Professional Scam Artists – part 23

“BBC Media Action: Subversion From Broadcasting House To Kazakhstan” by Brian Gerrish (UKColumn)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

[=-
”Our mission is to inform, connect and empower people around the world.” These are mighty words from BBC Media Action, a charitable offshoot of the BBC funded to £29.5m in 2012 – most of it from the British Government, EU, US State Department, UN and Dutch government. Most of the British public and indeed most of the BBC’s licence payers will have never heard of BBC Media Action let alone understand what this BBC charity really is.

An innocent BBC charity deserving our support and money, or a dangerous subversive organisation? We overwhelmingly think the latter…

According to Media Action they operate 100 researchers providing data, evaluation and insight in 24 countries. They ’surveyed’ 60,000 people in 11 countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East to ‘inform our health, governance and resilience projects.’ The immediate question is what projects and what are they for?…

BBC Media Action is so arrogant and sure of itself that they even tell us what they are doing. Juliette Harkin, former BBC Media Action Project Manager and an expert on Syria states..”we [BBC Media Action] worked in 2004 with individuals within the [Syrian] ministry who wanted change and tried to get them to be the drivers of that. All media development work that has been done within Syria has, in my opinion, been predicated upon this idea that there can be change from within – you have an authoritarian regime and you find who the reformers are within that [regime] and work with them”

In their own words Media Action is a trojan horse which works against governments of independent nation states – who are they to decide which regimes are acceptable and which not? Did the BBC create chemical weapons reports to suit UK, US and EU political agendas to oust President Assad? Many think so…

Currently serving BBC Media Action trustee Michael C McCulloch formerly worked with the UK Delegation to UNESCO in the 1970s attempting to ‘discourage the Soviet Union from restricting press freedom.’ He also acted as Private Secretary to Tim Raison the then Minister for Overseas Development, and much later he served on the Board of the European Board of Reconstruction and Development. He drew on this UNESCO experience when appointed to launch the Know How Fund for the Soviet Union…

[Ruth] Mandel’s excellent analysis ultimately lays the British government’s BBC propaganda machine bare. “In discussion, one Know How Fund official admitted that the assistance came loaded with “”unashamedly political objectives.”” He described the project to support changes we want; the transition to a market economy will be better for them, and for us, for politics trade etc. There are real political objectives rather than simply humanitarian assistance.” Against this background, the work of BBC Media Action in Kazakhstan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Serbia, Palestine, Kenya, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere becomes crystal clear. Political manoeuvering and propaganda disguised as ‘media assistance.’
]=-

“Despite Bannon’s Role in Campaign, Bolsonaro is not Brazil’s Trump – He’s Far Worse” by Whitney Webb (Mint Press News)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

==== === ==
BRASILIA, BRAZIL — The rise to prominence of Brazil’s far-right presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro has given many in Brazil and abroad cause for concern. Bolsonaro – once considered a “fringe” politician – has publicly proposed bringing back elements of the country’s former military dictatorship, which he has often promoted over his three-decades-long career in Brazil’s Congress.

Despite the real concern that Bolsonaro’s potential victory in the upcoming Brazilian election could resurrect some of the country’s darkest days, international media outlets – particularly in the West – have widely likened Bolsonaro to U.S. President Donald Trump…

The comparisons between Trump and Bolsonaro have only grown after it was recently announced that Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News and former chief advisor to Trump, will serve as an advisor to Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign…

For much of his political career, Bolsonaro was considered fringe – even for Brazil’s right – given his long-standing promotion of Brazil’s dictatorship, which controlled the country from 1964 to 1985. Indeed, Bolsonaro has called the 1964 coup a “defense of democracy.” In an infamous interview in 1999, Bolsonaro declared that the country’s military dictatorship had failed to “finish its job,” adding that “you are not going to change anything through voting; … you’ll only change things by having a civil war and doing the work the military regime didn’t do.”

According to Bolsonaro, the work the military dictatorship “didn’t do” is the “killing [of] 30,000, starting with FHC [former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso].” “If a few innocent people die, that’s alright,” Bolsonaro concluded…

Even after reinventing himself as an anti-corruption crusader, Bolsonaro’s promotion of Brazil’s past dictatorship and its violent tactics has shone through with stunning regularity. For instance, while voting to impeach Dilma Rousseff in 2016, Bolsonaro announced his vote in favor of impeachment by stating:

“They lost in ‘64, they lost now in 2016 … against Communism, for our freedom … in memory of Colonel Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, the terror of Dilma Rousseff … for our Armed Forces, I vote yea.”

Carlos Ustra was a colonel in the Brazilian Army and the head of the DOI-CODI, a well-known torture center that, during Ustra’s tenure, tortured more than 300 people, including pregnant women and children as young as five.
== === ====

“NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers” by Anthony Pahnke & Jim Goodman (CounterPunch)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

(o
President Trump touts NAFTA 2.0, otherwise known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, as a boon for farmers…

Let’s look at recent export trends, specifically Trump’s obsession with dairy. According to the U.S. Dairy Export Council, which charts a variety of goods, exports originating from the United States increased from $3.8 billion in 2008 to $7.2 billion 2014. That’s nearly a doubling in export earnings for a variety of dairy products, including fluid milk, as well as cheese, ice cream, and whey.

Did farmers benefit financially from this increase? According to the president’s rationale, farmers should have been doubling their earnings and rolling in cash. But did they? No. USDA figures on the price paid to dairy farmers for their milk do show an increase in 2014 when compared to 2008, but also how higher feed costs effectively erased these gains. Moreover, in years like 2014 when prices temporarily improve, any additional income is used to pay down debts that had been incurred in previous years of rock- bottom milk prices…

Exports can marginally improve farmer income, yet corporate agribusiness benefits more by taking a disproportionate share of the food dollar…

If Trump wants to help farmers, he should look to the Canadian supply management system rather than trying to destroy it. The truth is that Trump’s interest lies in increasing the corporate bottom line, not helping farmers.
o)

“From Abuse of the Body to Abuse of the Mind: Police Use Psychologically Coercive Interrogation Techniques to Produce False Confessions” by Christopher Zoukis (Criminal Legal News)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

|–
The saga of the Norfolk Four reignited the national debate over a controversial issue in the criminal justice system: false confessions. The issue is controversial because it seems to be common sense that an innocent person would never admit to a crime that he or she did not commit. But in this case, common sense is belied by objective evidence: not only do false confessions happen, they are a frequent cause of wrongful convictions.

What’s more, the false confessions given by defendants who were later exonerated almost certainly represent the tip of the iceberg…

“The primary psychological cause of most false confessions is … the investigator’s use of improper, coercive interrogation techniques,” write Drizin and Leo. “Although the phenomenon of interrogation-induced false confessions is counter-intuitive, it can be easily understood once the techniques, logic, and effect of modern interrogation are methodically analyzed and explained.”…

Modern interrogation techniques focus almost entirely on the use of psychological coercion. Investigators use threats and promises to manipulate suspects. A suspect may be threatened with more charges, the certainty of rape in prison, or the death penalty. Promises often include assurances of leniency and better treatment by the authorities.

Today, the most widely used standardized interrogation system is “The Reid Technique.” The Chicago-based firm John E. Reid & Associates, Inc. trains law-enforcement agencies nationwide using Criminal Interrogations and Confessions (Inbau, Reid, Buckley & Jayne, 2013)…

Throughout the process, the investigator also will trick and deceive the suspect. Lies are a common part of modern interrogations, as is reference to non-existent evidence. Investigators are trained to tell a presumably guilty suspect that eyewitness identification has already been obtained (when it hasn’t), or that physical evidence tying the suspect to the crime has been found (when it wasn’t).

The Reid Technique does not contemplate the physical beating and torture of a suspect, but its use has nonetheless resulted in many false confessions. As Richard A. Leo said in his 2009 article, “False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications,” training in The Reid Technique leads American police to believe that they are highly accurate lie detectors. Reid & Associates claims that investigators who have completed the training “can learn to discriminate truth and deception accurately 85 percent of the time.” But this is far from the truth.

“The method of behavior analysis taught by the police training firm Reid and Associates has been found empirically to lower judgment accuracy,” writes Leo, “leading [fellow researchers] Kassin and Fong to conclude that ‘the Reid technique may not be effective—and indeed may be counterproductive—as a method of distinguishing truth and deception.”
–|

The above report really had my attention. Talk about ruined! Look at the power and freedom of the police gatekeepers whose duties are supposed to help keep order, peace and security. They are criminal and psychopathic! (I have met good and bad, friendly and unfriendly police. And I assume that the police in the US are worse than here in Canada. But maybe that’s an illusion.) Here’s the passage that really struck me: “Kassin refers to the second phase as the “nine-step interrogation.” During this process, the investigator will use positive and negative incentives by employing “maximization” and “minimization” tactics. Maximization tactics include “making an accusation, interrupting denials, overriding objections, and citing evidence, real or manufactured,” in order to render a suspect hopeless.” That recalled for me an incident that occurred when I was a security guard at Dominion Square in Toronto. I really regret not getting the names or something from the professional police scammers attacking me. I worked at DS from about 2000 to 2009. I was at my desk in the front lobby when there was a knock at the front door, which I answered. The doors are all glass. They were a couple of police officers who said they were responding to a silent alarm. (I did not hear anything. It was probably a cleaner.) They were unfriendly from the start. I took them to the suite in question. They looked around and, as they were looking around, fired questions at me as though I had done something wrong. I couldn’t answer a single question – and I don’t recall any of them – that the dog cop was asking, for he would interrupt me and ask another question and not allow me to answer that either, over and over. Was I just practice for them? Then they left, but once they arrived at the front door on their way out, they were met by paramedics who they were badmouthing me to. I heard the trash talk as I was catching up to them, for I had stayed behind to lock up the office. When I realized that I was being maligned, for zero reason, I started to object. The dog officer who had been ‘interrogating’ me turned on me angrily. He said he’d tell me supervisor and wanted to know my name. Although it was all hot air, I was shaking so bad I could barely write my name out for him. But I did manage to point out to him that as he was asking me questions he never once let me answer them. He disagreed. But the dog is a liar. Of course, he never contacted my supervisor. He was only tormenting me and what would he have said?

“Plainclothes Officers, 6 percent of NYC Police Force, Involved in 31 percent of Fatal Police Shootings” by Matthew Clarke (Criminal Legal News)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

+++ ++ +
Recently published information shows that plainclothes officers, who make up about 6 percent of the New York Police Department (“NYPD”), are involved in 31 percent of New York City’s fatal police shootings. This has led critics to question the behavior of NYPD’s plainclothes officers, who often act like gang thugs to “blend in” with the neighborhoods they stake out.

A recent analysis by The Intercept used data from the Fatal Encounters project to show that a relatively small group, plainclothes officers, were involved in nearly one-third of New York City’s fatal police shootings since 2000. The 174 fatal shootings included 54 involving only plainclothes officers, 41 involving only uniformed police officers, 11 involving both, and 68 in which it is unknown whether the involved officers were plainclothes or uniformed.

The analysis was complicated by the fact that the NYPD refers to both officers working undercover and those working out-of-uniform as “plainclothes officers.” Further, the NYPD does not release comprehensive information on police shooting incidents…

Plainclothes officers are members of elite, roving anti-crime units. Instead of waiting for a 911 call to report a crime, they direct their own investigations. But an aggressive, proactive role can create dangerous situations.

“Because you’re not wearing a uniform, if you roll up on a couple of guys, they might think they’re getting robbed, they might start shooting right away,” said [Joe] Giacalone.

People living in the neighborhoods where plainclothes officers operate have a different take on the situation. “The undercovers are doing what they want to do,” said Ken Davis, a barber at Kev’s Unique Barber Shop in Crown Heights where Shaeed Vassell, a man fatally shot by plainclothes officers on April 4, 2018, worked. “Mostly the undercovers want to provoke you. They ride up slowly, windows down, and then they say, like, ‘What are you looking at?’ And then when you say something back, they get out of the car.”

“You’ll never see a blue-suit cop doing crazy shit like that,” said Vern, a 21-year-old nurse who was sitting in the barber shop about a week after Vassell was killed. “The undercovers think they have the authority to do anything they want. They hunt motherfuckers—hunt us black people—down.”
+ ++ +++

Above we see one of innumerable young lives snuffed out by stauch US ally Saudi Arabia, with uncle Sam’s approval.

“Guardian Watch – Freedland Remembers Yemen is a Thing” by Kit Knightly (Off Guardian)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

====:-
Jonathan Freedland has weighed in on the Khashoggi case. He’s outraged, of course. Because they all are. Every single voice in the mainstream world has suddenly realised just how appalled they are that Saudi Arabia does bad things.

They weren’t appalled a few weeks ago, when the Saudis blew up a bus full of school children…

Domestically, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with a laughable track-record when it comes to human rights. This has been known for decades, it is talked about a lot. Barely a week goes by without some author, somewhere in the alternate media, writing up a story about the crimes of the House of Saud – either international or domestic. So why are we just now hearing about them in the mainstream?

When he was selling wars in Libya and Syria, did Freedland ever once suggest the “humanitarian bombing” of Riyadh?

Did he object to his paper selling ad space to promote the Muhammed bin Salman, “the great reformer”?

Did he boycott events or protest arms deals or in any way speak out?

Did he devote even a single one his columns to the war in Yemen?

People all over the world are asking: “Why are the Saudis suddenly the bad guys? Why can’t Jamal Khashoggi be brushed under the carpet as if he’s nothing but a burning bus full of children or a napalm-strewn wedding reception?”

It’s a question no one in the media has an answer for. They are aware of the contradiction though, and they are busily trying to get around it.
-:====

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Feel free to comment!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.