NGOs, ISLAM, BIAS & NORTH LONDON CENTRAL MOSQUE

GOOGLE NEWS FEED There Must Not Be a Ceasefire Gatestone Institute-11 minutes ago Today, calls for a ceasefire fall on deaf ears in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and Nigeria, where governments (good or bad) face the forces of armed Islamist terrorists. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4513/gaza-hamas-ceasefire

Noticed the above news feed while trying to check on news on Syria.

Opened the link and found what immediately struck me one of the most biased articles I've come across.

The close, in particular, stuck out as a red flag to me:

"When will the world see that, if Israel were ever to lose, we would all be next?"

Here's extracts from the above article in Google news feed:

There Must Not Be a Ceasefire by Denis MacEoin July 25, 2014 at 5:00 am "With their usual mixture of human rights concern and hypocrisy, several countries have stepped into the fresh Israel-Gaza conflict by demanding a cease-fire. Egypt has played an important role in this demarche; Hamas has turned down flatly all the conditions on which Egyptian President al-Sisi insisted. How far the war will go still hangs in the balance. As Israeli ground forces now fight with Hamas in their tunnels and bunkers, over 600 Palestinians (largely made up of men of fighting age) have died[1], as well as over 32 Israelis." "The international pressure from all sides for a ceasefire is widening and intensifying. Of course, what a ceasefire amounts to, as it has before, is to give Hamas a second chance. And a third and a fourth — whatever is needed for them to achieve their clearly stated goals of wiping Israel from the map, and then Jews." ... Israel must act and act hard, just as Britain and the United States fought hard against the Nazi threat. As we are seeing in Iraq and Syria, the Hamas mindset is spreading. Anything short of total defeat will only lead to a resumption of hostilities in the near future. If the UN and foreign states will not act with determination to defeat a terrorist group armed with sophisticated rockets and accompanied by a determination to commit genocide -- if they are happy, as always, to sit on the sidelines and criticize Israel -- then Israel must, as always, go it alone. ... When will the world see that, if Israel were ever to lose, we would all be next? There cannot be a ceasefire until the firing from Hamas has ceased, and ceased for good. [extracts only - see full article on link below] http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4513/gaza-hamas-ceasefire

So I'm wondering who produced this.  Who is Gatestone Institute?

NOT-FOR-PROFIT NON-GOVERNEMENT-ORGANISATION THINK TANK GATESTONE INSTITUTE The Gatestone Institute, formerly Stonegate Institute and Hudson New York, is a think tank based in New York City. The organization is chaired by John R. Bolton, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, from 2005 to 2006, and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, from 2001 to 2005.   It was formerly Stonegate Institute and was devolved from the Hudson Institute, New York.  It identifies itself as a nonpartisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank for international and domestic policy, based in New York City.  It was founded in 2012 by Nina Rosenwald who serves as its president.  Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton is its chairman.  In The Nation, journalist Max Blumenthal reported it began as a branch of the Washington D.C. Hudson Institute and was known as "Hudson New York City".  Gatestone publicizes the writings of authors as diverse as Alan Dershowitz, Robert Spencer, Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, and Harold Rhode.  It is described by some media as “an internationally known American think-tank, specialized on strategy and defense questions.” The organization describes itself as a "non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report."   The organization believes that traditional news outlets conduct insufficient and, as a result, misleading reporting on critical issues, and thus it distributes its own information about events in the Middle East and Muslim populations in other parts of the world. The Gatestone Institute publishes an online daily report on its website, featuring extended news coverage and editorials on various subjects, with a concentration on foreign policy issues impacting the United States and its allies. Funding Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. Criticism The Institute of of Policy Studies has noted that "[t]he institute was founded in 2011 by Nina Rosenwald, an heiress of the Sears Roebuck empire who has been a key philanthropic backer of anti-Muslim groups and individuals in the United States".  Sheila Musaji's The American Muslim includes it and Nina Rosenwald in a Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry, Ali Gharib, of the blog Open Zion, describes it as "a spin-off of the Hudson Institute where right-wingers (along with Alan Dershowitz) champion hawkish, often "pro-Israel" policies and, not infrequently, rattle off Islamophobic blogposts." Source - wikipedia - here.

Then I got to wondering, who is the writer?

Denis MacEoin's wikipedia link (here).

Wikipedia mentioned a controversy over the following report, written by MacEoin (which was 'drawn up' by an organisation known as 'Policy Exchange'):

Controversy over "The Hijacking of British Islam" In October 2007, "The Hijacking of British Islam: How Extremist Literature is Subverting Britain's Mosques", was published. The report—written by Denis MacEoin and drawn up by the Policy Exchange thinktank— claimed that "extremist literature calling for the execution of gays and the oppression of women" was found at 25 of the 100 Islamic religious institutions that Policy Exchange's Muslim research teams claimed to have visited in 2006 and 2007. (wikipedia here)

Rather than risk getting the facts mangled in summary, this is the wikipedia on the subject of the controversy:

Wikipedia (Denis MacEoin) Allegations of tampering with two receipts for books On 12 December 2007, BBC's Newsnight presented material which the programme suggested showed that some of the receipts purporting to prove the sale of extremist material had been forged, and that some of the literature had come from bookshops purportedly unconnected to the mosques named in the report. The BBC's Richard Watson also stated that "There is the worrying fact, not addressed by Policy Exchange, that the hand-writing on this receipt is very similar – to my eye it looks identical – to the hand-writing on another receipt, said to have been obtained from a mosque in Leyton, 10 miles away. A registered forensic document examiner concluded that there was “strong evidence” that the two receipts were written by the same person." Similar allegations were made by The Guardian 's Seumas Milne. Milne's report stated that "BBC's Newsnight programme . . . revealed that a forensic examination of five receipts provided by Policy Exchange for the material had found them to be either faked, written by the same person, and/or were not issued by the mosques in question. A sixth receipt was also regarded as unreliable."' Policy Exchange argued there was still evidence to link each of the institutions to extremist literature and that "The receipts are not ... mentioned in the report and the report’s findings do not rely upon their existence".  As a result of the BBC Newsnight investigation, both Policy Exchange and MacEoin were sued for defamation by the Board of Trustees of the North London Central Mosque Trust (NLCM) concerning the allegations made in MacEoin's report against the Finsbury Park Mosque. The case was dismissed, dismissed on appeal, and in October 2010 the North Lorndon Central Mosque discontinued its appeal and paid a substantial contribution to Policy Exchange’s legal costs. However, NLCM reports that the following was published on the Policy Exchange website: "Policy Exchange has never sought to suggest that the liteature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff." (wikipedia here)

Above wikipedia entry states:

• case was dismissed
• dismissed on appeal
• in October 2010 the North London Central Mosque discontinued its appeal and paid a substantial contribution to Policy Exchange’s legal costs. 
• "NLCM reports that the following was published on the Policy Exchange website: "Policy Exchange has never sought to suggest that the literature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff."

Still not clear on what is going on and curious about 'Policy Exchange', I go to the Policy Exchange link in wikipedia:

POLICY EXCHANGE - Wikipedia Policy Exchange is a British centre-right think tank, created in 2002 and based in London. The Daily Telegraph has described it as "the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right". Policy Exchange has been addressed by members of the Labour Governments of Tony Blair (1997-2007) and Gordon Brown (2007-2010), such as John Hutton, Peter Mandelson and Andrew Adonis, and by members of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government of David Cameron (2010-), such as Chris Skidmore, Charlotte Leslie and Jesse Norman, as well as by many non party-political figures. The New Statesman named it as David Cameron's "favourite think tank", a view shared by the Political Editor of the Evening Standard Joe Murphy, who referred to it as "the intellectual boot camp of the Tory modernisers’". Its alumni include Anthony Browne, one of London Mayor Boris Johnson’s policy directors, and a number of the Conservative 2010 intake of MPs, including Nick Boles, Jesse Norman, Chris Skidmore and Charlotte Leslie. ... members of its advisory councils include Lord Trimble, Peter Clarke, former Head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, James Cameron, Executive Director of Climate Change Capital, and Simon Stevens, former health advisor to Tony Blair. Policy Exchange hosts regular events and debates with key individuals including academics, journalists, MPs and Ministers. The Annual Colin Cramphorn Memorial Lecture, has been delivered by speakers such as Sir Ian Blair, Charles Farr and General David Petraeus. Notable publications The Hijacking of British Islam In October 2007, Policy Exchange published a report, written by Denis MacEoin, on the Muslim community in the UK, uncovering the extent of extremism within mainstream mosques and Muslim institutions. The report entitled The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting mosques in the UK was described as "a year long investigation carried out by Policy Exchange into the character of the literature currently available in mainstream sites of Islamic religious instruction in the UK."  According to the report, four Muslim research teams visited nearly 100 Islamic sites in the UK "to determine the extent to which literature inculcating Muslim separatism and hatred of nonbelievers was accessible in those institutions — both in terms of being openly available and also being obtainable 'under the counter'." The researchers claimed to have found offensive material at around a quarter of the sites visited and this became the report's most publicised claim in the media. Denis MacEoin, the report's author, is on record as stating that he has "very negative feelings" about Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Exchange

Policy Exchange - Wikipedia On 26 November 2009, Justice Eady struck out the claim brought against Policy Exchange by the North London Central Mosque. The six mosque trustees who had advanced the claim were ordered to pay Policy Exchange's costs of defending the action. The High Court made a further Order that £75,000 of those costs be paid by the North London Central Mosque within 28 days. In February 2010 the trustees of the mosque abandoned their individual claims in libel against Policy Exchange in respect of the same report and paid a substantial contribution to Policy Exchange’s legal costs. In October 2010 NLCM discontinued its appeal and paid a substantial contribution to Policy Exchange’s legal costs. Following that agreement the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 5 October 2010. Source - wikipedia - here.

However, note the sites of:

(a) North London Central Mosque; and 
(b) British Muslim Initiative:

North London Central Mosque

Policy Exchange admits NLCM clear of any wrong-doing Following NLCM win right to appeal, Policy Exchange's offer of out of court settlement accepted On 27 October 2007, the Policy Exchange published a report entitled “The Hijacking of British Islam” in which they named the North London Central Mosque Trust as one of a number of mosques in the UK which they alleged were purveyors of extremist and hate literature. As is well known, the Trustees and management of the NLCM have worked hard since the take-over in 2005 to cleanse the Mosque from the violence, extremism and intolerance that it was linked with previously during the time it was controlled by people such as Abu Hamza. The ethos of the Mosque is to be embracing of all individuals regardless of their race, religion or gender, to work for social cohesion and to encourage Muslims to play a leading role in British society. The Management take-over was a pivotal event in the community which involved local Muslim community and organizations alongside the Government, the local Authorities, the Police and Members of Parliament. The allegations contained in the Report were therefore not only offensive and defamatory but undermined the huge and important efforts by all who were involved in the take-over. The Mosque trustees and management have always emphatically denied the claims contained in the Report. Moreover, the Report appeared to be based on highly suspicious methods of research and the evidence on which the Mosque was named was entirely dubious as exposed by the Newsnight excellent investigative report by Richard Watson. The failure of Policy Exchange to sue Newsnight over Watson's report, despite explicitly threatening to do so in front of millions of viewers, is telling how shaky the grounds Policy Exchange stands on regarding their report, the report they took off their website completely after settling with another mosque similarly accused in the report. In 2007, a claim by NLCM was issued against the Policy Exchange, and the author of the Report, Denis MacEoin, for defamation. At the first stage in the High Court, the claim was struck out, not on the basis of its merit, which we maintain was strong, but on the technical capacity of unincorporated charities not being able to be claimants in defamation cases in their own right, a loop in the law we believe legislators should look at. In April of this year, the Court of Appeal, after hearing legal argument from the Mosque regarding charities and defamation law, gave us permission to appeal against the decision striking out our claim. The case would potentially have had far-reaching implications for unincorporated charities all across the UK. The appeal was listed for October 2010. We were confident of our chances of success; however, being trustees of a charity, we had to act in the best interests of the Mosque and decided that rather than continuing the risks of litigation, we would accept a request by Policy Exchange to settle out of court after we won the right to appeal. In the circumstances, the Policy Exchange has now published on their website the following statement: In our Report’ The Hijacking of British Islam’, published in October 2007, we stated that the North London Central Mosque was one of the mosques where extremist literature was found. Policy Exchange has never sought to suggest that the literature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff. We are happy to set the record straight. The Mosque is now cleared of any false accusations of being a purveyor of extremist literature. We trust that no allegations of this nature will be repeated. The Board of Trustees 03/11/2010 http://nlcentralmosque.com/component/content/article/1-latest/220-policy-exchange-admits-nlcm-clear-of-any-wrong-doing.html

British Muslim Initiative

Press Release | Policy Exchange admits it was wrong about North London Central Mosque Thursday, 04 November 2010 The BMI is delighted with the result of the out of court settlement reached between the North London Central Mosque Trust ("the Mosque") and the Policy Exchange ("PX") as regards the publication in October 2007 of the PX report entitled "The Hijacking of British Islam". The report accused a number of mosques in the UK of distributing extremist literature and in particular, accused the Mosque of only having undergone cosmetic change since new Trustees were appointed by the UK government to rid the mosque of Abu Hamza and his followers. The terms of the out of court settlement reached between PX and the Mosque culminated in a humiliating admission by PX that neither the trustees nor the staff of the Mosque had any dealings with the extremist material it had falsely alleged were found at the Mosque premises in 2007. As the BBC Newsnight programme revealed at the time of the report's publication, the receipts provided by the PX to the BBC to support the outrageous allegations that the Mosque's staff and/or Trustees were distributing extremist literature, were crudely forged. It is disgraceful for a self proclaimed 'leading independent think tank' to have provided such material to the BBC and not to have apologised for having done so – despite numerous requests to do so. At the High Court hearing on the issue of the Claimant's capacity raised by PX, Mr Justice Eady decided that a charity itself could not be the Claimant in a defamation case. This was a technical legal point and the merits of the case were not addressed at all. This decision has been misleadingly reported by some journalists including the Daily Telegraph's Andrew Gilligan. Permission to appeal this point was subsequently granted by Lord Justice Sedley (of the Court of Appeal) on the basis that there is a genuine argument for Charities to be allowed to bring defamation cases in their own right. The case before the Court of Appeal was listed for a hearing in October 2010 and the Mosque was confident that it would be successful. However, it seems that PX saw sense in settling out of court, clearly due to a real fear of losing the case and agreed to publish a statement which exonerated the Mosque's staff and Trustees from any wrong-doing and in doing so effectively admitted that the credibility and accuracy of its Report was fatally undermined. BMI has also learnt that despite claims made by PX and Andrew Gilligan, no costs were paid by the Mosque to PX. The BMI is very pleased that the Mosque took action against PX and succeeded in clearing its name. http://bminitiative.net/component/k2/item/335-policy-exchange-admits-it-was-wrong-about-north-london-central-mosque About BMI Formed by justice, peace and human rights campaigners, the British Muslim Initiative (BMI) is an organisation which seeks to fight racism and Islamaphobia, combat the challenges Muslims face around the world, encourage Muslim participation in British public life, and improve relations between the West and the Muslim world. British Muslim Initiative (BMI)   © 2006-2014

***
WIKIPEDIA
ENTRIES
NEED UPDATING 
***

Judging by press release by

British Muslim Initiative

referred to above - (link)

***

Anyone that's interested in NGOs in general, or in 'Policy Exchange' specifically, here's a link to study:

The Cold War on British Muslims: An examination of Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion

by David Miller

http://www.academia.edu/2596703/The_Cold_War_on_British_Muslims_An_examination_of_Policy_Exchange_and_the_Centre_for_Social_Cohesion

BBC ANTI-RUSSIA PROPAGANDA - FOR US CORPORATE PHARAOHS

ORDER of appearance in post:

1.  BBC article/video.
2.  Background research on survey provider, including trail of companies.
3.  Poster's analysis & commentary regarding video presentation linked to BBC story.
4.  Poster's comments.
5.  Poster's conclusion.

WARNING:  it is quite a lengthy post.  But worth checking out.  LOL.
---------------------------------------------------

BBC ARTICLE INFOTAINMENT PROPAGANDA

Negative views of Russia and Putin on the rise globally

2 hours ago [UNDATED]

Russia's global image is increasingly negative, according to a nsurvey from the Pew Research Center.

This is despite Russians believing that President Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine would improve the country's reputation abroad.

Pew Research found that increasing numbers of people around the world held unfavourable views of Russia and its president, especially in Europe and the United States.

And as the violence in Ukraine continues, 60% of people there had negative views of Russia - a huge increase from 11% in 2011.

The BBC's Ashley Semler looks at the results.

Edited by Dave Mayers

Source:  BBC News Magazine - here.
--------------------------------------------------- 
POSTER:  RESEARCH / COMMENT

BBC

Type ....................... Public corporation with a Royal Charter
Industry ................. Mass media
Predecessor(s) ...... British Broadcasting Company
Founded  ...............18 October 1922

Headquarters     Broadcasting House, London, England, United Kingdom
Area served       Worldwide

Products     Broadcasting, radio, web portals
Services     Television, radio, online
Revenue     £5.102 billion (2012/13)

Owner(s)     Government of United Kingdom 

[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------
Pew Research Centre (funds survey organisation)

The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, D.C., that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. 

Budget .......... $250m
Endowment ... $5 billion 

Established by Pew Charitable Trusts:

The Pew Charitable Trusts is an independent non-profit, non-governmental organization (NGO), founded in 1948.

With over US$5 billion in assets, its stated mission is to serve the public interest by "improving public policy, informing the public, and stimulating civic life" ...

The Trusts, a single entity, is the successor to, and sole beneficiary of, 7 charitable funds established between 1948-79 by ... —the adult sons and daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew ...

Controversy - alleged theft of $25billion (@ 2009 value) art collection

The controversy involving Pew, other donors, the Barnes trustees and the collection was the subject of the documentary film The Art of the Steal. The Trusts did not participate in the film. Rebecca Rimel, head of the Pew Charitable Trusts, said they believed the film would not be fair. 

[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------
Sun Oil Company

Sunoco Inc. is an American petroleum and petrochemical manufacturer headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, formerly known as Sun Company Inc. (1886–1920 and 1976–1998) and Sun Oil Co. (1920–1976). Sunoco is one of the largest gasoline distribution companies in the United States  ...

Sunco Inc

Type .................... Subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners

Traded as ............. NYSE: SUN

Industry               Oil and gas

Founded                Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. (1886 as Sun Company Inc.)

Founder(s)             Joseph Newton Pew

Philip Pisano

Edward O. Emerson

Headquarters          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.

Area served            Worldwide

Key people             Robert W. Owens President, CEO

Products                 Petrochemical

Petroleum
Fuel
Lubricants

[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners

Energy Transfer Equity was founded in 1995  and is currently headquartered in Dallas, Texas. They currently employ 5,000 individuals including the founder, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Kelcy Warren.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.  ... owning and operating one of the largest and most diversified portfolios of energy assets in the United States.

Type     ............... Public
Traded as    ........ NYSE: ETP
Industry    ........... Energy
Founded    ......... 1995
Headquarters ..... Dallas, Texas
Products    ......... natural gas, propane
Employees ......... 5000+
Subsidiaries ....... Southern Union Company
.......................... Sunoco

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.

2012 merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of ETP (with Sunoco)

ETP .. acquired ...interests, 100% of the incentive distribution rights, and a 32.4% ...interest in Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.

SUNCO - operates a geographically diverse portfolio of crude oil and refined products pipelines, terminalling and crude oil acquisition and marketing assets.

ETP also holds a 70% interest in Lone Star NGL, a joint venture that owns and operates natural gas liquids storage...[u]fractionation and transportation assets[/u] in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

ETP holds controlling interest in a corporation (ETP Holdco Corporation) (that owns Southern Union Company)

Sunoco, Inc. ETP’s general partner is owned by ETE.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ...owns the general partner and 100% of the incentive distribution rights (IDRs) of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ...owns approximately 50.2 million ETP limited partner units; and owns the general partner and 100% of the IDRs of Regency Energy Partners LP and approximately 26.3 million RGP limited partner units.

ETE also owns a non-controlling interest in a corporation (ETP Holdco Corporation) that owns Southern Union Company and Sunoco, Inc.

The ETE family of companies owns approximately 69,000 miles of natural gas, natural gas liquids, refined products, and crude pipelines...
[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------

Back to - source of Survey: 
Pew Research Centre (funded by Pew Charitable Trusts)

Between 1957 and 1979, six other trusts were created, representing the personal and complementary philanthropic interests of the four siblings. The Trusts remains based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with an office in Washington, D.C.

Although today the Pew Charitable Trusts is non-partisan and non-ideological, Joseph Pew and his heirs were themselves politically conservative. The mission of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust, one of the seven funds, was to:


"acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won". Joseph N. Pew, Jr. called Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S. businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs".


Early priorities of the Pew Memorial Trust included cancer research, the American Red Cross, and a pioneering project to assist historically black colleges. Later beneficiaries included conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society, the American Liberty League, and the American Enterprise Institute, as well as environmental organizations such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Oceana, and mainstream think tanks like the Brookings Institution. ...

In 2004, the Pew Trusts applied to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to change its status from private foundation to nonprofit organization. Since the Pew's change to a charitable foundation, it can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector.

According to the Pew's 2009 Annual Report, five of the twelve Directors serving on the Board are named Pew. Two of the five are physicians.

Pew's environmental portfolio is designed to help meet what they view as one of the seminal challenges of our time: saving the natural environment and protecting the rich array of life it supports. [LOL - is this aim compatible with energy resources sector activities?]


The aim is to strengthen environmental policies and practices in ways that produce significant and measurable protection for terrestrial and marine systems worldwide. In doing so, Pew works to advance scientific understanding of the causes and consequences of environmental problems, design innovative policy solutions to these problems and mobilize public support for their implementation. [Oh, sure.  I'd love a look at what they're involved in on that front.]

Efforts are focused on reducing the scope and severity of three major global environmental problems:

Destruction of the world's oceans, with a particular emphasis on marine fisheries.

The loss of large wilderness ecosystems that contain a great part of the world's remaining biodiversity.
Changes to the Earth's physical and biological systems linked to the build-up of greenhouse gases that are altering the world's climate.

The Trusts also funds the Pew Research Center, the third-largest think tank in Washington DC, after the Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress.

[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------

COMMENT


RE: BBC MAGAZINE ARTICLE & VIDEO


Found my first piece of obviously perverse political propaganda, courtesy of the BBC.


It seems an innocuous little entertainment piece in the 'BBC Magazine' section of the site.

On linking to the 'Negative views of Russia and Putin on the rise globally' article at BBC, a little 1:54 minute video with girly narrator automatically launches itself.

[Grim looking static image of Putin 'staring' at us.]

[Russian sounding string instrument music.]

It tells us that Putin's 'global image has taken a turn for the worst in the past year'.


It launches into what Russians allegedly thought would be the outcome of Putin's alleged involvement 'this spring' in the Ukraine would accomplish for the impression of Russia (ie that it would 'lead to a more favourable opinion of Russia around the world, but ...').

Russia's involvement in the Ukraine?

As far as I am aware, there is plenty of US involvement in the Ukraine and Russia is within its own borders.  LOL.

Did the US 'charity' survey the Russian populance and if so, how?

Of course they bleeding didn't.

Girly narrator states:  "the opposite seems to be true."

Hey, did they do a Russian survey or didn't they?  LOL.

Oooh, a "new survey from the 'nusurvey' from the Pew Institute Centre found that Russia is increasing unpopular in many countries, especially in Europe and the United States.

[Cut to Obama (in Poland ... (Polish flag & coat of arms is on display)]
Obama is shown forcefully announcing:

 "We will not accept Russia's occupation of Crimea or its violation of Ukraine sovereignty", 

 while Obama gestures with a pointed-finger for emphasis, at the podium.

[Cut to US flag]
"Disapproval has surged the most in the US ..."

[quote alleged US disapproval figures, which mean jack]

Narrator claims that unfavourable views have increased this year in all of the European countries surveyed (except Greece) [but who cares about that ...LOL]

"Violence in Ukraine continues..." the narrator states.  But what is not stated is that this is US backed and supported violence against eastern Ukrainians, perpetrated by a Ukraine puppet government that gained ascension through violent insurrection of ultra-nationalist extremist groups, with the blessings of the US (who seek to further their selfish corporate and strategic interests in the region).

"As violence in Ukraine continues, it's neighbour Poland, once part of the Soviet Union, is growing much more wary of the former cold war power." the narrator states.
[Bear in mind,  the violence the narrator refers to is Ukraine puppet government violence against eastern Ukrainians.  Bear in mind also, Poland is now a US puppet.]

[CUT to masked paramilitary guy and Russian hat wearing guy] 

"After Russia annexed Crimea .... "   [quote dubious figures]

"Ukrainians have a negative view of the country  [ie Russia]

"When asked about President Putin specifically 73% of Ukrainians expressed disappointment in his handling of foreign affairs", the narrator states.

[Did they interview all Ukrainians, or was it just some? LOL]

[What is implied here is that a majority of Ukrainians disapprove of Putin and of Russia.  

We are not in a position to evaluate survey methodology (or information regarding the population SAMPLES allegedly surveyed in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world), so this 'information' from such-and-such organisation is really useless.]

[CUT to drawing of Ukraine split down the middle with 89% disapproval on the Western side & 66% disapproval on the Eastern side of Ukraine.]

[Once again, where are these figures coming from -- who surveyed the entire country?]

"But that's complicated by geography...", the narrator states before...

[CUT to drawing of Crimea]

"...only 5%in Crimea said the same"... [So when was the whole of Crimea surveyed?]

[CUT to pretty globe turning...]

"And when other countries were asked about Putin, majorities in only a handful said they had confidence in him -- ALL IN AFRICA & ASIA."  
[OK, now it's absolutely clear that his 'survey' is a complete load of manure.]

Note the other countries.  What they're doing is holding out that right across the globe, Russia and Putin are disapproved of (except in a 'handful of countries') [LOL].  But they are conveying this dubious 'survey' information with absolutely no leg to stand on:  the 'survey' authority is laughable and worthless.

[CUT to pretty two-globe graphic (on the reference to 'only a handful') -- and display the words:

KENYA
TANZANIA
VIETNAM
CHINA
BANGLADESH

on pretty double-globe graphic as the words:

 "all in Africa and Asia" are stated by the female narrator.

Bear in mind, this alleged global survey is tied to Putin & Russia's 'ACTION' in Ukraine -- where there HAS BEEN NO ACTION TO DATE.

"But as the rest of the world seems to be turning on Russia, the Russians themselves are feeling more patriotic than ever.  Pride in their country is up almost ...".

[Sorry, American oil-trust funded NGO turned 'charity', I don't buy your survey in relation to Russia or the 'world'.]

"Ashley Sadler, BBC News" says a twangy female narrator, who is either "Ashleigh" or "Ashley", presumably.

Well, isn't Ashley Sadler quite the authority there at BBC news.  LOL.

[EDIT * the name of video narrator is:  Ashley Semler, as per article above.  Apologies, I was going by audio. ]

---------------------------------------------------
 CONCLUSION

It is extremely dangerous to passively accept information conveyed, even from seemingly respectable and reliable news and information sources.

The morality of seeking to influence a passive public in this way is highly questionable; as is having a state run media group (BBC) that is clearly NOT INDEPENDENT from the State.

Very disappointed in the BBC.

How many readers and viewers of this type of propaganda are going to take the trouble to check all facts and all sources associated with the subject, and dig up facts associated with the ultimate source of the information the news entity relies upon?

Basically, nobody is going to go into fine tooth comb fact checking.

The beauty of this little production piece is that it teaches many things about power, corporations, government, NGOs, charities, hijacking of causes, corporate expansionism and imperialism, propaganda and so on:

The piece is a perfect example of propaganda.  Short and sweet.  And full of shit.


The Obama cut-to gave Obama/US a 'soundbite', which is an example of how powerful this type of communication (and adamant finger-pointing visual) is as a tool.

The survey itself is dubious.

Come on people, how did this 'nsurvey' mob interview the populace of the entire planet?

The 'survey' (if it ever actually happened) and the 'figures' are irrelevant because these people do not have access to the populations of an entire planet (or even entire countries) - and however much funding they receive, their survey (if any) is a sample, conducted to represent what is in line with their aims (LOL).


The imagery of Obama was positive and supposedly concerned for 'sovereignty' -- where US itself violates sovereignty worldwide and, really, has no business in Europe.

That argument aside, where was the concern for the elected government of the Ukraine -- and its sovereignty and laws - when groups of US enabled thugs drove the government from its elected position?

Obama is portrayed as commanding, effectual, adamant about Russia's occupation of Crimea and defender, adamant about the importance of protecting the sovereingty of the Ukraine.

The stark, unpalatable, stomach sickening reality is that it is corporate American interests that are annexing the Ukraine, and Obama is their spokesperson and figurehead.

Congress is funding Obama's push into the Ukraine -- and we're talking big dollars, people.

Who controls US politics?  It's corporations.  The government is there to do the bidding of corporate interests.

Colossal US political machinery and cash funding have now pretty much usurped the sovereignty of Ukraine, as the US puppet government in the Ukraine seems to have sold their country to corporate America.

The Russian imagery is negative:

• unpleasing image of Putin.
• scarey looking paramilitary figure in fatigues and black blaclava and what appears to be a rabble of guys, one of whom is wearing a Russian fluffy hat.

But, of course.  That's part and parcel of such a piece.

Note the presence of NGO turned 'charity' and the presence of 'think tank'.
BEWARE:  NGO, charity & think tank.  In fact, don't take candy from strangers.  LOL.
BEWARE:  organisations that are survey or polling organisations. 

The accusations that Obama (and his vast corporate-government machine) level at Russia, are the very things Obama and corporate America are guilty of.  So, people, beware the preacher man.

What this has also shown me is that there is no 'US government'; it's just one large corporate-run machine that serves corporate interests first and foremost.

The people' of this colossal 'democracy' are not represented; they're fooled.

The lofty US ideals we've all been fed on in made-in-America TV and in movies (right around the world), are about as real as God, Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

It has taken me all my life to rub the sleep from my eyes and to finally come to this realisation.

We are all nothing but pawn-slaves to Corporate Pharaohs of this world.

------------------
 NOTE WELL:

In 2004, the Pew Trusts applied to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to change its status from private foundation to nonprofit organization. Since the Pew's change to a charitable foundation, it can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector.

According to the Pew's 2009 Annual Report, five of the twelve Directors serving on the Board are named Pew.

**** can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector.

So government has now allowed the trust to raise colossal corporate (& billionaire patron) funding to interfere with government.

Five percent of my budget is fuck all.  But 5% of a budget that is virtually unlimited in corporate America, amounts to a great deal of  public sector lobbbying influence.

On top of that, five out of 12 Directors of the Trusts are named Pew.   Hello, people?  The guess is they've not been disinherited.  Can anyone say oil corporate interests?

Oh and how about the nerve of the benefactor who established the trusts:

ie the 'evils of bureaucracy' (ie that means GOVERNMENT for the people) and singing the praises of a FREE MARKET (a free for all for corporate America, more like it)?

That was the mission of the trusts that were founded by Pew.


End comment.

[All research sourced at:  wikipedia]