Brexit Do Over Petition is a Scam…

“Signatories” came from Ghana, Vietnam, Uganda and Turkmenistan.

Via Truth Revolt

As if we needed further proof that the mainstream media are barren of a single shred of journalistic integrity and that its members are in dire need of public flogging.

So desperate are media elite for a Brexit “do-over” that they are literally reporting lies as incontrovertible fact. No sooner the majority of British voters made their voices heard with a vote to exit the European Union, did mainstream media at home and abroad begin peddling the narrative that Brits were “remorseful” over their decision and wanted a “do-over.”

How on earth members of media knew precisely how millions of British voters felt in the 24 hours following the vote is beyond us. Perhaps they went door to door to ask. Perhaps they acquired new telepathic abilities.

No. They just lied. Like they always do.

You’ve probably seen the popular story circulating MSM this weekend that claims a referendum petition is in the works calling for a Brexit re-vote and that it’s garnered around 3 – 3.5 million signatories thus far.

As recently as Monday, June 27, CNN reported that so many people rushed to sign the petition that the official government site where it is housed, crashed. Yes, that’s how badly MSM wants you to believe that Brits realized the “error of their ways” and that, despite their conclusive vote to exit the E.U., what Brits “really want” is a chance to re-cast their votes to “remain.”

EU petition

Worst of all was ABC’s George Stephanopolous, who on Sunday touted the 3-million “strong” petition and actually had the gall to say Britain’s “standing in the world has been, slightly diminished” and that also diminished is the U.S.-Britain “special relationship.”

Click Here for Video

Only it turns out that many of the petition’s signatories are fabricated in a prank engineered by hackers 4Chan and Anonymous (we are unclear if it is “the” Anonymous or just a lone hacker posting as “anonymous”).

The blog HeatStreet did the journalistic work the BBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, SkyNews and just about every other mainstream outlet failed to do, exposing the petition’s signatories as fraudulent. The site reports:

The BBC’s desperate shilling for Remain will come under increasing scrutiny as we exclusively reveal that the supposed ‘popular petition’ for a second referendum – wholly illegal and unworkable, and unprecedented in British history – is a prank by notorious sh*tposters 4 Chan.

The BBC, the UK’s national broadcaster, gleefully reported, as real, with no basic journalistic checks, an online petition that appeared to be growing at a colossal rate. By 1:30 pm, it was one of the fastest-growing petitions in history.

So fast, in fact, that somebody should have checked for bots and scripts. The BBC is failing totally in its Charter Duty to perform basic journalistic research.

HeatStreet provides a screenshot of the actual script used to fabricate the new Brexit re-call petition votes:

Hacker Prank Brexit 2

HeatStreet rightfully boasts that it did the “basic journalistic work that the BBC failed to do” and that it alone brought readers “the proof that the spamming of the petition is a magnificent 4Chan prank that the Chads and Stacys of the BBC and liberal media swallowed whole.” Indeed.

Among the more glaringly obvious indicators that the petition was a prank? The IP addresses for so-called signatories came from all over the globe, including Ghana, Vietnam, Uganda and Turkmenistan. In addition, between 40,000 to 50,000 “signatories” came from Vatican City, which has a population of about 800 and another roughly 30,000 signatories came from — wait for it — North Korea.

HeatStreet also scoured online hacker forums and found what some on the web are saying about the hoax:

They’ll look at the IPs and wonder how the fuck people from north Korea and the Vatican are voting

Most online petitions are fraudulent as fuck anyway due to the lack of any verification needed and the fact that you can make a petition over anything.

Anyone remember the whitehouse.gov petition by /jp/ to ban normalf*gs and janitors? Something to that effect anyway.

>divismail.ru

How long until they blame Putin’s hackers for it?

Hackers were boasting on social media about their hilarious prank from the get-go, yet the MSM and leftwing globalists just couldn’t accept it:

Screen Shot 2016-06-27 at 7_16_43 AMScreen Shot 2016-06-27 at 7_15_46 AM

Ironically, only RussiaToday, The Telegraph and the Mirror UK thus far have reported that a “fraud probe” is underway after finding that at least “77,000” signatures proved fake.

The HeatStreet site provides additional proof, however, that the hoax goes deeper than a mere 77,000 signatures. The site shares screenshots of hackers boasting about the prank as well as additional code hackers have used both past and present to crash Parliament’s websites and petitions.

Obvious questions that should have been ever-present in any “journalist’s” mind are: how could a petition garner that many signatures in such short order, and, where do these signatories come from? Prompting said “journalist” to think: surely, there must be something awry with that poll, I best look into the origins of these so-called “signatures” before reporting them to the world as factual.

That would, however, mean doing one’s job and presenting facts rather than revisionism.

There are no depths too low for the mainstream media, which time and again exposes themselves as the grotesque, shameless cretins that they are.


5
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Ghost

When I was in the J-school learning how to write good, I took Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis classes in graduate school because they said I had to in order to become a Master Journalist.

We studied how to measure percent of error and how to recognize trends and correlation in data sets. Well, that was what the syllabus suggested we were doing. What I did was learn how to manipulate my data to get the desired result. Did I do that? No, I did not do that in any “real” situation that impacted any lives. However, in the academic setting, with the residents of the Ivory Tower on a first name basis with me, I might have slipped a few extra survey questionnaires into those collected that might have skewed the result one way or another.

“Fascinating correlations there between the Oscar Nominations for Best Movie and the Price of a Newspaper in China, Maggie! You get an A plus plus plus.”

I really learned that someone who understands the calculations that go into doing a factorial analysis versus the weighted scale approach that goes into a peer-reviewed ** qualitative analysis project can really put a spin on the data set so early in the process that it would almost take a computer to find the anomaly. For an oversimplified example: If I know ahead of time that two more “yes” answers to the question about a certain topic are needed in order to swing the “trend” of the data in such a way that the data begins to “correlate” in ways I desire, then I might pad the data set with surveys filled out with those “yes” answers. However, since I don’t want two identical surveys in the mix, I either have to answer the other questions on the survey randomly OR I have to take the time to determine what sort of answers NEED to be there to help in other areas central to my thesis. I can either support the TRUE trend OR I can insert data that skews the trend in a direction I want. Random creates some fascinating correlations sometimes.

Once you find a statistical correlation? You can make your data fit any kind of correlation you want and you can back it up with statistic after statistic to prove that the correlation is real and not coincidental.

And, if you are an excellent reader and decent writer like me? You can find academic support for your conclusion in the vast body of peer reviewed literature that belongs in the academic junkyard of life.*

*I am not done with this, but now that we can edit at will, I can take a break and see if this makes any sense to anyone out there before I waste any more time with this train of thought.

** Peer-reviewed aside. Once, when I was in grad school, I submitted an article to a certain state historical society for consideration for publication. I received a nice letter back from the quarterly rag saying that they were very interested in my subject matter and article. However, they would like the article to be revised with a bit of an environmental impact slant and wondered if I might have it peer reviewed prior to re-submission? I took the letter to the homeroom moms’ meeting and asked if anyone would be willing to glance at my article and “peer review the hell out of it.” I didn’t bother with the environmental slant shit.

susanna

Wow Maggie,
you are one of the smarties!
George Staphinfection is one of our world’s
biggest infections…maybe MRSA even.
And isn’t just about everything from MSM et al
a scam?

Ed
Ed

Getting one’s news from TV is asking to be deceived, and a TV addict’s idea of searching the web for confirmation of news sources consists of doing a Google search for the MSM news corporations’ sites online.

TV addicts reveal themselves in online discussions by using the catch-phrases of TV announcers and by referring to the hoaxes presented on TV sites as though they are true. A person has to want to wake the fuck up before he can start the process of waking up, and that requires cutting off the source of hypnotism in his living room: the TV set.

CT-Hilltopper
CT-Hilltopper

I’m sorry but I have to say HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

George Stephanopolous, special snowflake extraordinaire, has been shown to be the insufferable twat that he really is

susanna

Proud to report = no TV whatsoever, and better for it.
I have ROKU, but v rarely use it.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading