rich diversity of recruits and should look urgently at their recruitment processes." The Sutton Trust is an educational charity that has previously researched the educational backgrounds of the UK's top lawyers and MPs.


    UK dictatorship Britain's media are in full swing in the run up to an election.

    Like America the only political parties being promoted are the 'ABUSE OF MEN FOR PROFIT PARTIES' as the editors and owners of the major corporate newspapers are masons with ulterior motives to ensure the New World Order direction continues unabated with radical feminist and homosexual agenda's part of their plans to curtail working class heterosexual male power.

    The dictators of this world know it is the strength of heterosexual men that have brought down these evil bastards throughout history and why they take such efforts to use their media goons to demean and smear men at every opportunity to protect their own wealth and power created on the backs of their masonic satanic control network.

    The 'ABUSE OF MEN FOR PROFIT PARTIES' have a clear agenda that is reflected in how the whole media circus is geared to ignoring their crimes and the crimes of radical feminists and homosexuals with selective news reporting that fails time and again to expose criminality from many quarters but concentrates primarily on the criminal conduct of working class men, giving the illusion that crimes are ONLY ever committed by that group while the rest hide behind the facade of unbiased news reporting at least from their very warped perspective.

    There are many political parties operating across the UK but you will seldom if ever see them getting the platforms they need to access public opinion. The mass media have carefully crafted news and opinion polls that only promote 'ABUSE OF MEN FOR PROFIT PARTIES' at the utter expense of lesser parties and to the dire consequences of men who will continue to be berated by the same corporate media that distorts and lies its way through the promotion of the dictatorship that masquerades as democracy in the UK. The political goons that have held power throughout history have consistently protected the establishment rich at the utter expense of the poor and working classes and despite their attempts to suggest we have CHOICE the same 'ABUSE OF MEN FOR PROFIT PARTIES' consistently fail the majority of the population yet WE GET LITTLE OR NO CHOICE.

    The browbeaten and brainwashed British public need to know what lies behind this agenda. Without a strong heterosexual population the dictators will continue their tyranny and why men are being weakened financially , spiritually and psychologically in divorce courts where the real powers of the masonic judiciary kicks in. That is where the tyrants and royal thugs create the atmosphere for tyrants to flourish backed up by the 'ABUSE OF MEN FOR PROFIT PARTIES' . Those parties proven to be controlled and funded by the Rothschilds pulling their strings behind the scenes.

  • The U.S. Personal Income Tax: It Goes to The Family Rothschild





    Sir Martin Sorrell, head of the advertising giant WPP, said governments may have to step in and support ailing newspapers if losses bring them to the brink of collapse.

    Sir Martin said: "Governments probably have to decide whether consolidation and media titles going out of business is the right thing from an editorial point of view." In an interview with Arabian Business, he compared the situation to the recent state support for the banks. "You could argue that newspapers provide a vital service," he said. "It's the same issue, whether the state should intervene in certain issues to help preserve a service. That is what every piece of welfare economics is based on."

    The media has suffered declining revenues since the onset of the economic downturn, which led to the worst advertising recession in living memory. Since then, many media groups have been looking to alternate sources of revenue, such as charging for online content, to make up for the decline in advertising. Sir Martin cited The Guardian as an example. "In the long-term it can't go on losing money," he said. "So let us say, hypothetically, that The Guardian could not continue to lose money after a certain period, then you would have to think about whether the Government should subsidise it, or whether you give tax advantages to people to subsidise it."

    He added that in thinking of models to bail out media organisations there were "plenty of ways to skin that particular cow". Sir Martin said that while the advertising losses are slowing there was still no sign yet of a recovery. In October he said that economic Armageddon had been averted, and market conditions were "less worse".



    masonic The question is not who among us has been hypnotized, the question is who has not.

    The un-hypnotized man or woman finds him or her self in a sea of people who cannot see past their blindness. This is the reason why the truth teller cannot break through to the “skeptic”. For this reason one must first place him or her self in a position to see and only when they do so can they ever hope to glimpse the truth. Under most circumstances the chances that a man or woman wakes up are very slim indeed and there are good reasons for this. Modern hypnotists are not turbaned magicians in dark robes holding a pocket watch. They wear business suits and swim suits and their disguises are virtually impenetrable by the target of their efforts. They are very effective and have charmed all but a fraction of a percent of all people in the world. Many wake up but again fall under the spell over and over. They get a glimpse but do not know what has happened. Slowly they succumb to the droning of the hypnotist´s tools of the trade.

    If one does not understand the nature of hypnotism and its awesome power to shape every aspect of our lives and perception then they cannot hope to break through to freedom. Why is modern hypnotism so effective in our “modern civilized age”? Trust is the key to hypnotism as one cannot be hypnotized if they do not trust the hypnotist. One might assume that one must trust a man or woman, to be hypnotized by, them but they seldom understand that ideas and concepts in which we place our trust are equally mesmerizing and are as effective as any human hypnotist. One who is skeptic of people may believe him or her self immune but they can easily be hypnotized voluntarily by introducing false information that clouds their perception such that they alter their perception around, most notably, a false view of reality. This conditioning starts very early with our parents demanding that we accept their authority and expect us to trust blindly what they say without verification. The worst thing a parent can do to their child when the child asks “why?” is to tell them “because I said so”. It is better so say “I do not know” or even better “figure it out for yourself”. This automatic conditioning creates an individual that moves from one trust relationship to another or from one hypnotist to another and creates an un-ending chain that takes diligence and persistence to break. The teacher hands you a book and because we trust our teacher, sometimes without condition, they introduce us to a carefully crafted false reality that leaves us a slave in fear of pain, suffering and death such that we are convinced that the powerful determine our lives for us.

    So refined and sophisticated has this art become that we rarely even discover that it is perpetrated against us through nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Trust the teacher, trust the government, trust your elders, trust the intellectual, trust the judge, trust the doctor and we can never hope to break the cycle. When you look at how modern college education merely swamps a young mind with information and demands complete regurgitation without being give time to judge the validity of the information, it sets up a drone that loses all sense of identity that is forever held in an invisible cage they cannot even perceive is there.

    The repetition and cross-confirmation between, what we are told, are diametrically opposed doctrines further convinces us to accept what we are told. We base our perception regarding science on assumptions of reality presented to us in religious doctrine. The false ideas of chance, probability, purposelessness, luck and individual powerlessness are not scientific in origin but are en grained in us by religion. That's right. We take the bad assumptions and perceptions that we are subject to the will of things out of our control from religion. Science then bases much of their theory and experimentation on these false assumptions. Can there be true objectivity if one cannot fathom critical false assumptions that are specifically designed to undermine our “objectivity”? No. What can science actual prove objectively when our reality is wholly subjective to each of us individually? They can really prove nothing. Our movies, literature, religion, science, history, philosophy, psychology, cosmology and worst of all the media all work together to form an impenetrable barrier to waking up as they all reinforce the same false reality. The challenge to the hypnotized is daunting in that most of the hypnotists do not even recognize they are themselves hypnotizing. Even worse we are hypnotized to forget we have been hypnotized. There are even safety valves incorporated into the system in the event one begins to wake up. Peer pressure is applied to return the waking people back under the spell. When one starts exposing the truth to another, that falls outside of the traditional hypnotic perception, in speaking with another, we are conditioned to automatically reject the speaker and the information. In fact, one of the clues is people simply use the tool of saying the word “conspiracy” and that effectively shuts down the flow of truth in a conversation and anything that is said prior is quickly thrown into the mental trash bin. One must try it for him or her self and objectively observe the results. As far as conspiracy, when one goes to the convince store for a pop they conspire with the clerk to secure a needful thing.

    The typical statement is: “If there was such a conspiracy, how can so many people keep something secret?” How indeed! When the whole population uses the same fallacious argument every single time without even questioning its validity is really quite amazing. The answer to the question is that the population itself cannot allow itself to view this conspiracy even though it is perpetrated right in front of them over-and-over constantly throughout their day. Even worse, how are those, who are part of the “conspiracy”, even to expose the “conspiracy” if they cannot recognize that they are one of the participants and to people that have been rendered largely unable to accept its existence in the first place? How does one wake up and stay awake? We must all first accept that we might be hypnotized. We must then take careful stock and prove that our most basic assumption about our reality is actually proven first-hand rather than something we are given to accept. This can be rather uncomfortable in that we start from a position where we doubt our own sanity and must overcome society's pressure to shoehorn ourselves into the model of reality someone else has deemed “normal”. We must start from the position that we know nothing that we have not proved conclusively to ourselves individually. In this way skepticism is valuable. That is difficult when our egos work against us to ensure that we remain “correct” so that we know what we believe and believe what we know. We have to fight our tendency to automatically submit ourselves to the authority of another. Again, that is not easy. Another weakness in this modern hypnotic mechanism is that it must be continually reinforced. After roughly 22 days of repetition we can be made to accept contrary information. It helps to remove one's self from the stimulus as much as possible. Turn off the TV, stop reading the newspapers, turn off the music and spend some time in nature. Nature in a remote area is free of this content, provided it is outside of a city where the sounds and electromagnetic waves help lull us to sleep. We must stop the tenancy of accepting the information we get as the truth and break the trust cycle. It is not wrong to believe new information provided it is first rigorously tested with personal experience and experiment.

    Do not fall into the "second opinion" trap, as one must assume that every man and women are equally confused. Just because a billion idiots believe something it does not mean that something is the truth. Test it for yourself through a logical and sound repeatable process. That which one believes now must be marked in their minds as “suspect pending further review” and one-by-one we must revisit these assumptions and test them. If they are found to be suspect then discard them. Take it from those who have endured this process: much of what we assume as truth is false. That is a healthy way to approach one's reality. Blind acceptance leads to general blindness with a persistent deluded sense of “apparent sight”. Many are thinking, “How bad can TV be? I don't watch the stuff on the networks just science and the history channel.” There is nothing of value on TV. It is a false reality creator. I watched a two-hour presentation on the curse of the Kennedys as they revisited the tragedy in their family. In two hours they never even approached the idea that there may be a reason for it. We are left to conclude it was a function of “bad luck”. Just bad luck and do not ever forget how it can happen to you. Does that conditioning worthless programming help anyone determine purpose and meaning? There is a reason for the tragedy in the Kennedy family. This reason, I am sure, they at least are fully aware of.

    On the science channel we are presented with Standard Model Cosmology, exclusively, and we have convinced ourselves that the universe will expand to the point where it will go dark and everything is dead. We then are left to come to the conclusion that nothing matters anyway. We might as well rob, cheat and steal because there cannot be this thing we call God and it does not matter anyway. To make their theory work they have to invent this thing called dark energy and dark matter. We cannot see it or measure it, but it is there. We are left to take this drivel on faith never questioning the fact that what they propound is theory based on bad assumptions where they do not have the least amount of integrity to admit it. It is more religious then religion but we call it empirical science. Just overlook the fact that their explanations for things the cannot explain very nearly include fudge factors and reliance on ethereal unseen dimensions and forces. OOOOOO Weeeee OOOOO OOOOO! Standard Model Cosmology is only one of many theories out there that we never have an opportunity to entertain. Why? The reason is that the removal of hope brings us to a point where we must be dependent on those who think they rule to save us from ourselves. It is a reality based on powerlessness and enslavement and it is no wonder why it is promoted with such enthusiasm. Our reality, such as it is spun today is that we are not sovereign, not responsible and have no chance of ever regaining power over our environment and ourselves. Why bother? Just take your lumps like everyone else because that is all you will get. Trust us and be thankful for the pitiful morsel that falls from our plates. We will tell you what to do, what to think and we decide where you are and why. They do not enslave us. We choose to enslave ourselves by merely trusting them to define for us our reality because they decide if you think differently then you are “insane”. They decide what is insane or what is not. Who permits them to do so other then ourselves? Do not listen to me. I am insane. If you listen you might become happy and free and not able enjoy the pain, suffering and misery that the sane man enjoys today. Most of all: sleep well because it is far too scary to wake up and be master of your reality.


    media How much of the corporate media news is actually true? They aren't stupid enough to lie all the time and they have the best psychiatrists and psychologists behind the scenes to ensure their slant on the news appeals to the public. If they report the weather is freezing then looking out the window would quickly confirm if they were lying or not however if they have supposedly reputable scientists saying there is a permanent trend in global warming that is another matter.

    The news may consist of anywhere between 50 to 80 % that may be close to the truth but the rest is very likely to be extreme distortions of political and legal reporting. The reason they deliberately cut films in two to present a news report is that the propaganda has to be consistent and incessant. The mass media has been getting away with absolute murder for a very long time and it is only the internet that has finally provided an alternative to what is the biggest lying and devious network across the globe. ALL of it is run and controlled by the establishment pulling the wool over the peasants eyes to ensure the extremes of capitalism are NOT divulged and how the system has been exploiting and enslaving the masses to provide the opulent lifestyles of the likes of the Rothschilds who have created a banking system that aids the ULTRA rich at the expense of everyone else.

    Never in the history of mankind has this enormous scam had the platform before to show the extreme exploitation of the masses on behalf of the billionaires who have abused us through the corruption of the political and legal systems across western society . The political dupes have never worked for the electors and are place men for the same scumbags sitting on their luxury yachts berthed in thousands of marinas or in their mansions doted across the globe . Any time the news reports credit crunches or housing crashes you can be sure these billionaires have been behind the manufacture of failing banks that ensures the masses continue to be fleeced and live in fear through manipulation of the news . If its not terrorism, banking crashes, wars , homelessness, job losses, global warming, virus's , aids, bombings, drug and alcohol addiction, gun and knife crime and a myriad of other issues that will only ever affect us lesser mortals while the self appointed elite can hide away on their exclusive islands and on their yachts that have been partitioned off from the rest of the peasants where they wine and dine the political goons that go back to their countries to brainwash the public with endless bullshit that the corporate media provide the necessary platforms to continue to keep their victims living in perpetual fear.

    This is like chinese torture with the constant drip of distressing news manipulated endlessly to keep us all worrying and in fear of our lives and makes enslaving us much easier. In the last 40 years there has been increasing intensity in how they are creating so much news that creates the necessary fear to keep us all in our lowly place. The media ultimately have been responsible for the massive injustice and inequality that lets the scumbag elite to pamper themselves with the never ending endless material wealth that few of us will ever taste. It is not that everyone requires billionaire status but without a massive transfer of wealth to rid the world of this massive equality , the media will continue to manipulate the perspective we have of our lives through the eyes of the scumbag billionaires who are only in that position through some of the most enormous scams this world has ever experienced.


    media We are hardly over the New Year and the corporate media have started to push the two main corrupt political parties in the run up to a British election. Since the constant exposures on the internet, it is becoming crystal clear how the media is behind the BIG SELL to convince us we have CHOICE.

    That choice, conveniently for the media mafia, is ONE of the two main parties that even they have been exposing as up to their necks in corruption and sleaze. For the last four years there have been endless exposures of blatant swindling at Westminster by the political windbags yet they are still promoted as the only alternative parties that get the platforms and we are given the distinct impression NO OTHER PARTY is worthy of our vote. The British public seem to be still partially living in the masonic slumber accepting what the corporate media are telling us that is despite mountainous evidence to show they are behind the UK's democratic facade. Instead that we have been living in a dictatorship were no matter what MAIN party you vote for they are all funded by masonic benefactors like the Rothschilds and who ALL swear an oath to the British monarchy before the long suffering British public.

    It is also very noticeable how blatant lies pass for impartial news reporting when time and again the masonic controlled media will only ever provide the platform for the masonic backed political mafia. They seldom if ever give us an alternative and like Kellogs cornflakes the amount of air time directly relates to the the type of cereal we eat . We are having our political breakfasts stuffed down our throats by ENDLESS rantings of a bunch of criminals that should be in jail NOT being paraded on every news station and newspaper that is backed with masonic money. You would think they would try some alternative strategy instead of using a well trodden path that has now been exposed endlessly on the internet.



    POLITUBBIES We have been exposing for a very long time that the UK's complicit media are behind the political stooges we are FORCED to vote for come election time. We are NO supporters of the SNP but the latest debacle shows clearly how the British press and television control who gets the platform's to promote their vile political agenda's, that are only marginally different from each other, and exclusively only those parties behind the New World Order agenda and funded by their masonic backers like the Rothschilds.

    The UK is a dictatorship that every four years changes the stooges who all support the same agenda, that primarily protects the rich and their banking buddies and has NOTHING to do with the long suffering electors getting different options. We are ruled by a political class educated at Eton (next door to the House of Windsor) or some other public schoolboy twatties who ensure the monarchy and its thousands of hangers on are kept in the luxurious lifestyles they think they deserve. The token vote we get pays lip service to a supposed democracy that only takes care of the NWO rich who have enslaved British citizens for FAR TO LONG.

    Read the following article that proves what the media are up to.

    Alex Salmond hits out at live TV debates for Brown, Cameron & Clegg

    ALEX SALMOND has hit out at the decision to televise three live, pre-election debates between the three main parties in Westminster - missing out the SNP. The First Minister said: "It is entirely unacceptable to Scotland as well as to the SNP for the broadcasters to exclude the party that forms the government of Scotland - and indeed is now leading in Westminster election polls.

    "If these debates are to be at all relevant to their audiences, they must reflect the democratic reality of Scotland and political diversity across the UK. "And that must include SNP involvement in debates broadcast in Scotland. "The broadcasters have got to meet their public service obligations to audiences across the UK. For them to propose debates which signally fail to do so shows a high-handed attitude."

    He pointedly reminded the broadcasters of the "debacle" of a 1995 BBC Panorama programme - an interview with then prime minister John Major - which it was prevented from broadcasting in Scotland because it breached the rules of impartiality during a Scottish local election. He said that the SNP would now be seeking "guarantees of inclusion" from the broadcasters.



    Once again the complicit corporate media get the statistics wrong about the uneven spread of WEALTH in the UK.

    LESS than 10% of the UK's population owns more than 90% of the wealth and no government throughout its history has made ANY attempt to reverse that trend. Instead all major parties we are expected to vote for are funded by the rich in a charade democracy that is becoming the laughing stock of the world. That percentage is getting much worse for the poor as the ultra rich are getting ever more greedy and devious in how they manipulate the worlds economy to ensure the poor remain ever more poor while the ultra wealthy get richer.

    London is the enslavement capital of the world both through the secret society network of freemasonry that OLD LIZZIE heads as well as the control of London city where most of the worlds SLAVES are bought and sold on the stock market and funded by money provided and printed by the Bank of England. The class system in the UK is the most EVIL network of power and has only survived by removing ALL form of weaponry as a means for the population to fight back. Also a legal system founded on masonic judges ensuring only the ultra rich have any hope of ensuring they keep their wealth while the rest of us are stripped using the most devious and dangerous legal mafia controlled by the Inns of court who also control every bar association across the globe.

    Fifth of households in UK own two thirds of the wealth

    The richest fifth in Britain own 62 per cent of all wealth while the poorest half hold just nine per cent. Household wealth reached £9trillion between 2006 and 2008 with £5.5trillion of that held by the richest 20 per cent, according to the Office of National Statistics.

    Cash in hand: The richest fifth in the UK own 62 per cent of the nation's wealth The average wealth of households was put at £204,500.

    The new wealth and assets survey also showed people are struggling to repay loans while one in ten is in negative net wealth – where their debts outweigh anything they own. Worryingly, just 50 per cent of people saved in the last year, although 37 per cent had put some money away in the last month, the survey showed. Only 40 per cent of men and 32 per cent of women are contributing to a private pension, the ONS found.


    gates murdoch Murdoch turns to Gates for website help
    Microsoft and News Corp joins forces in bid to make internet news pay

    Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, has agreed to a payments system if Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation takes steps to remove all its content from Google Just as soon as the outline of a possible new model for newspapers to make a better return from content used by aggregator and search-engine sites such as Google emerged, new doubts surfaced that publishers can do anything to plug a dam that has already burst in trying to limit free access to their product.

    Google is at the centre of the debate once again after reports yesterday that Microsoft, which this year launched its rival search engine Bing, had entered talks with Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation to begin paying for top index content from his newspapers, including The Times and The Wall Street Journal, on its pages. According to a report in The Financial Times, Bing would agree to the payments system on condition that Mr Murdoch takes steps to remove all his content, or links to his content, from Google.

    Freezing out Google is something Mr Murdoch has already been talking about as he looks for ways to erect a pay-wall around the websites of all his publications, which also include The New York Post and The Sun. Bing entering the fray could encourage Mr Murdoch to go forward. And, at first sight, it may offer the newspaper industry a glimpse of a not-so-gloomy future, with Microsoft offering a significant new stream of revenue to pay for their continuing high costs. But Google yesterday responded with a verbal shrug. "Publishers put their content on the web because they want it to be found. Google is a tremendous source of promotion for news organisations, sending them about 100,000 clicks every minute. So very few choose not to include their material in Google's index. But the publisher is in control – if they ask us not to include their content, we won't," the company said.

    Implying that it had its own doubts about the viability of what Bing may be offering in terms of payments to newspapers, Google added: "We work closely with the newspaper industry to help find long-term and sustainable models for making money from news." It is widely assumed that Microsoft will be looking to strike a deal not only with Mr Murdoch, even though his stable of publications is extensive and his influence on the industry unquestionable, but with other large publishers as well. Its notion of Bing becoming the first stop for web users looking for news articles instead of Google would presumably work only if a critical mass of publishers were persuaded to turn their backs on Google all at once.

    But most industry observers saw flaws here. As well as wondering if Microsoft would have sufficient funds to offer payments to all the publishers it would need on board, they also questioned the wisdom of Mr Murdoch in attacking Google in a way that essentially attempts to close one of the biggest windows into internet content. "The key thing is that none of this does anything to help users," argued Mike Masnick of the influential website Techdirt. "And these days, that's a strategic error. If your business is focused on making life more difficult for a competitor, rather than adding more value to users, you're doing the wrong thing." A significant bucket of ice water was also thrown on Mr Murdoch's putative strategy during a London conference last week by Biz Stone, co-founder of Twitter. He accused the media magnate of attempting to "put the genie back in the bottle" when it comes to open access on the internet to editorial content.


    How libel laws silence our democracy

    Never mind the fatwas, I say, and don't get hyper-agitated by the PC platoon, we who do not find rape jokes hilarious and who rebuff the fond nicknames "Paki" and "retard" and believe careless language can sanction cruelty and injustice. Though accused daily of impeding freedom of speech, we do not have the muscle or money to destabilise that fundamental entitlement. The real pressures that turn to actual curtailments of free expression lie in confidentiality contracts, unspoken loyalties between power and those it seduces or buys up, thought-control in the name of anti-terrorism and the monstrous English libel laws, more draconian than in any other Western nation.

    Feel shame and consternation that London, famed for its energy, creativity and colour is now the libel capital of the world and libel tourism has joined other suspect activities that draw the global wealthy to our shores and shake up the foundations of our democracy. Russian oligarchs, Arab sheikhs, multinationals, media moguls, and South African millionaires love our courts and laws that keep their dodgy affairs away from the prying eyes of the public. Others freely use the system, too. International stars fed up with intrusive and false reports routinely turn to our high-court judges to protect their reputations. Actress Cameron Diaz sued an American newspaper, the Miami-based National Enquirer, in the English courts and won substantial damages. These victories, though in some ways justified, do set off unintended consequences. A select committee hearing took evidence from the New York Times and other US publications. These trials mean some papers – including the Wall Street Journal – may withdraw from the UK and block internet access.

    Authors are being intimidated as well. There was the case taken by a super-rich Saudi businessman, Khalid Mahfouz against the academic Rachel Ehrenfeld, who had written a book on the funders of terrorism alleging Mahfouz was involved. Only 23 copies of the book were sold in the UK but the case went to a British court. Ehrenfeld refused to attend. Some American states, the Senate and House of Representatives are taking action to overturn the decisions of English libel judges. Gagging is now commonplace in science and medicine. Experts in these fields have had to withdraw serious published concerns. Andrew Lewis, who runs a website where some medical claims are discredited, has been forced to pull unsubstantiated and criticised claims made by an osteopath which were already in the public domain. He would have faced libel action for reporting a fact. Dr Peter Wilmhurst, a British cardiologist, is being sued by an American manufacturer of new heart implants because he expressed doubts at a conference about their effectiveness. A scientist, Simon Singh, is still going through the gruelling and potentially crippling libel appeal process after being successfully sued by the British Chiropractic Association for describing as "bogus" some of the get-well promises made by practitioners.

    Publishers, newspapers and broadcasters are now pre-empting libel actions by taking out material that might arouse or upset claimants. YouTube and citizen filming means you can be filmed saying something at a conference or seminar which then gets broadcast, making you vulnerable to the libel jackals. Honest views and opinions are not exempt. Alistair Brett, legal manager of the Times newspapers, believes these laws "have gone bonkers". They are disproportionate, immoral silencing instruments, widely and cynically used. A comparative study of media law by the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies found that the cost of libel actions in England and Wales is 140 times higher than the European average. After the death of Robert Maxwell, the hope was that libel threats would no longer be allowed to stop legitimate investigations of the loaded and mighty. Incredibly, we went the other way. With a few exceptions, like the redoubtable journalist Tom Bower, who meticulously scrutinises the lives of big men like Conrad Black and Richard Desmond in his well-researched books, beating back the legal brutes who tear into him, most other journalists have had to accept severe limits on what we can broadcast or write about litigious men and women, organisations, institutions and businesses. I cannot even tell you the subjects and people I am not allowed to write about in our baleful new world. Censorship? Surely not? That happens in repressive China and Iran, not here? Yes, in our own backyard.

    The slide into a hushed state is alarming the UN Human Rights Committee, which issued this statement last year: "The practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work". A new campaign was launched this week by Index on Censorship and English PEN to halt this domination by thought and word controllers. Nobody with a concern for justice and fairness would want a society where anything could be said and anybody maligned without restraint. But the balance in our libel laws has tipped away from good sense into repression. Geoffrey Robertson spoke at the launch. Without using notes, the lawyer spoke with passion that shook the ground beneath his feet: "We have not free speech but expensive speech." Ken McDonald QC reminded us of the iniquity of the law itself which assumes a defendant is guilty until proved innocent. The money involved is prohibitive even for the provably innocent. This must have been the feeling and energy at gatherings of wigged, zealous, conscientious reformists in earlier centuries.

    So heady was the atmosphere that a representative of Carter-Ruck, the infamous libel firm that goes like a hound after complainants, succumbed and agreed we needed to bring down costs. We may have reached a point where even those who gain from our libel laws can see they suck. The campaign must be supported. We have nothing to lose but our chains and gags. Freedom of speech matters most when it is taken away by key players in the establishment. Like now.




    newspaper boy The idea of democratic flag-bearers died decades ago. I can count on one hand those brave enough to speak truth to power

    They are the pillars of the community, champions of the underdog, the scourge of corruption, defenders of free speech. Their demise could deal a mortal blow to democracy. Any guesses yet? How many of you thought of local newspapers? But this is the universal view of the national media: local papers – half of which, on current trends, are in danger of going down in the next five years – are all that stand between us and creeping dictatorship.

    Like my colleagues, I mourn their death; unlike them I believe it happened decades ago. For many years the local press has been one of Britain's most potent threats to democracy, championing the overdog, misrepresenting democratic choices, defending business, the police and local elites from those who seek to challenge them. Media commentators lament the death of what might have been. It bears no relationship to what is. Most local papers exist to amplify the voices of their proprietors and advertisers and other powerful people with whom they wish to stay on good terms. In this respect they scarcely differ from most of the national media. But they also contribute to what in Mexico is called caciquismo: the entrenched power of local elites. This is the real threat to local democracy, not the crumpling of the media empires of arrogant millionaires.

    Since May, Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University, has been running a series on the Guardian's website called "Why local papers count". It's a brave effort, but it demonstrates the opposite of what he sets out to show. In six months he has managed to provide just one instance of real journalism: a report by the Kentish Express on the inflated costs of upgrading a local road. Otherwise he appears to have found no example of local papers holding power to account. There's one respect in which the local press is confronting power: by campaigning against the free papers published by local authorities. These, the papers say, are propaganda sheets, which provide a biased view of council business. Does that sound familiar? In his book Flat Earth News, Nick Davies cites a survey of press releases issued across two months by Northumberland county council. Ninety-six percent of them were turned into stories by local papers. In many cases the papers copied the releases verbatim; in no case did they add any information. They might as well have been published by the council.

    The failures of the local press are often blamed on consolidation by the big media corporations, which have squeezed as much money out of their collapsing possessions as they can, leaving no funds for real journalism. Davies, for example, asked a reporter on a regional paper to keep a diary for a week. In just five days the reporter published 48 stories. He came across one original story in that period, but he didn't have time to pursue it, so he let it drop. Otherwise he just recycled old copy, lifted stories from other papers or simply concocted them. But this is not the whole reason for the failure of the local press. The Cambrian News, for instance, is owned by the man who is universally hailed as the only success story in local publishing: Sir Ray Tindle. His company, which runs 230 papers, is independent, free from debt and booming, but it suffers from many of the diseases that afflict the rest of the press. When the Iraq war began, Tindle ordered his editors "to ensure that nothing appears in your newspapers which attacks the decision to conduct the war". His letter was reproduced in the Totnes Times, with the following comments. "In a brave move, which could easily be seen by some as censoring the news, Sir Ray ordered that once war in Iraq was declared his newspapers would not carry any more anti-war stories … As editorial manager of eight of Sir Ray's titles, I am proud to say I totally agree with his decision."

    It's true that the vacuity and cowardice of the local papers has been exacerbated by consolidation, profit-seeking, the collapse of advertising revenues and a decline in readership. But even if they weren't subject to these pressures, they would still do more harm than good. Local papers defend the powerful because the powerful own and fund them. I can think of only two local newspapers that consistently hold power to account: the West Highland Free Press and the Salford Star. Are any others worth saving? If so, please let me know. Yes, we need a press that speaks truth to power, that gives voice to the powerless and fights for local democracy. But this ain't it.

  • NTV






  • The recent revelations that Vanessa George is a female paedophile who abused tiny children while in her care at a nursery is NOT a one off despite the publicity. The British media have a hidden agenda and highlights the failure to address the extreme danger to children when women abusers are NOT exposed and British judges take a softly softly approach compared to the way men are treated.

    There is method in this utter madness, as the crown are the biggest plunderers of mens assets and without the malicious allegations generated by ex-wives and ex-partners they would struggle to find the excuses to steal mens homes, business's and properties which end up in the MASONIC coffers or the masons who get access at knock down prices to the stolen goods once a masonic judge signs away a mans right to all his worldly possessions. There is a hard core radical feminist group operating within lawyers groups who feed off these lies and deceit. Harriet Harman is a perfect example of the leeches who suggest they help vulnerable women when in fact they are helping themselves to the family assets as many women find out after they have driven the father from the family home and his assets, they then move on to the mother.

    Many mothers are duped into thinking if they go along with this charade they will gain substantially from fleecing the ex-husband. Here lies the reason why the complicit media and judges require to treat MEN as the abusers, while women are the victims. They cannot play this malicious game if to many women, as is now being reported thanks to the internet , of being the abusers and the cover up has gone on for so long thanks to a number of groups actively pressuring the media to suppress this information to ensure the gravy train of heterosexual men being fleeced can carry on unabated.

    This is a complex web of deceit that has allowed judges to manipulate the system to increase dramatically their powers through stealth. Experts estimate that there could be up to 64,000 female sex offenders in Britain yet little or no publicity has been shone on this worrying threat to children due to a conspiracy of GREED that ensures even if the mother has all the traits of Myra Hyndley she is guaranteed sympathy and support from the rogue masonic judges who aid and abet the malicious lies required to remove men from all their assets but most importantly their children. The many children abused by either a separated mother or her NEW boyfriend is the prime reason for that abuse and the failure of the system to ensure the biological father remains the protection against abuse that the vast majority of fathers are desperate to continue and the cause of extreme psychological trauma and suicide among the millions of fathers tortured by these utter scum of the earth . Thanks to the internet those fathers finally have a voice as to the diabolical agenda that has been inflicted on them for far to long. Yes there are a minority of mothers who suffer a similar fate but only if their former husband is part of the creepy satanic network that now consumes the legal systems across the globe.

    The power of the masons is found within the closed and secretive family courts that are dominated not BY JURIES but by self appointed crown mobsters that have high jacked our legal system for their own financial gain.

  • Nursery Paedophile Police Interview Tapes(VIDEO)
  • Up to 64,000 women in UK 'are child-sex offenders'
  • Second woman charged over nursery 'child porn' probe
  • Woman teacher exposed as predatory paedophile who abused 100 young children
  • Council nursery closed down after two arrested over porn allegations
  • Nursery sex abuse victims may never be identified
  • When women are MORE evil than men
  • Abuse woman's husband 'suicide bid'


    media What is the core problem of today’s newspaper industry? What is the central challenge of the Internet to the old certainties of the news business?

    According to Clay Shirky, the New York University professor of new media and the author of the 2008 international hit book Here Comes Everybody, the central problem is that there isn’t a central problem. It’s the disappearance of the centre, Shirky argued when he and I spoke at Ryerson University in Toronto last weekend, which is most undermining the old industrial newspaper industry with its top down hierarchies and tangible centres of power.

    Perhaps Shirky will entitle his next book Everything Changes. According to him, the Internet does indeed change everything, absolutely everything, about the news industry. The digital revolution collapses audience and author, making what he called “the shock of inclusion” the democratising cultural force of our new interactive age. The Internet undermines traditional news bundling, forever unstitching the necessity of combining disparate content in a single product. Internet technology does away with the oligarchy of newspaper publishers, enabling anyone to publish anything they like in real-time at minimal cost on an always-on global network.

    Shirky is, of course, absolutely correct. The core reality of the Internet is its absence of a centre. The distributed Internet, all edge and no heart, has done away with the centralised structures of power of the old industrial world. And without a core, the news can’t be controlled by a central power. It can no longer be owned. The Internet is like a blob, a centreless yet all powerful monster, impossible to destroy and yet able to devour everything in its path.

    In a wonderfully scary 1958 movie, Hollywood imagined the Blob as a fictional horror story. Today, however, the blob has become a not-so-wonderfully-scary monster for the old media powers-that-be like News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch and the American Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Unfortunately, neither Murdoch nor the FTC were in the Ryerson University audience last weekend. They therefore still have faith in the old industrial organisation model. They still want to own the news. They imagine they can become the new centre of the internet. They think they can kill the blob.

    Murdoch, in particular, could do with a dose of Shirkyian wisdom. Old media’s most battle-scarred warrior seems to think he can take on the Internet and survive. His latest warlike manoeuvre is to build a big wall around all News Corp content on the Internet and then charge subscribers to access the news. The storied Australian pugilist, the man who used to own the news in old industrial economy, is trying to rope off the blob from the millions of Internet users who aren’t paying for their content. According to Murdoch’s The Man Who Owns The News biographer, Michael Wolff, the 79 year-old News Corp chairman is ready for a final, winner-take-all battle with the internet. “Rupert To the Internet: It’s War!” screams the title of Wolff’s latest dose of Murdochia in this month’s Vanity Fair magazine: “He relishes conflict and doesn’t back down—one reason why he’s won so many of his fights and so profoundly changed the nature of his industry…. Now he’s going to war with the internet.”

    The only problem, of course, is that Wolff has his metaphors mixed up. Going to war with the Internet is like fighting the ubiquitous Taliban in Afghanistan. It’s a never-ending, always-on battle without a core. It’s like wrestling with the blob. And so Murdoch’s “war with the Internet” in which he tries to rope off his digital properties from the digital masses is likely to be his last stand. For all his glorious victories in the past, the old News Corp general will probably be remembered as Custer and the war against free Internet content threatens to be Murdoch’s admittedly noble yet militarily catastrophic Battle of the Little Big Horn. Like Rupert Murdoch, the American Federal Trade Commission has a bit of a Custer complex. Once the sheriff of the industrial media ecosystem, the FTC – as the self-styled protector of American consumers – is now trying to lay down centralised rules for determining the veracity of online information. Like Murdoch, the FTC has declared war on the internet. And like the News Corp war against free content, the FTC war against dishonest content is unwinnable.

    The FTC has turned its punitive gaze to online news and information and it doesn’t like the increasingly murky distinction between advertisers and content producers. What this centralised Federal body wants to reestablish is the clear church-state division between content and advertising that used to exist in the old industrial economy. Going after bloggers and tweeters who take payola from sponsors, the FTC intends to fine online content creators $11,000 per violation. But for all the nobility of its purpose, this FTC initiative is patently absurd. Should you really be fined $11,000 for authoring a 140 character tweet favouring a product? Will the FTC also fine dishonest reviewers on Amazon, Yelp and the thousands of other user-generated consumer review sites? And what about anonymous commentators on blogs – should they also be fined $11,000 for failing to reveal their commercial ties with the manufacturers of products that they are critiquing? No, rather than Custer, the FTC resembles King Canute, fighting a heroic rearguard action against the tide.

    As Clay Shirky argued last weekend at Ryerson University, the Internet has so confused and collapsed the distinction between audience and author that the ethical rules of the old economy no longer work. The old dichotomies of content and advertising, once governed from above by all-powerful, centralised organisations like the FTC and News Corp, have been made increasingly redundant by the internet. Here Comes Everybody, Shirky warned in 2008. He was right. Unfortunately, however, neither the American Federal Trade Commission nor Rupert Murdoch seem to have noticed the arrival of everybody on a stage that they once monopolised. They better wake up soon to this new reality, however, before they get consumed by the insatiable blob.


    media2 While the UK's corporate media continually analyze what has gone wrong with the economy once again and as ever looking for scapegoats it is in fact the same corporate media that are at the heart of why the UK has an utterly flawed democracy and the MAIN cause of why we are once again in the mess we're in.

    The British media have a HIDDEN agenda that masks a devious and dangerous network of power that ultimately controls our whole democratic process , a process that protects the British establishment while condemning the slaves to that regime. In the run up to the next general election the only parties they will be promoting have LONG histories of fraud and corruption , but we wont hear any alternatives as the two(or three) major party system, that we have been forced to vote in for so long, is protected by giving constant media attention to the leaders at the expense of most of all the other alternatives. ONLY major parties that are corruptly funded by high ranking masonic benefactors like the Rothschilds have any hope in hell of getting air time, and it is the British media that controls who gets the platforms to ensure the long suffering browbeaten and brainwashed public ONLY get to know the ring leaders agendas of the massive political scam that has fooled us all until the birth of the internet and any alternative perspective .

    The corporate media is wholly controlled by ultra rich establishment families pulling the strings behind the scenes of their duped masonic goons who have blatantly disregarded truth and justice while spinning the massive propaganda required to let us believe they have our best interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth as they hold up the real aristocratic spongers in the UK as some sort of godly creatures while continually attacking the poorest sections of society who are least able to defend themselves against an ULTRA rich monarchy and its multi-tier hierarchy of hangers on, who all eat out of the gold encrusted trough.

    The charade is slowly disintegrating, as they know the tide is turning onto the internet alternative view of politics and NOT as a means to ensure the class system is reinforced, but removing it brick by brick to ensure truth and justice is what drives the UK not the evil lies and deceit that masquerades as corporate NEWS.

    Some of the corporate media strategy to program us can be listed by the following , that gets endlessly recycled to reinforce the propaganda.

    1. There are ONLY two, or at the most, three parties worthy of our vote.

    2. Homosexuality is the promoted agenda for the UK while they undermine heterosexual family life.

    3. The British monarchy and their clique are promoted to GOD LIKE status while the poor are condemned as the cause of ALL of Britain's ills.

    4. That heterosexual men, not part of their creepy masonic satanic agenda, are vilified in the most grotesque way . A requirement that ensures masonic CROWN judges have good excuses to freely remove all their worldly possessions , homes and children to line the coffers of the masonic trough. Something they are ALL working to reinforce with women previously married to masons facing the same fate.

    5. That the former British Empire was good for the world and still operates behind the scenes across the globe were countries that sought independence remain controlled by the masonic, legal and banking networks headed by the United Grand Lodge of England , Inns of court, and Bank of England in London, and ensures the English crown remains the dominant force across the globe .

  • How UK's corporate media undermines democracy promoting only a two party state

  • District 9 - A Science Fiction Film With Sophisticated New World Order Propaganda


  • PART 2 PART 3 PART 4



    digger George Binning hunts down the controversial James Cruickshank, editor of Glasgow’s infamous Digger magazine

    Imagine a publication with such relentless and detailed crime reportage that even the most scandalous tabloid journalists turn their backs in disgust. Imagine this magazine’s editor retreating underground and working from a secret office to evade the death threats he receives from the infuriated criminals and gangsters that fill its pages. Welcome to Digger land, please check your sense of all that is good and true in at reception.

    I met with James Cruickshank, the Digger himself, to discuss why his publication both thrilled and appalled me. I also spoke to David Graham Scott, creator of the documentary: “The Dirty Digger”, who worked as a Digger photographer and filmed his experiences at the paper. Cruickshank has had quite a turbulent career; In 2003 he was ejected from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) for an allegedly libellous article in a union newsletter about Paul Holleran, National Organiser for the NUJ, “It was absolutely ridiculous,” he told me, “It just reinforced allegations that the NUJ is a communist organisation. It’s out to protect its own members and wants to bring the industry to its knees.”

    The Digger started in August 2004, selling for 30 pence with a first print run of 500. Now it is 85 pence and its print run is round about 11,000. The history of the magazine has often made its own headlines. Cruickshank has faced a series of lawsuits as a result of his no-holes-barred brand of often libellous or unfounded investigative journalism. “We’re banned from the city council, Glasgow city council, we can’t phone up their press office, because again it’s an agency which is an enemy of free speech. “The state at one point withdrew our court privileges on unfounded allegations, and I eventually had to pay £6000 to right a wrong.”

    This is Cruickshank’s version of a time when his journalistic privileges were withdrawn after The Digger named and pictured the eight-year-old daughter of a Glasgow crime boss wearing a bulletproof vest in her garden. Scott’s documentary is quite critical of the Digger and its ruthless naming and shaming of local petty crooks, so I was quite surprised by his insistent defence of a man he did not seem to have much affinity with. “I did notice there was quite a lot of hearsay printed.” He eventually admitted, “The problem is you’ve got some wee guy talking about some junkie and Cruickshank’s printing something which might be a heap of lies. The issue is going to be that that person is probably not going to be in a position where they can take out a legal action against the Digger.”

    This is the kind of dilemma that the magazine regularly throws up; the practice printing the addresses of suspected paedophiles or naming police informers can get those involved badly hurt. Cruickshank does not seem to consider the implications of sharing such sensitive information as his problem. “If you own a shop that sells kitchen knives and someone buys and knife and stabs someone is the shop that is at fault?” he argues, “I don’t think so.” It occurs to me that it’s more like selling a knife to a lunatic who offers to pay in severed fingers. Scott describes the reputation the Digger has picked up amongst the criminal fraternity: “The prospect of being in the Digger frightens folk because it does get people incensed. With those small time characters the Digger can probably get away with quite a lot of naming and shaming. But not when fighting the Glasgow Housing Association (GHA) though, they’re a very powerful organisation.”

    Nevertheless Cruickshank does take on the GHA as well as the police, the council, the masons, and any other stories the mainstream press won’t touch. “That’s when stories can start to not be fully substantiated,” Cruickshank says, “The police are a secretive organisation and it’s very difficult to prove allegations of corruption within the police because, who’s going to corroborate it? Violent crime only survives if its being aided and abetted by so called law-abiding citizens. “The police must be made properly accountable, the government could investigate the police but they don’t — the only way that is going to happen is if the mainstream media start investigating the police but they won’t do it either.”

    He admits that it’s almost impossible to substantiate some stories to the standard of the mainstream press, but Cruickshank is agitated by my suggestion of a vigilante like edge to his editorial policy. “It’s not vigilantism, it’s genuine investigative journalism that the Scottish press have stopped doing.” Whether you agree or not, if none of the mainstream papers want, or are legally able, to pursue such scandals within the authorities, is there no justification to continue under the radar? With Cruickshank’s casual gossip of communists, corruption and conspiracy, I feel like I’m beginning to understand his worldview: his Digger-ish outlook. As my sense of the good and the true seems to have gained the upper hand Scott throws a curveball, showing the situation in a different light.

    “The Digger works from a grassroots level which the newspapers don’t speak from. It taps into a popular myth or misconception that there is this huge conspiracy going on. The readership wonder how these big time crime lords are getting away with it and Cruickshank says because they’re in cahoots with the police. They wonder how the GHA are running ruffshod over the tennants and he will explain it’s because it’s run by gangsters. They wonder: “Why are we so fucking poor? Why do we not get public services? Because there’s this big conspiracy keeping us in poverty,” and that can placate them to a certain extent. “I thought at first the Digger was going to be very right wing but it isn’t. It covers stories of racial abuse sexual abuse, minority issues, issues to do with the corruption that he sees in the council, the police and the HHA especially. It’s a big deal, the GHA, because a lot of the readership are in that environment.” I wonder how my attitude to the Digger has been affected as a distanced, broadsheet reading, wannabe journalist who just wants to see codes of practice upheld and standards met in the media; whether it prevents me from seeing the real value the Digger has to its target readership.

    “The Digger is a thorn in the side of the establishment,” Cruickshank sums up cheerily. By all accounts, this allegation is well founded.