Smoking Gun For Foreign Office/BBC Propaganda 108

An incredible Smoking Gun! Big Talk’s Kenton Allen tweets “Now off to the Foreign Office for a historic read through”. The exposure of Mitchell & Webb’s Our Men as state sponsored propaganda for the alliance with Uzbekistan is thoroughly confirmed. That the BBC is a party to this kind of insidious propaganda is disgusting.

Phillip Challinor commented on Our Men that now we have invented state-controlled satire.

I have also now received a further denial, now in writing, from Big Talk that Our Men is based on Murder in Samarkand, where they repeat that “it is also significantly informed by a large amount of research carried out with a number of the FCO’s staff, many of whom are serving diplomatic officers”. They further claim again that it is not set in Uzbekistan, but in a fictional country, Tazbekistan. They do not respond to the fact that their instructions to cast told them to study Uzbek people’s actions and manners.

With thanks to Mary for tracking down Kenton Allen’s tweet

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

108 thoughts on “Smoking Gun For Foreign Office/BBC Propaganda

1 2 3 4
  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Doug Scorgie

    Thanks for that info, which I also read on on Wikipedia.

    I get the impression from your couple of comments addressed to me that you’re something of an expert in matters of employment economics, so I was rather hoping that you could sort out the confusion for us.

    Start with the apparent discrepancy between the 13000 fewer unemployed and the 11000 fewer in employment (the subject of the origianl post), there’s a good lad.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    Mary (21h22) is simply incapable of finding anything good or rational in any of the characters inhabiting the circles of her personal Inferno.

    You will indeed “reduce gun ownership” if you make it illegal for private individuals to own rifles and automatics because you wil therby remove two categories of firearms from general circulation. Is that difficult to understand.

    Secondly, those two categories just happen to be more dangerous than shotguns. Have you ever heard of muzzle velocity, rate of fire and range?

    Never mind. Just keep on the negative track if it makes you happy (which I suspect it does – very much so)

  • Herbie

    My expectation is that this show will be used to convey the necessary dominance of realpolitik.

    The comedy will lie in efforts to circumvent instances of the bad effects of realpolitik but the tragedy will lie in realpolitik’s continued, ongoing and thriving dominance.

    Bog standard stuff.

    But the show will provide the opportunity for acres of review and op ed material explaining why we’re still the good guys, but because of the way the bad ol’world is we just have to sometimes hold our nose and get on with it.

    I expect they’ll be hoping to excise all the crimes since 911, with this show.

    No wonder the FCO are involved. No wonder life is sweet, for some.

    This could be the greatest piece of propaganda since dear old Larry’s Henry Five!

  • Mary

    OMG After the lull, he’s back with the usual vengeance.

    No need for Glenn UK to get out his algorithm stick :). The answer is that there is a total of 92 comments on this thread and 25 are mine.

    Is that OK with the blog superintendent?

    Still waiting for any response on the Habakkuk Room at Jesus College named after Sir Hrothgar Habakkuk.

    Get off my back Mr H! and goodnight.

  • Herbie

    This US gun debate is interesting.

    The original idea seems to be that an armed citizenry can physically challenge a corrupt government, and that creates a balance of power.

    This seems a great idea in principle and I think it is a great idea.

    The question then becomes, to what extent does the ownership of weapons by US citizens live up in practice to the principle intended.

    Here, I don’t think it lives up very well at all.

    Firstly, the weapons that US citizens have are no match for the firepower of even the smallest of police or sheriff’s depts, never mind the state or federal govts.

    Secondly, these citizens aren’t networked to the extent that local, state and federal agancies are.

    So, I don’t think the armed US citizenry of today are really competent to fulfill the intentions of the original principle.

    I think therefore that US citizens should find ways of applying the principle more cogently. And, Good luck with that!!

    I would caution though, that if that principle cannot be met even in its discursive form in the halls of the greatest democracy ever constructed, where and how can it be fulfilled.

  • BrianFujisan

    Herbie, Whilst it’s certainly true that the usa Hoi Polloi may have no chance against the Highly advanced weaponry, of the Gov, Feds, i wonder how the numbers game would pan out

    On a not entirely OT note,

    It is to our own detriment that we fail to see the relationship between war and poverty both on a national and global level. War is the most violent and oppressive tool used by the powerful to control people and resources. The industry of war profits very few at the expense of the majority; it does not simply impoverish the nation that is attacked, but impoverishes the nation that is attacking.

    In 2005, according to World Bank statistics, “More than one-half of the world’s people live below the internationally defined poverty line of less than U.S. $2 a day,” and “Nearly one-third of rural residents worldwide lack access to safe drinking water.”

    In 2006, a groundbreaking and comprehensive report released by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) reported that, “The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth.” An incredible startling statistic was that:

    [T]he richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.[15]

    This is worth repeating: the top 1% owns 40% of global assets; the top 10% owns 85% of world assets; and the bottom 50% owns 1% of global assets.

    There’s such a wealth of crazy info in both these Links.

    It’s Mad Mad Crazy world

  • glenn

    @Mary: “No need for Glenn UK to get out his algorithm stick 🙂 “

    Hi Mary… do you object to my occasionally providing these post breakdowns, usually upon request?

    They could be interpreted in all manner of ways. Personally, I see any particular long-term patterns as reflecting the usefulness of various contributors, major components of, this blog.

    Do you have a concern over my doing this, do you think it has a possible chilling effect? It should not. Do you think it ought not to be produced at all? All the same, if you or anyone else would like to be excluded from the results – please let me know. Heck, I’m starting to sound like some search engine end-user note :#

  • glenn

    @BrianFujisan: I’d be _very_ careful with that infowars link. It can take you down a rabbit-hole of utter crazy, and there are some really whacked out nut-jobs hanging around that site. Not as bad at Glen Beck’s madhouse, but heading in that direction.

    Not to say it isn’t cleverly done, or that maybe 90% of what AJ goes on about isn’t true. The increasing concentration of wealth at the top is most certainly happening, in the last few years alone the top 1% has gained over 90% of all new wealth created here and in the US. They’ve never had it so good, and paid so little in tax. But how they whine and bleat about the “job-creators” and how hard they have it.

    This is nothing that AJ came across by himself, all this – and the unjust wars – are the hook to get you into his black helicopter/ UN- / New-world-order / gun-grab, FEMA-camp, etc. etc. paranoia, which is where he makes his money – selling DVDs, pushing books, advertising and so on to the fringe end of the market.

    Look at the subjects raised – they are worth pursuing. But get your references from proper sources, not a huckster nut-job who makes a living scaring and riling up the real crazies.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Mary re. the Habakkuk room at Jesus :

    Sorry, I hadn’t realised that a response or reaction was required. But I’d be happy to if you tell me what the problem (if any) is.

    Just for your info : most Oxford colleges have rooms or halls named after Masters/Principals/Provosts etc (or even prominent alumni).

  • Mary

    Glenn Thanks. Our friend only wants the count to use as a stick to beat me with. I don’t particularly care either way. I do object to his role of monitor though. Very tiresome.

    Q What brought him back after a gap?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Mary :

    “Habbabkuk is back with a vengeance”

    Oh, I wouldn’t say so. Just exercising my right to comment when I feel that you (and others, for that matter) are being excesssively silly or dishonest. Any problem with that?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    Just saw Mary’s at 08h39 :

    “Our friend only wants the count…etc..(the usual paranoia follows..”

    Objection! Only your worst enemy and my best friend (or should thaat be the other way round?) would say that we’re friends.

    “I wonder what brought him back..etc..”

    Could it be that some of us have other things to do – just occasionally, of course – than sitting on this blog day in day out?

    Have a nice day!

  • Mary

    ‘Oh, I wouldn’t say so. Just exercising my right to comment when I feel that you (and others, for that matter) are being excesssively silly or dishonest. Any problem with that?’

    How dare you say that you creep. You get the truth from me whereas you are disingenuous and are only here, in fits and starts, to inflame and disrupt as has been proved by others here since you arrived here last November.

    Now clear off with your stupid insinuations.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    Temper, temper, Mary. Such a tone lies ill with your Saintly Self.

    “You get the truth from me….” :

    we get lots of links, some of which might be trustworthy and balanced, while others may not be. And we also get snide comments, ad hominem attacks and assertions, sometimes nice gobbets of spite, and, finally, off-colour cracks (eg, the murdered South African girl would be a good choice for Prince Harry).

    “…in fits and starts…” :

    now you seem to be complaining I’m not here often enough! Make your mind up, woman! I would say, actually, that someone who sits on this blog 14/7 as you seem to do will never be able to experience for themselves the truth of the words:


    Finally : you’re very free with the insults (creep, stupid…etc) . Not nice! How would you feel if I called you an obsessional, half-crazed old bat? (Not that I ever would, of course – just a theoretical question!)

  • brianfuisan

    Glen..At..2 ; 27…i was thinking the same thing….even as i posted …Thanks for setting me right…cheers mate

  • Mary

    Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)
    22 Feb, 2013 – 7:40 pm

    Careful you don’t slip on the trail of slime you are leaving behind and crack your head open!

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    And even if I did, I still wouldn’t be half as cracked as you.

    Go on, get posting! You’ve your daily quota to fill!

  • Suhayl Saadi

    We are no longer in the heyday of Bleasdale, Russell and Loach. Loach is tolerated in the same way Pilger is tolerated, in order to deflect criticism. Russell who died recently, was completely frozen out. Bleasdale, likewise. UK TV (and film) drama now is deeply reactionary, both politically and artistically.

    Expect yet more sepia period dramas, sanitised Edwardiana among the haute bourgeoisie. And more too of the more obvious subversion of dissent exemplified by the information in Craig’s post wrt the dynamic b/w his account/whistleblowing and the more recent entity to which he refers.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.