Thursday, 8 October 2015
The insider trading and market distortions undertaken by BBC employees on the Final of the Great British Bake Off is more than just an idle piece of tomfoolery by a privileged elite (paid for by a private tax on the general public), it is in its own small way a fraud.
This entirely irrelevant show with its scary hyperreal presenters (with dayglo coloured contacts de rigueur) undertook to defraud the public by utilising private knowledge (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11913626/Great-British-Bake-Off-rocked-by-10000-betting-scandal-allegations.html).
In a nutshell, the Final was shot three weeks before programme went to air allowing ample time for private gain.
1) If any of the £10,000 staked at Ladbrokes (plus significant sums at other bookmakers) was placed prior to the Final being held then we have a prime example of a fixed event.
This is identical to the West Ham United prank on the deliberate loss of the Nottingham Forest FA Cup tie (http://footballisfixed.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/fixed-match-crying-child-english.html).
The market was more inefficient prior to the Final being held hence yielding further value to any insider trade as the 'winner' would be markedly tempting at a longer price.
It is also common knowledge that the correct 'winner' needs to succeed in relation to the marketing purposes of the show. There MUST be a story.
If insider money was placed prior to Final, the individuals concerned should be sacked with immediate effect both for their sneaky-little-prank and for being dim enough to open the accounts in their own names - were any of these people actually interviewed prior to employment??
2) If the money was placed post-Final then the behaviour is still market distorting to the detriment of other punters. If Ms A is the winner and the insider trading sends her price from 11/5 to 4/11 then anybody backing Ms A thereafter is gaining less value than the illicit insider trading (admittedly on a certainty), while anybody tempted by the longer than realistic prices on any of the other finalists is gaining 'value' on a certain loser.
The market was rightly suspended by the bookies after a little bit of intermarket poker play.
A solution for Ladbrokes. Return monies to all punters who are not BBC employees connected with the show and share the £10K illicitly bet by those employees around the other market participants pro rata.
As the BBC tends not to take action against internal miscreants (Jimmy Savile), Ladbrokes could gain further good publicity by befriending the leisure punter against the beast of a boiler room scam.
Of course, the neohyperreality is that as soon as you connect a betting market to any competitive event, the event is tarnished (sometimes irreparably) by the requirements of the money in the marketplace...
... even if that event is merely an extravaganza of developed-world late-capitalism neuron-numbing inanity.
Tuesday, 6 October 2015
The BBC is not fit for purpose.
The licence fee should be revoked and the institution forced into the competitive field of mainstream media rather than populating the rarefied heights of private school/private income state propaganda at our expense.
It is not feasible for a media body to be unbiased if all primary level political commentators aren't balanced.
At the BBC there is no attempt at any balance at all as every single political commentator is on the right or, in some cases, the far right.
Andrew Marr with his Tory sychophancy wet dreams, John Humphrys who backs up his BBC income with cheques from the Daily Mail, Nick Robinson (a former president of Oxford University Conservative Association), David Dimbleby (Charterhouse and Oxford), Evan Davis (Oxford and Harvard), Jeremy Paxman (Cambridge) a man who employed Romanian cleaners below minimum wage...
...you get the picture.
In the old days, the BBC only employed people who studied certain subjects at certain universities...
... not much appears to have changed.
The fact that the BBC hierarchy does not even resemble a meritocracy is only part of the point. These individuals bring their political biases and turn it into propaganda.
Consider the role of BBC's Nick Robinson in the Scottish Referendum, or the squashing of PigGate, or the reporting of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, or the suppression of news related to Jimmy Savile and senior paedophile politicians etc etc.
And prior to the last election, UKIP were given 25 features on the BBC Question Time programme.
They won only one seat but suitably split the Labour vote in England - the equivalent strategy wasn't required in Scotland as Jim Murphy singlehandedly destroyed the Labour Party north of the border.
This isn't balanced coverage...
... it is bias.
Right wing bias.
Rigging Of Markets
The BBC has a history of fictitious winners and insider production team voting on programmes such as Children In Need, Comedy Relief and Sports Relief between 2005 and 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6905095.stm).
You might think that these educated people might learn but NO! They are at it again with insider trading on that ludicrous piece of wastage of licence-payers' money - the Great British BakeOff.
BBC employees opened trading accounts with Ladbrokes and other bookmakers and bet on the winner in a certainty trade - the final show was recorded three weeks ago - but they didn't even alter their names or bet by proxy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11913626/Great-British-Bake-Off-rocked-by-10000-betting-scandal-allegations.html).
In financial markets this type of behaviour is regarded as insider trading and fraud.
People are sent to prison.
In 2006 the BBC Panorama programme focussed on the omnipresence of bungs in British football exposing Sam Allardyce, Harry Redknapp, Alex Ferguson, Frank Arnesen, Kevin Bond and Karl Oyston.
Ferguson and Allardyce refused to speak to BBC ever again once cover up was exposed.
How times change!
Allardyce is now a Match of the Day pundit alongside a former player about whom we have evidence of matchfixing while Redknapp regularly appears on BBC sporting programmes.
Mr Allardyce has a nice line in matchfixing events too (http://footballisfixed.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/fixed-match-crying-child-english.html).
And it should be remembered that Mr Redknapp only avoided prison because some individual at HMRC "messed up on the paperwork".
The links between BBC Sport and BT Sport are nepotistic as Allardyce, Redknapp and the man whose tax avoidance knows no bounds oscillate between the two media groups under the watchful eyes of those systemically corrupting English football.
The BBC are going to look foolish once again when this reality breaks as some of the individuals in their pay are matchfixers!
Treatment of Whistleblowers
Our network of whistleblowers and analysts were approached by BBC Radio 4 earlier this year over a programme on the gambling industry. Despite initial reservations, legal input persuaded one of us to be interviewed - the only input that we insisted on was that the only other people present at the interview would be the presenter Anna Meisel and technical staff unless we were informed in writing beforehand.
On arrival at BBC Media City we were greeted by Meisel and a problematic individual with close links to some of the entities orchestrating corruption in British football.
A decision was made to continue with interaction but to markedly rise the barrier of isolationism before making our complaints afterwards. Which we did.
The subsequent lies and mealy-mouthed distortions of reality from the editor of the show David Ross have persuaded us to take our complaints further to head of Radio 4 Gwyneth Williams (Oxford University).
The BBC lied. We know they lied. And they know that we know they lied.
But the BBC has an issue with whistleblowers as demonstrated by the one political commentator who isn't a rabid tory - Kirsty Wark.
Check out her statist and vaguely homophobic interventions in the interview with Glenn Greenwald about NSA and GCHQ cyber-spying programmes leaked by Edward Snowden and Wikileaks (Newsnight October 2013).
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
When Margaret Hodge MP and the Public Accounts Select Committee were questioning senior management from HSBC yesterday, there was wonderful timing in that the grilling of Rona Fairhead (member of the HSBC Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee and Nomination Committee) coincided with BBC News at 16:00.
With Fairhead being chairperson of the BBC Trust, what would the BBC do?
Well, they simply cut to the studio so that Fairhead would not be shown to be complicit in the tax evasion schemes at the bank.
The Telegraph were even more economic with the truth giving no column inches at all online to the questioning of a bank that just happens to be a major advertiser at the newspaper.
Neither of these instances exhibit a real journalism but rather a filtered PR exercise on behalf of a sociopathic bank and its miscreant employees.
This is an example of the 'journalism' of the 4th Estate.
Worse still, Baron Green of Hurstpierpoint will not have to give any evidence to the Committee at all as Tory MPs have blocked such access despite Green being chairman of the HSBC bank at the time that money laundering and tax evasion became endemic.
Furthermore, the whistleblower who exposed crime at HSBC, Herve Falciani, has stated that hundreds of banks globally are illegally offering tax evasion and money laundering schemes to wealthy clients.
This corruption is systemic.
In the words of Laurie Penny: "Why – let's be frank – isn't Parliament Square on fire?"
Mainstream media (msm) journalism fails miserably once it is the elite that needs bringing to justice.
The same is true of football journalism - so, individual editors, writers and talking heads at The Guardian, Sky Sports, BT Sports, The Telegraph, BBC, ITV have knowledge of or are complicit in matchfixing and insider trading in the sport and yet expose no truths as to the hyperrealities of corruption in British football.
One has to agree with Andrew Jennings that there are NO British mainstream sports' journalists worthy of the name!
The manufacturing of consent by these 4th Estate structures is the primary reason for the growth in 5th Estate journalism and the matrix has now reached a stage where there are gradations of openness external to the msm mass of mediocrity.
Estate 5.0 - Wikileaks, Anonymous, Occupy, Alexa O'Brien
Estate 4.75 - OpDeathEaters, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Heather Marsh, Gabriella Coleman, Sarah Kay
Estate 4.50 - Laurie Penny, Owen Jones, Advocacy Groups, Al Jazeera, Gary Younge
Estate 4.25 - NGO-Lite Groups, occasional forays by MSM journalists towards reality
Estate 4.0 - Top-down state propaganda, Establishment PR, creation of entirely fake narratives by BBC, ITV etc
In the chart above, any 'journalism' at Estate 4.25 or below is, at best, naive PR and, at worst, complicit in the corruptions at play.
But the systemic nature of so many of the abusive strategies in finance, law, government, msm, accountancy, military etc allows an array of different strategies to be developed to target the Untruths.
A combination of Estate 4.5 to Estate 5.0 brings about the biggest impact against systemic shenanigans as the strategic defence of the abusive structures are far more compromised by a concerted set of actions - direct action, ratcheting up libellous 'tensions' and aiming for a consensus leading to incremental change.
But when matchfixing, insider trading, institutional corruption, the internalised role of mafia groups and the associated money laundering that runs alongside is eventually exposed, we will have the footballing equivalent of Fairhead, Gulliver, Meares and Green saying how they were doing their jobs and had no idea etc etc etc blah blah blah.
Jean Baudrillard: "They are merely playing as they have been taught to play, speculating on the Bourse of statistics and images. This speculation is total, and immoral, just like that of the financial speculators. In the face of the idiotic certainty and inexorable banality of numbers, the masses are an incarnation, on the margins, of the principle of uncertainty in the sociological sphere. As the powers-that-be strive to organise their statistical order (and the social order is now a statistical order), so it falls to the masses to look, in clandestine fashion, to the interests of the statistical disorder."