featured, media watch, UK
Comments 66

The “revolution” is being televised – & we should ask why

by Catte

There is something strange about the media coverage of the Grenfell tragedy. The BBC is giving over acres of space to the pain and anger of the residents. The Guardian’s front page currently looks the The Canary, and in its Opinion section Jonathan Freedland, of all people, is saying Grenfell will “forever stand as a rebuke to the Right”.

He’s correct of course, but that’s not the point. The point is Freedland, the BBC and the Guardian are the “Right” now and have been for many years, in so much as they have been, until a week ago, staunch defenders of the rabid, fascistic and despoiling policies that have characterised the “liberal” agenda since Blair. They have approved illegal wars, mass murder, “austerity”, mass surveillance, the despoiling of the NHS, the deprivation of the weak and vulnerable. They believe the suffering of the poor and powerless is merely a necessary adjunct to social “progress.”

So, what is going on here?

Maybe the “liberal” media is seeing the light and realising the years of deprivation have gone too far? Maybe the Guardian suddenly really supports social justice and the welfare state? Maybe Grenfell will be a catalyst for real change, ignite the dormant sense of decency in our champagne “socialists” and left-of-centre opinion-makers.

Well, maybe. But it doesn’t seem like a good bet does it?

Maybe the media are bandwagon-jumping. Following the story, not creating it because the social tide is currently too strong to ignore?

This is a bit more plausible, but the BBC and the rest of the tame media can easily ignore a crowd of ten thousand marching through central London when it wants to. They do similar things all the time. If they didn’t want us to know about this upsurge of anger wouldn’t they simply not talk about it, just as they didn’t talk about the mass anti-war demos and didn’t cover the anti-austerity demos, and (mostly) didn’t cover the huge crowds Corbyn was collecting?

I think when the BBC’s front page looks like this:

when social unrest is televised by state-controlled channels and when line-toeing neoliberals like Jonathan Freedland are rebuking the “Right” we need to be a bit more sceptical than to simply assume the good guys are suddenly in ascendancy and the media has no choice to but to scutter along in their wake.

There are not many examples in history where major news events or catalysing moments just happened through spontaneous popular movements, with the press corps and establishment running to catch up. Mostly even seemingly spontaneous events have been planned and provoked or exploited by vested interests of one sort or another. “News” isn’t an objective entity. It’s created by the act of narration. If you don’t tell the story the story isn’t “news.” The only reason we ever know an event has occurred is because the paid scribes were detailed to tell us it did. The Peasants’ Revolt may have started as a social protest of sorts but it ended up as a PR exercise for the Divine Right of Kings, and the extant narratives make sure Richard II got all the best lines.

This is the reality of what the establishment-serving media is. It doesn’t exist to pass on facts, it exists purely to create narratives. We shouldn’t just forget that when the current narrative appears to serve decent interests or to tell some sort of truth. Because it probably isn’t ultimately doing either.

Does it matter in this case? Isn’t any publicity good publicity if it helps bring justice and help to the victims of the Grenfell tragedy? If May can be arm-twisted into handing over cash, and if the publicity helps make sure such events become less likely in the future, does it matter what agenda the media may be following

To an extent that is obviously true. And let’s hope some good does come from the publicity being given to the anger of the people in the streets. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question and remain sceptical when the wolf slips on his sheepskin.


66 Comments

  1. “Hundreds of residents of a housing estate in north London have been evacuated overnight after fire inspectors warned that five tower blocks were at risk following the Grenfell Tower blaze.

    People living on the Chalcots estate in Swiss Cottage were woken throughout the night and told to immediately leave their homes after Camden council became the first in the country to order an evacuation of blocks at risk of a similar fire.

    Those affected described scenes of confusion as they were told the council “could not guarantee our resident’s safety” and asked to find alternative accommodation or report to a local leisure centre, where hundreds of mattresses had been laid out. Others were offered hotel rooms for the night.”

    Why in the night? Was this a safety precaution or a Gestapo raid? And why weren’t emergency accommodations organized in advance of this drastic action? Rhetorical questions all, of course: The Poor are always handled like cattle, as a matter of policy. Perhaps this is just the beginning of the Great Purge (moving the Undesirables away from the center) and a possible clue as to why the Grenfell fire “happened”. “Humanitarian Concerns” is just such an unbeatable cover for any insidious scheme TFIC come up with, domestically or abroad.

    Now let’s see if Gov can stick all the blame for Grenfell on the shoddy contractors and a few hapless inspectors… maybe even the Hotpoint manufacturers. Would it be beyond hypothetical conspirators to use the Hotpoint’s bad safety record as a means for getting the Grenfell fire to happen (that is, for covering the real method), or was this all just catastrophic serendipity?

    We may never know but it seems, in any case, that this Tragedy will be used to someone’s great advantage while The Poor take the fall and some patsies take the blame.

    Like

    • I agree.

      It’s not often that I feel anything remotely like a tinge of sympathy for white goods manufacturers but all the reports that point to a malfunctioning Hotpoint fridge/freezer as the cause of the fire seem to rely on the fact that there was a FF175BP model “at the centre of the tragedy” and a mysterious resident who claimed (amid the blaze apparently) that it was the cause of the fire, which started in his/her flat. Whether this person subsequently died in the blaze or has just disappeared isn’t clear. Hotpoint are in crisis management mode but are naturally saying that they are working with the authorities to obtain access to the appliance so that they can assist with the ongoing investigations.

      Yet the police already seem anxious to confirm, in proper on-the-ball sleuth manner, that it was the Hotpoint fridge/freezer that sparked the fire. Shouldn’t they be a tad more circumspect until the results are in from the investigation? All they seem to be going on is an unidentified witness to the start of the blaze who may, in the circumstances, have been easily mistaken in his/her belief that it was the unit that was the source. Apart from anything else, among numerous alternative possibilities, even if the fridge/freezer was the proximate location, it could be down to bad installation/connection to the mains, which would not be the fault of Hotpoint. This would be especially likely if it was a second-hand purchase.

      I’m always wary when there’s a rush to judgement. It doesn’t help anyone except those who can’t bear uncertainty – and/or those with an agenda.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “Shouldn’t they be a tad more circumspect until the results are in from the investigation?”

        Indeed! Fishy.

        Like

  2. DLL says

    Another way to look at it is that they have youtube channels and embedded videos. They can’t very well have hundreds of hours of video content only being produced by citizen journalists, and niche markets pandering to extremes, so they have to cover it, and they can’t have hundred of hours of BBC-produced content, slowly manipulating the debate, only being posted to their social media feeds and not covered on the main channel in any meaningful way.

    Like

  3. DLL says

    Perhaps they’re using the competing tensions of anger threatening to spiral out of control and the overt lack of organisation by the local council, the Government and the Greater London Authority to argue, in the future, that they should bring in the Army (‘Strong and Stable’) to command and control the scene.

    Like

    • Mel says

      Dialectics has been traditionally regarded as the heart, soul and modus operandi of the Left (ie Marx, et al).
      Not so… the Right are past masters and religious groups expert practitioners long before dialectics was formalised..think Jesuit/Jew…. both would lie to ensure that outcome is achieved. Obviously, a lot to say on that one…! 😀

      Like

      • Mel says

        And I think Gil Scott Heron was closer to the mark … or the Marx for that matter..! 😀

        Like

  4. Alan says

    Although I neither watch nor read either outlet mentioned, whatever their purpose, it isn’t to inform. The Guardian screen shot seems more interested in political fallout and some fake condolences courtesy of the Queen. The BBC although stuck in the wartime spirit it appears to cherish, carries the same. Empathy, compassion and honesty have no place in the mainstream British media, the less focus upon them the better.

    Like

  5. Addicted to Distracted By Bruce Charlton Makes for compelling if Uncomfortable reading.
    http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/

    It will offend most readers but he has a very good point, I do not share his pessimism but the rest is hard to argue with.

    “People and events presented by the media as Good are always in reality bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually (but not always) Good – and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
    Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
    Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories:
    1. Good presented as bad
    2. Bad presented as Good
    (That is to say simple inversion)
    3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
    4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
    (That is to say explanatory inversion)
    These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
    Therefore those who want to free their minds from the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which they cannot avoid”.

    Like

      • Hmmmm… while that excerpt (cited up-thread) is rather good, I’m not sure how well the larger argument works after visiting his blog and reading through excerpts from the book. I’ve become suspicious of the Author’s ideological POV, because he also writes:

        “The standard model by which people try to understand media bias is a government which tells the media what to say and vets what it says in all minute particulars: something like Stalin and The Party dictating what got written, and what was not written, in Pravda.
        That obviously isn’t what happens in the modern world – it would of course be impossible, such is the utterly vast volume of material being generated; and stupid people suppose this means that the media and government are independent the one of the other.
        Ha!
        The Mass Media is not biased to Leftism, it is Leftism; so of course, Leftism must come from within the media: the bias is generated by the Mass Media.”

        Well, no, I think not; I reject the apparent Structuralist argument and the characterization of Mass Media as inherently Leftist, for starters. Still, in quick bursts, some bits of his presentation are good.

        Like

    • Unfortunately, I had to un-like this passage, which is spot-on, after reading the Author’s blog of the book the passage comes from, because the book also features utter bilge like…

      “(Instead, and for the past several decades, probably the single most valorized group among the revolutionary Leftist parties of the UK have been… religious terrorists based in the Middle East whose primary motivation is the extermination of Israel! A more extreme inversion of Old Left priorities could scarcely be imagined!)”

      Ugh, no. Stupidly mendacious, in fact. I will not be purchasing this book.

      Like

    • From reading his blog, I now know that Bruce Charlton is a Zionist. Just want anyone, who (like me) was initially seduced by this neat little excerpt, to be warned about Charlton’s greater project.

      Like

  6. Kevin Morris says

    I’m old enough to have seen events like this and the paranoia that often comes in their wake many, many times before. Last week and the day before the fire I was speaking with an old friend about his son. ‘He’s really into the whole conspiracy thing at the moment’. I responded that he does have a point, but added that it really does no good to spend too much time brooding on the fact.

    Forgetting the whole MSM and paranoia issue for a minute it is arguable that all the media are doing is their job. Perhaps it has come rather late in the day but that is at least understandable because what we have had, certainly since the mid eighties is the post postwar consensus. In her memorable phrase Margaret Thatcher told us that ‘There is no alternative’ and loads of us, including many politicians of the left believed her. Ultimately, the likes of Blair and Brown believed they could do it better but after those thirteen years of relatively civilised government we were thrown into, ‘We’re all in it together’ whilst knowing that, no we bloody well aren’t!

    What happened on Wednesday laid bare the dishonesty of TINA and other blandishments from politicians who didn’t care and perhaps for the first time since the seventies, it is becoming clear that there has got to be an alternative. Frankly, if the utter rawness of what happened on Wednesday and what has followed is starting to get through, then I for one applaud the media for reporting that fact. It’s now up to the progressive politicians of this benighted country to seize the day.

    It’s about bloody time they did!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Turn on the Comments says

    Did anyone read yesterdays Telegraph?
    Read these links. Makes for some interesting additions to this article.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/mustafa-almansur-organiser-grenfell-tower-protest-movement/
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/corbyn-supporters-spread-fake-news-grenfell-house-death-toll/
    If the so called lefties really wanted to help, then why could not the rich ones, like Lilly Alan give some of her house to shelter the homeless?
    What does Corbyn think his policy of commandeering empty homes do to the economy? Now he is saying that the UK government has the means to “occupy it, compulsory purchase it, requisition it.” But how does the law work? I bet the government would soon see itself in court if they did take any action like this.
    Commandeering is surely only used in times of war.
    If the EU can give money to help the homeless after those terrible fires in Portugal, and if they really want the UK to stay in the bloc, where is their money for this terrible disaster?
    As for May are we not already seeing moves being made by the Chancellor to be PM? Has he not said “Grenfell Tower cladding is banned in the UK” has he also not criticised the way the Conservatives fought the general election campaign? Go on Hammond make your move!

    Like

    • Some of the firefighters said the scene was like a warzone re your comment on commandeering. In a borough of empty houses then it makes complete sense to suggest some are used to help the homeless.
      Re Hammond, none of them will make a move as they know that it will undermine their already very shaky grip on power. If even Boris ‘on a permanent leadership campaign’ Johnson is keeping a lid on his aspirations then that tells you how much they know that this government is walking a tightrope.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Matt says

    This article questions the narrative. The answer? It’s actually simple and not because the media “cares”. The media didn’t care in 2002 when hundreds of thousands ordinary British citizens marched in London twice against Blair’s Iraq War. I remember going to a pub in London shortly after attending my 2nd march and watching the BBC’s scant coverage which made the protests look like a picnic in Hyde park with a few friends. No, the answer is not in the media finding its lost moral compass, the answer is simple: The EU and it’s desperation.

    Brexit has threatened both its and Washington’s authority and will eventually take more countries with it. It’s no secret that Corbyn makes easily pleasing promises (Note: As did Blair’s Labour did before bathing in PFIs to “save” the NHS, which we are still paying for), but, in regards to the EU, Labour have been weak and focused more on their Remoaning minority, gathering more support from the youth through peer pressure. The UK embraced the US’s ‘High School’ mentality years ago and I lived through it and noticed it and hated it and now the young know no different and call May names with the cool kid Corbyn and slap her lunch tray from her hands. You’d think May was directly responsible for Grenfell the way media play it, with no a mention of Sadiq Khan’s culpability as London’s Mayor.

    The EU is desperate and the EU and US power groups want May’s hard Brexit to end and so the media faithful to Washington, attempt to oust her by association with “Austerity” to this “accident”. It’s also no coincidence that Merkel is now opposing the new US sanctions against Russia. The EU has been made to tidy their act up by Brexit and will do anything to survive and Grenfell provides the momentum for calls for May to step down and thus a hard Brexit avoided, whilst the EU stands at the open door like a jilted lover hoping the UK will turn around and come back. If it’s smart, it won’t.

    Like

  9. Wow! Am I the only one to suggest that this was a staged event? I cannot believe it. There are a ton of videos on YouTube pointing to so many elements that suggest staging. The most convincing one I think is this guy reading his script. I mean, seriously … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArFG128IMSU. And, of course, as is stated in the article – the massive media. Massive media is always a clue to staged event.

    And there’s that same similarity to the Manchester Bombing. We’re told things we’re not shown. Why so many “eyewitness reports”? We live in the digital age. If a baby really were thrown from the 9th or 10th storey and caught and saved wouldn’t there have been someone to capture it? Folks, it’s an impossibility and it’s no surprise at all that it no one was there to capture it cos it didn’t happen, did it? Where is the convincing footage of anyone looking as if they’re going to get burned alive or anyone who’s suffered injury from fire? Where is the reality to this event? All we see are people who seem like crisis actors.

    Peaky Saku sounds as if he’s speaking from the heart, doesn’t he? But you know what? I think he might be an agent provocateur. And the constant reference to him “swearing on the BBC” when he’s a supposed witness on the street sounds very stagey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1lP614TD3w

    The power global elite are hotting up the fomenting of civil unrest and it’s going to get ugly and THEN they’re really going to clamp down with their fascist rule.

    Like

    • billybakke says

      Masses, literally tens of thousands of people all over London (me included) know people that where directly involved, whether fire fighters (in my case) or the friends and family of victims. Not every tragedy in society is staged! You give to much power to the powerful by such assertions. You disenfranchise and belittle the voices and the real grievances of the working class and the victims who have suffered. That is not to say that the information and the narrative around this tragedy is not being controlled, distorted and used by those jockeying for power, within the UK and elsewhere? But I would respectfully suggest that you come to London, that you visit the area and the communities affected before disrespecting the reality of their grief, loss and tragedy with such speculative theories. Evidence-less musings like this seem to me to serve no purpose other than to obfuscate and fracture dissent.
      You call out agent provocateur as you provoke wildly!

      Like

      • DLL says

        Even in ‘real’ events, there would also be pretend victims, survivors and volunteers, both to help control the narrative in the mainstream media and to influence the politics amongst griefing families and survivors. The attempted dispersment of the families to places like Manchester, Birmingham, Peterborough etc would further frustrate any political organisation or collective unity amongst the families.

        Like

        • billybakke says

          Most of us on here now the reality of Gladio and the now in play Gladio B. We know the reality of the on going ‘Strategy of Tension’. We know that the those in power literally have no boundaries when it comes to running Psyops and false flags to control and manipulate public opinion. But those who think a false flag is staged by actors do not understand how the world works. Terrorists are real. The attacks are real. They are carried out by idiot Salafist fuckbags who believe in what they do. Does this mean that these dimwitted extremist are not being manipulated by outside forces, of course not. The US and the Saudis have been playing this game for half a century. From Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq to Syria, Libya and now the Philippines. The delicious irony of the fact that Islamist terrorists are in fact an arm of US power is totally lost on the cunt who stabs people to death in London and blows up children in Manchester. I do not trust those who constantly seek to undermine attacks with childish narratives about actors and pretend victims.

          The tragedy of Grenfell is REAL. It is a harrowing lesson in capitalist greed and neo liberal selfish profiteering. It is an event which has created so much anger that even the MSM realise that they have to acknowledge it. What is the purpose of muddying this narrative with speculative theories, when the ‘truth’ can be used to punish those responsible and hold to account those who are guilty. As this article points out we must be wary of the MSM and the repositioning that is being attempted by the so called left commentariate. The general election has only served to illuminated the inherent hypocrisy within the voices of power and the corporate funded media. Voices of dissent (within the UK) are for the first time in a generation seeking the ascendancy. The MSM is panicked. Wild speculation only serves to bolster those who wish to shut down debate and i for one would argue that some/most of it is just disinformation and itself part of the strategy of tension!

          Like

          • DLL says

            “We know that the those in power literally have no boundaries when it comes to running Psyops and false flags to control and manipulate public opinion. But those who think a false flag is staged by actors do not understand how the world works.”

            The use of ‘actors’ is no different than using agent provocateurs. ‘no boundaries’ would mean cold-blooded murder, using agents to pose as survivors (in and amongst real victims) in order to help control any narrative or a completely staged event, You yourself are visiting a site which ran an article about ‘actors’ being used in a false-flag attack in Syria only the other day. If there were interviewees bearing false witness, then you have to consider that possibility.that the fire was started deliberately (you may have to consider it anyway) and that the ‘fridge fire’ maybe something of a red herring or that it occured because of a deliberate power surge.

            From the PTB point of view, there’s good reasons to use a completely staged event. The initial cost of the operation is higher and more complex in terms of set-up, but then they don’t have much longer term difficulties of dealing with families and mutual-support organisations, like in Hillsborough and no-one with ‘interested person’ status to turn the pushed narrative in on itself.

            If you’re better than the mainstream media, then you would name your fireman friend, in the interests of verifiability, otherwise using it in your arguments is underhanded and should be retracted.

            If there are at least three survivors who start laughing as soon as they go off camera, and another set who are laughing on camera – and most of the witnesses or volunteers used are constrained to a frequently used group of about two-dozen or less people (although there are more benign explanations), then you can’t ignore the fact that some may have been planted to help control the narrative.

            Like

            • billybakke says

              I would admit to actors being used in Syria and the false flags there being completely staged. That society is unfortunately so dysfunctional, through years of terrible warfare that such false flags are possible. Yes i think that the powers that be would rather cold boldly kill than leave themselves open to expoure through all the complication that staging events would create in the West, to think otherwise seems to me naive. Of course i will not name my friend who is a fireman. To ask me to do so is absurd! To call me argument underhanded is, i think a personal attack that is unwarranted and will only stifle debate. Good luck with your theories.

              Like

    • The Oddities in this one look like Damage Control, imo. I think something awful has happened (unlike re: Manchester, we can see very clear footage of the disaster: a burning/burnt building) and people in power are going to be liable and there’s going to be a panicked effort to limited the extent of that liability. Unless TFIC set the fire (cui bono? Wouldn’t seem to be anyone, in this case) and there was foreknowledge, I don’t think there’s a coherent plan in place to keep certain powerful people from being imprisoned or fined in a huge way; Media may well be attempting to help these powerful people in the aftermath. Some witnesses seem a little “off” but others seem far more convincing that any witnesses I’ve seen in connection with any “terror” events of the past 20 years.

      Now, the famous Riots of 2011 struck me as fishy, in that the Poor were deliberately taunted (with the Mark Duggan death and the insensitive handling of it) into exploding… with agents provocateurs used as accelerants… the subsequent fires performed a “service” for powerful landowners who wanted to rebuild anyway (wasn’t there an Historical and “protected” building in the way of redevelopment….?) (picture of that building here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots). No one powerful could take the blame for the 2011 Riots; a “cui bono” approach to that one yields plausible results.

      Grenfell strikes me as different. Again: maybe someone set the fire for nefarious reasons, but this isn’t fitting into one of those familiar TFIC scenarios. This strikes me as one of those “Third World” disasters in which the Poor are too often and randomly martyred.

      Like

    • For example, I’ve never seen an interview with an FF “terrorism survivor/ witness” that rang this true; this is a useful comparison to all the standard “crisis actor” fakes we see all the time: this guy is clearly recounting an actual experience:

      Like

      • StAug, StAug, what are you saying? The global power elite finally got to you? Yeah, this guy is just a better crisis actor. You know how tough an actor’s gig is. We just have such low expectations that when someone seems half-way credible we tend to believe them (funnily enough though someone on YouTube doesn’t think he’s so great). What about this guy though – and notice the tablet under the reporter’s arm in the last second – one can only infer that that’s what he was reading from – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRBFMEgY4MQ.

        You desperately need to take a trip to YouTube and search “Grenfell Tower” “hoax”. There are some excellent videos. A new hoax analyst to watch is Sky Watcher Tommo.

        We see very clear footage of the disaster because they want the building to come down. In fact, it seems it may have been scheduled for demolition youtu.be/zhkrR0z2FSc?t=58s (suggest watching the whole video) … just as they wanted WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 to come down on 9/11 … not to mention their desire for the virtual destruction of the other buildings at the World Trade Centre … and now they’re probably going to bring down other buildings on the strength of Grenfell. Also, it’s very easy to evacuate people from a building prior to setting it aflame, if indeed that’s even required. Perhaps it was unoccupied. Setting off a real bomb is a whole different story especially when you don’t want to destroy property.

        What we don’t see is very clear footage, if any, of the injured. We see some body bags but nothing, of course, could be easier to stage than body bags.

        This hoax analysis video shows footage of loved ones of those who died in the MH370 crash. I was amazed to find myself burst into tears watching it. I think it’s so psychologically damaging to constantly watch crisis actors (whether you believe that they’re real or not). What a contrast. youtu.be/Q9DXAqPTLf4?t=10m24s

        Like

        • “StAug, StAug, what are you saying? The global power elite finally got to you?”

          Ha ha! Nah. I just don’t see compelling evidence that this is a hoax; I mean, maybe it is, but I don’t see the jaw-dropping cluster of red flags that this was in the general sense faked. The claim that a cheaply-constructed building full of poor people caught fire isn’t an extraordinary claim, so it doesn’t require extraordinary proof. To claim that someone deliberately blew himself up in order to kill teen aged girls in order to send a political message: that’s an extraordinary claim, and, in the absence of compelling evidence, I don’t buy it.

          I just take these events one at a time, on a case by case basis. When dozens of parents go on camera after their children were supposedly gunned-down and they fail to cry and they seem giddy, even, in some cases, and forget the proper details of their children’s lives and/or deaths, I can reasonably assume that’s evidence of fakery. But I don’t see enough evidence of fakery with the tower fire (yet) and I’m certainly not running around claiming that anyone who doubts Grenfell is “disgusting” because “people died” and all that. I think it’s important to remain clear eyed and to require a certain level of compelling evidence either way.

          My only question (thus far) is: was the fire set on purpose?

          “We see very clear footage of the disaster because they want the building to come down. In fact, it seems it may have been scheduled for demolition”

          Well, yeah, which might indicate arson, but how does that indicate that no people were involved? If the witness video I cite is a performance and that guy is an actor, he’s better than anyone I’ve seen since Pacino! Laugh

          If some other witnesses seem dodgy or false, that could well be because someone wants to control how the narrative plays out.

          My question is: if they wanted to bring that building down and you agree that it actually burned, cui bono in the case that the deaths were faked? What advantage in faking the deaths in this case?

          Like

            • I’ve watched, very closely, about a dozen witness/ survivor videos now and they’ve all been extremely convincing. So, in my opinion, I know at the very least that people fled a burning building in the middle of the night. I also know, from convincing witness testimony, that the building had a lot of people in it and that, if anything, more people died than is being admitted. Comparing the witness/survivor testimony I’ve seen from Grenfell, with the witness/survivor testimony from so many famous crises of the recent past, I’d say the very convincing Grenfell testimonies make testimonies from Sandy Hook, Boston, Aurora, et al, seem even more staged/scripted than they already seemed (if that’s possible).

              The questions I’m left with are: is the story about the faulty refrigerator (supposedly starting the fire) true? If it’s not true, was this a case of arson? If it was arson, what was the purpose? No particular Theory stands out, as yet.

              If witness/survivor testimony is available in an event like this, that’s the first thing I look at. The first objective is to judge the veracity of the testimony. Watching videos of people analyzing anomalies is only useful immediately, imo, in the event that witness/ survivor testimony is unavailable or clearly false. Bearing in mind the tremendous volume of Deliberate Disinfo that springs up around every major “news” Event, I pick through the ALT ANALYSIS vids very carefully in the days and weeks after something happens. A lot of those channels are run by hucksters and Cog Diss agents.

              Above all I trust my common sense and my ability to judge human behavior (using a sample size greater than one or two subjects); I can’t go with Default Hoax thinking any more than I can go with Default Not Hoax thinking.

              So, nope, not Brainwashed yet, FlaxGirl! Laugh

              Like

              • (PS: just so you know: I was not the one who down-voted your comment! I wouldn’t do so because I think you’re sincere and I don’t take it personally that you think I’ve been duped on this one, Flaxgirl. The struggle continues! Unity!)

                Like

          • I think faking the deaths was just part of the series of trauma-based mind control psyops they’re bombarding us with – they like to keep up the terror business no matter whether it’s a suicide bombing, mass shooting, vehicle rampage or fire tragedy.

            I suspected it was a staged event after about 20 seconds of it appearing on the screen without knowing the first thing about it … but I don’t think I’m suffering from confirmation bias :). Here are five things I think that expose the event was staged (with real fire) – but I think there are plenty more.

            Witness says that when workers came to install insulation he tore a bit off and lit it with his lighter to demonstrate to them that it was flammable.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxwxkNJQmQU

            Witnesses selling the I-know-a-fireman-who-told-us line.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKnLQ0fo3o4

            Analyst explains how it’s impossible to drop a baby from a 10th story. (You could refute this by saying that it was just an “eyewitness report” but with these events the media always seem to be suspiciously reporting “eyewitness reports” when, firstly, you’d think that the event would have been captured digitally and secondly, as it sounds impossible, the media should have done a little investigation to verify the “eyewitness report” before reporting it themselves.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNUWbOaUlnQ

            Inhabitant who seems like a crisis actor and smiling friend

            Man rescued after 12 hours. Why isn’t there media photography of this? A vertical mobile phone size allows a narrow focus so that we can’t see the state of the building or if this man is even in Grenfell Tower.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPZsKKi-7R8

            Where is evidence of a single injured person? Where are the people being taken away in ambulances? Where are the people jumping from the building? – Just like Manchester except that there was a real fire whereas there was no bomb blast at Manchester.

            Like

            • “Analyst explains how it’s impossible to drop a baby from a 10th story.”

              Well, what I believe I detect is an overlay of a false narratives to add, possibly, some feel good “hero” stories to diffuse the stark horror of the way these people died as devalued humans; or narratives to distract from Government culpability… general Ass-Covering.

              But the survivor interviews I’ve seen ring totally true, for me. I think, again, that either the whole thing was a terrible accident made possible by Third World conditions, or the blaze was Nazi arson related to development schemes and Racist disregard for non-White Life.

              I don’t doubt people died in that fire; I think, if anything, the deaths are profoundly under-reported. False Flags and Psyops aren’t the only tools in the Psychopath Toolkit, Comrade!

              Like

            • “Where is evidence of a single injured person? Where are the people being taken away in ambulances? ”

              But that’s just it: there was one stairwell for the 24-floor building and people were initially advised to stay in their flats; by the time most of them realized that no help was coming, it was too late, the stairwell was ablaze and there was no way out; a few people were lucky enough to escape but it would appear that many died from the smoke and the flames.

              There’s a fair amount of video material documenting people in the building as it burns; go to the 7:30 mark of this one:

              Like

  10. When they start reporting on the ACTUAL number of dead and what kind of idiot–or idiots–signs off on letting a multi-story hi-rise have hundreds of occupants WITHOUT sprinklers or hallway smoke alarms, then they’ll be getting somewhat honest.

    As for the current reporting, it’s just a ‘Buzzards Banquet,’ posting endless stories about the dead to make the cash register ring.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. betrayedplanet says

    I do not trust MSM, our fallen Guardian nor the rest of the assholes who have stood by and watched the asset stripping, the destruction of the ill, poor and vulnerable, the money laundering and tax evasion, the killing off of industry, the abuse of the NHS, schools, community care, not even remotely. They cannot avoid presenting this latest avoidable tragedy with a bloody modicum of decency, such is the outrage of a population under severe stress, emotional, physical and spiritual. For 7 long yrs people have sucked up the abuse and disenfranchisement, told we must live within our means whilst the rich cream everything off the top and send it offshore without paying tax while the tax payers subsidise poverty wages.
    They saved £4750 on non fire-resistant cladding for Grenfell house, that is £4750 for approx 100 lives burnt in what was a 100percent avoidable fire. Of course the MSM have to be seen to be at least human, but we know its bullshit and as soon as the rage dies down it will be back to the same as usual. BBC will revert to their insipid Tory favouring nonsense.
    We need to oust this shower of profligate sociopaths asap so the people have a chance of recovering from the extreme abuse of the last 7years,

    Liked by 1 person

  12. flybow says

    I don’t really think anything has changed. In a block where 520 people lived, they are claiming only 58 dead or missing. Where are the people? There is disinformation being pumped out.

    Like

  13. My heart goes out to those victims. The terror for some would have been extreme and the mental anguish of all affected will take some time to heal.

    Like

  14. Firstly my sympathies for all those affected by this horrendous tragedy. A tragedy that could so easily have been avoided.

    It has occurred to me that much of this media coverage, talked about above, is angled at damage limitation for the Tories and realignment of the Neo-liberal agenda in the UK. It has been very obvious that the coverage of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and their socialist anti-austerity agenda has been largely blanked out of the MSM and since the election and then with this tragedy no real attempt has been made to link the two.

    What also struck me is that even the Queen has been swung into action as May has proved as hopeless in a crisis as in the election campaign. As one or two comments on here have pointed out, it looks clear that May is being hung out to dry, in an attempt to make her the Aunt Sally for the old Tory austerity agenda. All this while they scrabble around to try and find someone who might encapsulate some kind of reformed “Social Conservative” agenda to lead them into another election. It’s doubtful they will achieve this. But rest assured that the MSM will try to enable this as much as is credibly possible.

    Like

  15. Sasha Smirnoff says

    Echoed my immediate suspicion re. the press trying to out-do each other in terms of outrage. Their job is to channel dissent and rebellion into “safe” outlets, and if a human sacrifice is necessary (Maybot), so be it. You’re a credit to our species, Miss Catte!

    Like

  16. chrissy says

    My view of the shift from the MSM in regard to Grenfell is much more cynical regarding their motives for seemingly “jumping on the bandwagon” to balance the narrative. Mrs. May and her cohorts are just puppets. The BBC, as well as the media et al, are working both sides in an attempt to cause the revolution they can then move in and control. Both sides are controlled by the powers that be in their effort to create chaos. Why? Strictly evil intentions to gain more control/power over us, then imposing Marshal law and more rights being taken away in the name of “order” and protection. I don’t trust ANYTHING the so-called media presents as news or commentary. One thing I feel sure of is that eventually, good will triumph.

    Like

  17. There is an important diversion away from the fact that safety was traded for energy “efficiency” in order to attain climate “goals” creating victims of climate hysteria.

    Like

    • BigBG says

      Really? Really??? Multiple issues will be raised after this horrific avoidable event: the external spread of fire; the use of cheaper cladding; the compromising of fire compartmentalisation (with exposed gas pipes; rubbish in corridors…); faulty wiring; cost cutting and shoddy workmanship… the fact that the Residents Committee were assiduously ignored. Not to mention poor decision making at local and central government: ignoring the Lakanal recommendations for instance. This had more to do with the ‘gentrification’ of an ugly tower block; to make it more pleasing for the Boroughs richer residents. But no, it was “climate hysteria”??? Really???

      Liked by 1 person

  18. nils hansen says

    Something is going on. Norwegian paper VG’s headline is “More people are dying in England – scientist thinks it is linked to austerity”. http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/storbritannia/flere-doer-i-england-forsker-tror-det-har-sammenheng-med-kuttpolitikken/a/23990984/
    Maybe the elite has understood the Tories are finished, and will try to influence Corbyn and maybe even reverse Brexit somehow? Norwegian mainstream media is like mainstream media everywhere just copy and paste from American and pro-Western media.

    Like

  19. Trader1 says

    From reading the “BBC the Myth of a Public service” I get the impression that the BBC has contact with the various crime families who run the UK state, many of them went to the same schools after all. Sometimes they play for one side sometimes another depending on where their financial interests seem to lie. So if one side gives them the nod to attack another they might go for it if it is to their advantage. What they will not be doing is listening to the public or doing it’s bidding or supporting it.

    Like

  20. I fear it’s more that the MSM are fighting for their survival and take control of what they see as the popular narrative. Reading the comments section in the Guardian, while being presented with a digital begging bowl, gives a very good indication how betrayed its readers feel and will no doubt withhold funds accordingly.

    Like

  21. labrebisgalloise says

    The BBC, how ever much it might pretend otherwise, was kowtowing to the Tories in the run up to the election on the basis that the Tories looked likely to win. Murdoch and co were read to pounce and whilst the BBC would have been butchered anyway in the event of a Tory landslide, they did during the election what any typical bully’s sycophantic sidekick would do: stand on the sidelines and snigger as the bully put the boot in. Following the remarkable outcome of the election, suddenly they all rush to the other end of the playground; the threat of Murdoch now seems that much remoter; why there may even be a Labour government soon and people might remember how they behaved before June 8th, May is on her knees and they can snigger at her – and perhaps even join in the kicking she is getting. Craven is the word I was looking for.

    As for the Guardian, without the featherbed of the licence fee, the equation is even simpler. They got on the wrong side of history and alienated a good part of their readership, partly through bankrupt ideology but also through their perceived need to occupy a global niche and the market that goes with it . This is no longer just a sinking ship – this is a rusty sieve. Hence the sudden apologies from all and sundry regarding their unrelenting two year campaign to destroy Jeremy Corbyn. They can’t afford to stick to their guns, nay even principles, because they don’t have any and every utterance is dictated by an opportunistic desire to survive. Freedland, Toynbee, White, Jones, Monbiot and many other columnists have to go into overdrive in an attempt to expunge their previous views from the record – and ever accompanied by pleas for money to support their “fearless” journalism. The problem is elephants like me don’t forget. Craven is the word I was looking for.

    Liked by 6 people

    • “Freedland, Toynbee, White, Jones, Monbiot and many other columnists have to go into overdrive in an attempt to expunge their previous views from the record…” Absolutely right – and they aren’t at all conscious (presumably) of their contradictions. Nor do they care I suppose, as long as the remuneration keeps coming.
      Presstitutes all.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. runner77 says

    Realising that they are losing the support and belief of many people, I suspect that the MSM are trying to outflank and contain the breakout. If one attempts to stop a runaway train, one first runs beside it at the same speed and in the same direction before jumping on board and applying the brakes. Likewise, the MSM will first try to realign themselves with popular opinion and then attempt to redirect and limit the rebellion. We are already witnessing the first stage of this process, with Theresa May being the sacrificial scapegoat, so that criticism is focused on one person rather than on the entire government or indeed the entire political system.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Edwige says

      See a good example of that from Rawnsley today who deliberately obfuscates (or is he really that stupid?) the difference between a public inquiry and an inquest.

      Also, even mentioning the Saville inquiry doesn’t trigger him to drop an ‘l’ and consider May and the Savile inquiry which the entire establishment seem determined to flush as deeply down the memory hole as possible for reasons that can only be guessed at (and none of them are good).

      Like

      • Edwige says

        The article published today by Louise Christian (no comments allowed) pushing a public inquiry and damning inquests starts to look like a distinct line being pushed when combined with Rawnsley yesterday.

        Are they going to publish an article with a similar bias in favour of an inquest? Are they even going to publish a “these are the pros of public inquiries, these are the pros of inquests, make up your own mind” piece?

        Like

  23. The BBC has never had a position on anything nor will it, because it’s committed to the totally spurious and contradictory concept of ‘balance’. If one side has a say then so must the other. Decades ago the young Jonathan Dimbleby resigned from the BBC over exactly this matter, when the corporation felt that, in its coverage of Apartheid South Africa, equal time should be devoted to the views of the government in the interests of balance.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Simon Roberts says

      That may have been the case previously, but I finally saw how far the BBC had fallen when it came to Libia – they showed the UK, French and US premiers saying “Qaddafi has to go”, then some uptight random Libyans “welcoming” the invasion, then one Islamic Sisterhood woman dancing round with a banner saying the Wst must be destroyed as their counter argument. This was also the time when Ron Paul was heading up the GOP Presidential candidacy race and the Beeb airbrushed him out of existence.

      Like

    • Lumpy Gravy says

      … because it’s committed to the totally spurious
      and contradictory concept of ‘balance’.

      This is nonsense. The BBC has never been “balanced”. Just because they constantly refer to themselves as “balanced” doesn’t mean that this is actually so. How people in 2017 can still fall for this tired old propaganda lie is beyond me. As you can read here and in many other articles and analysis the BBC was deliberately set up to be unbalanced. It was a reaction of the British bourgeoisie who were horrified by the successful Russian revolution and the failed allied war of intervention against Russia. Thus, since its first broadcast in the 1920s the BBC has led a ceaseless broad-spectrum assault on its listeners’ and viewers’ conscience and on their perception of reality, and over the years they became very good at it, much better than anybody else. This is why today many NPR radio stations across the US relay BBC World News because many US listeners seem to prefer the more sophisticated, devious and cunning BBC propaganda over the unsophisticated and brutish US propaganda.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. John says

    My guess is that establishment outlets like the BBC and Guardian have calculated that Mrs May is not long for this present political world. Therefore, criticising her is a cost-free option.
    Once her replacement is in place, we will probably see the BBC, Guardian et. al . all line up together to re-start bashing Corbyn and the Labour Party.
    This temporary change in their behaviour is no fresh new dawn, I am afraid to say.
    It provides them with a pseudo-defence against the charge of political bias to wheel out when needed.
    For them it really is a win-win situation.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Gregory De Wode says

    Good question! I believe that both the BBC & the Guardian are bandwagon-jumping for survival purposes, they must be very aware now how much the people have rejected their fake narratives. There was a noticable change in their reporting since the election due to Labour/Corbyn’s massive support, perhaps they have been forced to change their tune. I am very suprised by the BBC’s coverage of Grenfell, perhaps some of their people have “woken up” as a result of this, that’s the feeling I get.

    Like

  26. I am in the USA and anyway don’t follow BM (bought media or bowel movement, take your pick). So, are they covering the reasons for the fire or just the protests?

    Like

  27. Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:

    I’m glad someone else is being circumspect in watching this sudden lurch towards decent humanitarian concern unfolding – I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

    Liked by 2 people

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s