I have listened to the British Broadcasting Corporation; BBC, all my life.   Years ago I thought it an honest and trustworthy.   Unlike local broadcast which often had a political tinge, I believed the BBC was without agenda.

I began listening on short wave radio and then, when the BBC decided to broadcast on FM, my dial was permanently fixed on the station.   I turned on the radio when I awoke, and it stayed on until I was leaving.  It went on when I returned home.   The only time it was off was if I were watching television, talking on the phone, or out of the house.

BBC World Service used to give more news and less program than it does today.  I suppose they had less 'papers to peddle' so could have news item after news item without being concerned as to the 'overall' image they were projecting.

As time passed and they realised their power and ability to manipulate minds they began to limit their broadcasting of news to about five minutes every hour and 2 minutes in between the hours.  That gave them 53 minutes to waste with rubbish, near rubbish and constantly repeated non-news programs; i.e. 'Hard Talk', which is to be an interview with some one but is more the presenter running his mouth and being rude, Boston Calling, unimportant stories from America, i.e. a Syrian restaurant and its patrons, a company that makes Sriracha, things you don't need to hear.

The views of the BBC drip from every so-called news broadcast.  You know their political leanings, their bias simply by how and what they report.

For example, at 8 am, my time, I'll hear how Israel fired 5 rockets into Gaza.  This will be repeated at 8:30, 9:00, 9:30 and then, when CNN reports that 500 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, they will report it at 10:00 and then drop the story.

The only time the BBC was not pro-Palestinian was when their reporter, Alan Johnston,  was kidnapped and held prisoner.  A few weeks after his release they were back to their previous level of dis-information.

Being more than simply pro-homosexuality, they will report the murder of a homosexual with drooling outrage, babbling about hate crime, until they learn he was killed by his lover.   Then they drop the story.

Recently, they were dead sure that Britain, the country from which they broadcast, the streets they walk, the people they are presumed to associate with, would vote to remain in the E.U.

They live there, they should be presumed to know what happens in their own country. 

Ha!

They were shocked by the 'Out' vote, and devoted two days babbling on and on and on about how it was a mistake, have three or four 'Remain' babblers being interviewed, and one 'Out' supporter.  

Their absolute shock at how their country voted was the centre of their reporting.  And here, how many thousands of miles away, all I can do is reflect that if they don't know the sentiments of their own country, how would they know anything about other countries?

Yet, they babble on and on with this authority as if they are the voice of truth.  They shove into countries all over the world as if they are honest and can be believed. 

Local stations, as we all know, are owned by the government or some private group and have their own bias.   They want the public to accept their version of an event.  They report as much as they feel the public needs to know.  

The BBC, of course, is no worse than others.

For example, those murders at an Orlando night club.  The facts are simple, the shooter was a homosexual.  He was a regular at the club.  He belonged to gay dating sites, his ex-wife divorced him because of his homosexuality.  

These are facts that one can get by slipping out of the noose of 'Big Brother' and getting the word from the street, getting information that the F.B.I wants suppressed. Why?

It is America's decision that the shooter was a Muslim terrorist.  It makes it all easier to stir up more hatred against Muslims.  

The B.B.C. is agreed with that view so also suppressed the information. 

What's the purpose?

The B.B.C., that is the British government,  wants to appear that it supports the Palestinians but is simply anti-Israel. It doesn't want any more Muslims in its territory and that those who are there will try to assimilate.

The United States does not want any more Muslims to immigrate and would like to get rid of those who are already there.

By stirring up the public to hold an anti-Islamic view the borders can be locked and various actions can be performed with the blessing of the citizens.

Hence, the fact the Orlando shootings had nothing to do with any Islamic terrorist group must be suppressed.

Venezuela is another place the BBC despises.  No matter what the facts are, the spin will always make it seem to be the fault of the government, until various American and British clandestine organisations can overthrow the government, push in their lackey.

Then, of course, Venezuela will be the new paradise.

One doesn't need to be an expert on global politics or history.  Simple see how many times a story is repeated and the sentiments around it.   

Does the presenter sound disgusted? Pleased? Are the adjectives used positive or negative?  What impression do you get?  Do you feel sad?  Angry? Annoyed? Do you agree, do you take sides, do you treat the report as accurate?  

Your reaction to a story is set by the BBC, (and other broadcasters).  If they want you to hate, if they want you to agree, if they want you to support, however you feel, know that your reaction was produced by the BBC.   

As those who live in the United Kingdom know the BBC as their hand middle, see through it as if cellophane, they do what they please knowing the BBC with get it wrong.  

The election of David Cameron, despite all the polls and presenters of the BBC believing he would be defeated, Brexit, despite the certainty that Britain would opt to stay, is simply evidence that the BBC can not fool the British people as it so facily does with the rest of the world.