On July 10, at 6:39 ET, the BBC ran a story with a headline that stated, “Pony ‘beaten’ into Hampshire lake dies“.I am sure millions around the world had the same reaction as I did when I first read the accounts as reported by the BBC. We really do owe a debt of gratitude to the nameless reporter who informed us of this heinous act. Well, that is what many must have thought as they read the story first thing Monday Morning before they headed off to work. Then again, what if the reporter was telling a tale that was wrong? What if the “facts” reported to the world early Monday morning are totally different from what actually happened?

Well the truth of the matter is actually 180 degrees opposed to what the nameless reporter stated in his story. The truth is that I would not even have a story if it were not for the BBC’s correcting its nameless reporter’s misguided lies. That’s right, 27 hours after the BBC allowed a lie to be posted on its news site, the truth came out. That’s better than the Daily Mail which still stands by its misleading story. The incident was not an act of animal cruelty as was reported. It was, in fact, a tragic accident that almost took the life of a man who attempted to save the horse from drowning. So 27 hours after the lie was allowed to circle the globe, the BBC ran this story, “Man kicked helping drowning pony in Hampshire“.

(Army Divers and Hampshire Fire and Rescue workers recovered the pony’s body from the lake)

In what can only be described as an attempt to drum up anger against the way horses are treated by those who use horses as they have been used for thousands of years, a reporter wrote a purposely incorrect story about a tragedy. It’s said, thanks to the internet, that a lie can circle the globe twice before truth can even get it’s shoes on. In this case, the lie also had a 27-hour head start before truth had a chance to even pick up its shoes. Oh I know, many of those who defend the MSM will say,

“Hey at least they corrected the story by telling the truth.“

Oh yeah? Maybe you will also notice that they never removed the false story, and they even posted a link at the bottom of the true version to the false version, yet they never linked the truth to the misleading story. Why is this such a big issue besides the obvious? Well, if you do a simple Google search with the headlines in quotes, you will see that the false version of the story has been repeated, 143 times. (by the time many read this I am sure that number will increase tenfold) That means that over 100 outlets have picked up on the false report. So how many times has the true version been picked up? Once.That’s right, only once has the story been reproduced on the web. So other than the original BBC story, only one other site has run with the true version of what happened. As usual, the MSM refuses to promote the truth, but relishes spreading a lie, or at least a half truth at best.

Click on image above to use interactive
google map of Lake Hawley

Now I realize that there will be those who will still claim that my whole article is a bunch of crap because even with both versions it seems that the horse in question was abused and that the reporter was probably closer to the truth in the first version. So I decided to ask a friend of mine to do some investigative reporting into the matter for me. The information that follows was passed on to me by Toby Jones, and it is much closer to the truth than the stories written by the reporter at the BBC.

In what can only be described as an attempt to drum up anger against the way horses are treated by those who use horses as they have been used for thousands of years, a reporter wrote a purposely incorrect story about a tragedy. It’s said, thanks to the internet, that a lie can circle the globe twice before truth can even get it’s shoes on. In this case, the lie also had a 27-hour head start before truth had a chance to even pick up its shoes. Oh I know, many of those who defend the MSM will say,

“Hey at least they corrected the story by telling the truth.“

Oh yeah? Maybe you will also notice that they never removed the false story, and they even posted a link at the bottom of the true version to the false version, yet they never linked the truth to the misleading story. Why is this such a big issue besides the obvious? Well, if you do a simple Google search with the headlines in quotes, you will see that the false version of the story has been repeated, 143 times. (by the time many read this I am sure that number will increase tenfold) That means that over 100 outlets have picked up on the false report. So how many times has the true version been picked up? Once.That’s right, only once has the story been reproduced on the web. So other than the original BBC story, only one other site has run with the true version of what happened. As usual, the MSM refuses to promote the truth, but relishes spreading a lie, or at least a half truth at best.

Now I realize that there will be those who will still claim that my whole article is a bunch of crap because even with both versions it seems that the horse in question was abused and that the reporter was probably closer to the truth in the first version. So I decided to ask a friend of mine to do some investigative reporting into the matter for me. The information that follows was passed on to me by Toby Jones, and it is much closer to the truth than the stories written by the reporter at the BBC.

Many of us realize that the majority of what the MSM does today is to push agendas instead of reporting the truth. When I think about who may be telling the truth of this story, I lean toward believing those at the Sailing Club, who have nothing to gain by not being truthful.  However, we know what the media gains by misleading the public. See, they could have printed what the trainer told them.  After all, Toby was informed by the trainer that he also spoke to the media, but obviously the reporter decided not to use what the trainer told him. After all, that information would not fit their template, would it?

The MSM, whether it be in America, Britain, Australia, or Germany, has for many years been trying to push an agenda, and lately that agenda is against anyone who may harm an animal, even if that action was in the course of hunting, or unintentional, as I believe was the death of this pony. I am waiting with bated breath for the BBC to do a report one day on fox hunting, while posting the following headline that screams,

“Sinister Looking Mob in Red Jackets Deliberately Run Down
and Kill Innocent Fox, While Horrified Families Look On”

I agree that my example is a hunting incident, and the story about the pony is a tragic accident, but when it comes to the media today, can you honestly say that you believe they see a difference between the two situations? It is truly sad that unpaid and unheralded reporters, like myself and a millions of other bloggers around the world, have to do what the old dinosaur media used to do. However, we are more than up to the task.

Below are excerpts from both versions of the story for you to compare for yourself. As you read both versions of the story, you will notice that in the correct version, after the writer was probably forced to write a true version, that he/she still editorializes the idea that something is obviously amiss, injecting conjecture into a news story. Yet nowhere in the original false version did the writer ever question if the whole incident may have been an accident. Oh yeah, I’m keeping a full HTML version of both reports just in case they attempt to remove the evidence of their lies somewhere down the road.

The next time some leftist tells you that the MSM is not biased against the truth, maybe you should send them this report that has uncovered their naked lies by catching the blood of truth all over their hands..

Check Out These Popular Videos

While I believe children should be punished for the bad things they do, I also think it is high time many politicians are taken to the woodshed. Starting with Obama.

After the collaspse of the Roman Empire, the money system as it was known collapsed, and thus money was a useless commodity. Hence, Charlemagne could not buy the loyalties of the Barons. Charlemagne devised a plan and raised an army. He marched into a Baron’s lands, defeating him and gaining control. However, rather than leaving it at that and marching onwards, he offered the land back to the Baron in return for his loyalty, some revenue and more troops for his army. The Baron accepted, and onwards Charlemagne marched, his army bolstered and backed with funds. The next Baron fell, and was offered back his lands, accepting once again, and so on… soon he had united the lands beneath with a Feudal system keeping things under control. Hence, the previous money based economy was replaced with a land based economy.

With Charlemagne being successful in his consolidation of all the lands, he now lorded over the entire realm of the Franks and had hardly any work to do. However, the Barons were now presented with the same problems, similar to Charlemagne: how to keep the populace under control, and how to recruit troops without causing dissent. The solution: Lords; but again, the Lords were faced with problems of their own, and so the Feudal chain was created:

• King/Emperor: The King/Emperor was at the top. He owned all the lands in the realm and controlled the armies.
• Barons: Barons were given a fiefdom by the King/Emperor, and although they did not own it, they controlled it and could do what they wished with it. In return, they recruited troops for the King’s/Emperor’s army and were required to give the King a place to stay as he travelled.
• Lords: Lords, Knights chosen by the Barons, were given a castle to live in, and dominion over the area around them. In return they sent the Barons one of their best Knights (that would in turn be sent to the King/Emperor), and would appoint tax collectors for the Barons. They were required to collect the taxes of produce from the peasents and send them to the King.
• Villeins: Villeins were serfs chosen by the Lords to live on a plot of land near their castle. They did not own the land, and could not sell it, but they had a better life than your average serf. In return they worked on the Lord’s manor.
• Serfs: Serfs were not given any land, they were tied to the land they were born on and they were required to work for their Lords. During times of war they were conscripted into the peasent militia with little more than some leather armour (if any) and a common farming implement as a weapon.

At the top, the King/Emperor lived an easy life, often travelling the country side to make his presence known, he never stayed in one area long however. The Barons prospored, Lords were fairly well off, but Villeins were downtrodden, and Serfs were utterly oppressed. In principle, the Feudal system worked because it was a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” system. The Lords were generous enough to allow Serfs and Villains to live on their lands, so they had to work, the Barons were generous enough to give the Lord’s castles, so they had to keep control and send money and knights, and the King/Emperor was generous enough to allow the Barons’ fiefdoms, so they had to bolster his army and pay him his dues. Since all the lower classes did was work for the upper classes, they were supposed to be provided for by the upper classes. This usually wasn’t the case, however.

Serfs were expected to go to war, and their Lords were expected to outfit them. The only problem was, it is much easier to outfit hundreds of peasents with old leather armour, than newer ring mail or chain mail. Similarly, rather than spending time to ensure that the Serfs’ did not live in squalor, it was much easier to simply ensure they had a dwelling, and to leave it at that. Thus, the Feudal system only worked for short periods of time, and wasn’t very productive. Over time, the lower classes would become restless unless something was done to keep them in control, and there was always problems with succession in a Feudal system. This is shown with the collapse of Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire and its division into three kingdoms.