Same day as China's Chang'e 6, as the world's first ever, had landed back on Earth with samples from the far side of the Moon, BBC's radio troll Sarah Montague didn't manage with a word to mention it in her 45 min "news"!

Watch how US stole the dollar

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

Sarah Montague's hateful and racist Sinophobia is part of BBC's perverted anti-China propaganda that not only clashes with English consumers and companies* interest, but is also dangerous because it goes now in desperate $-embezzler US lead.

* Except of course military ones. However, because China is the technological world leader, Western (i.e.US made or controlled, with Chinese parts) military equipment is already outdated in an accelerating tempo.

People in England have to pay a compulsory fee to BBC under threat of penalty, no matter if they like its misleading propaganda or not. The only thing worth listening on BBC are a few consumer and private economy programs. All the others are BBC in-house propaganda added with out of house* propaganda - which are promoted in ads equally annoying and frequent as on commercial media. And BBC's s.c. "science" programs constitute a joke

* Usually oligarchially connected to already well-off BBC staff.

Cherry picking hate

BBC impartiality: Although BBC's radio troll Sarah Montague is extremely eager on "reporting" made up negatives about China, she always completely misses positives! 

If BBC's Sarah Montague is so dumb that she doesn't get what she's doing, then Peter Klevius will of course forgive her. However, then she shouldn't be rewarded by BBC for spreading misleading propaganda.

Apart from BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's fake "news" and deliberate lying by choosing guests bolstering BBC's lies, BBC also violates every journaistic communication rule:

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co appeal to force or threat is a form of communication meant to support violence/militarism against China.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co try to force compliance with words as weapons, directly intended to exert power.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co use name calling instead of engaging in fair arguments, and  don't engage substantive reasons or arguments, hence clearly aiming to amplify feelings of conflict against China.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's objectification makes it easier to defend violence/militarism against China/Chinese.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's reification of Chinese, their government etc. steals from the Chinese people their humanity and complexity in order to amplify perhaps alredy existing emotional disdain in the listeners.

BBC's Sarah Montague & Co overgeneralize in a distorted way and draw conclusions that are too broad to be justified. The purpose of this distorted thinking and communication is to advance a Sinophobic position that strengthens an us/them division and amplifies emotions directed toward the absolute majority of Chinese people.

When innocent Julian Assange was released from UK jail (jailed on order from US that its puppet "ally" UK obeyed), 

 

The plea deal was a ploy by the US Government to avoid embarrassment - but BBC continues following criminal US lead by implying guilt.

Julian Assange never risked anyone's life - but he told the world that US both risked and did murdered and tortured innocent people.

Peter Klevius judicial criticism of plea deals: 

A plea deal is a medieval form of torture that US has reinstated (to its other forms of torture) - and some other countries have followed. Even though Assange has accepted a plea deal to avoid trial, a truly independent judge could still change the sentence proposed in the plea deal. So if the sentencing judge accepts it, one may ask why? This constitutes the weak link because if the judge is independent as s/he should be, then what value does a sentencing proposal in a plea deal really have?