NHS TNT

Despite Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, suggesting the NHS is Labour’s “comfort zone” at a speech in London on Saturday, 43 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Theresa May and the Conservatives would do a better job than Jeremy Corbyn and Labour managing the NHS this winter”. Around 30 per cent agreed that Mr Corbyn and Labour would do a better job than the Tories, while 26 per cent responded “don’t know”.

 

Apparently the Tories are now more trusted on the NHS than Labour.  Perhaps that’s why the BBC is blitzing us with so many tales of crisis in the NHS just now…and hardly blinking as ‘Big Pharma’ tried to blackmail the government into spending more on its drugs demanding £20 billion be pumped into the NHS or else….Normally ‘Big Pharma’ is the evil face of capitalism writ large…not now, during an election, as it demands more money for the NHS.

The Tories introduced the Cancer Drug Fund in 2010 to provide drugs that were not considered to be the most cost effective by NICE to patients.  Today the BBC has been bombarding us with loud criticism of the fund from the Prof. Richard Sullivan who tells us that the fund is an expensive and maybe even dangerous waste of time…

The Cancer Drugs Fund in England was a “huge waste of money” and may have caused patients to suffer unnecessarily from the side effects of the drugs, according to UK researchers.

The fund ran from 2010 to 2016, costing £1.27bn, following an election promise made by the Conservatives to pay for cancer drugs the NHS was not funding.

The choice of words by Sullivan indicates this attack on the Tory policy is highly political….

‘A huge waste of money’…’patients suffering unnecessarily.

“policy on the hoof” because of the way it was announced.

“Populism doesn’t work when you are dealing with complex areas of policy like this. When it was launched it was not monitored properly. It was politically and intellectually lazy.”

‘Populism’?  Hmmm…it has been the BBC itself that has helped drive politicians to take such measures.  The BBC has relentlessly given a platform to campaigners who demand drugs that NICE would not approve and fund….the BBC has provided massive publicity and backing for these campaigns…and undoubtedly half those radio awards that Victoria Derbyshire got, who specialised in these sort of stories, were for such reports.  The BBC has driven that ‘populism’.

You might also ask why this has suddenly made the news headlines….because this study by Sullivan was released in March this year….and only now making BBC headlines as an election is under way……any chance this is a bit of flagrant opportunism by Sullivan who knows that the BBC will lap this stuff up and give it an enormous profile?…Whatever you think of the CDF the criticism here is politically motivated, certainly by the BBC….

Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund

  • Richard Sullivan
    Authors
    Richard Sullivan + 1
  • Annals of Oncology 
     0: 1–13, 2017
  • Results:
     Of the 47 CDF approved indications, only 18 (38%) reported a statistically significant OS benefit, with an overall mediansurvival of 3.1months (1.4–15.7months). When assessed according to clinical benefit scales, only 23 (48%) and 9 (18%) of the 47drug indications met ASCO and ESMO criteria, respectively. NICE had previously rejected 26 (55%) of the CDF approvedindications because they did not meet cost-effectiveness thresholds. Four drugs—bevacizumab, cetuximab, everolimus andlapatinib—represented the bulk of CDF applications and were approved for a total of 18 separate indications. Thirteen of theseindications were subsequently delisted by the CDF in January 2015 due to insufficient evidence for clinical benefit—data whichwere unchanged since their initial approval.
    Conclusions:
     We conclude the CDF has not delivered meaningful value to patients or society. There is no empirical evidenceto support a ‘drug only’ ring fenced cancer fund relative to concomitant investments in other cancer domains such as surgeryand radiotherapy, or other noncancer medicines. Reimbursement decisions for all drugs and interventions within cancer careshould be made through appropriate health technology appraisal processes.

Sullivan used to work for Cancer Research UK [‘populist’ pressure group?]….funny how back then cost effectiveness wasn’t so much an issue…as long as any small benefit of a drug could be shown then NICE should fund it…..

 Disappointment over NICE’s ruling on kidney drugs
Experts have greeted with dismay apreliminary decision by the UK’s Na-tional Institute for Health and ClinicalExcellence (NICE) on new agents forthe treatment of renal cell carcinoma(RCC). NICE stated that: ‘Bevacizumab,sorafenib, sunitinib and temsirolimusare not recommended as treatment options for advanced and/or meta-static RCC.’People currently receiving the drugs should have the option to continue therapy until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop, NICE said.  The recommendations were made in an appraisal consultation document and, at the time of writing, comments were still being received. NICE stated that the recommendations ‘are preliminary and may change after consultation.’  In the meantime, 25 professors of cancer medicine complained about the decision in a letter to the national newspaper, the Sunday Times.

‘We are dismayed at the decision by NICE on the rationing of drugs for patients with advanced kidney cancer,’ they wrote. ‘Once again, NICE has shown how poorly it assesses new cancer treatments. Its economic formulae are simply not suitable for addressing cost effectiveness in this area of medicine. Mean survivals obscure the fact the some patients will obtain prolonged benefit from these drugs. It is essential that NICE gets its sums right.’  Cancer Research UK also expressed concern, and called for a change in the way NICE reviews the value of drugs for rare diseases, where clinical benefitis proven but evidence is limited.  Professor Peter Johnson, the charity’s chief clinician, said, ‘We are disappointed at NICE’s view that although these drugs are clinically effective,their high price means that they arenot considered to be value for moneyfor the National Health Service. These drugs have shown a small but definite improvement in an illness where there are few alternative treatments. If this decision stands it will be very frustrating for cancer patients and their clinicians .  ‘Although we understand that NICE often has to make difficult decisions,in this case there is a clear separation between what NICE finds to be valuable treatment, and clinical and patient opinion. Action is needed to bring these two positions closer together.’

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Demeanising Boris

 

Boris is in the BBC’s bad books, as usual…he’s insulted and demeaned poor old mugwump Corbyn…have to say his humorous description was perfectly apt describing Corbyn’s naive and gormless operating style to a T.  The BBC of course would never stoop to such mockery…..despite having spent years abusing Boris, and indeed once calling him a ‘nasty piece of work’…not much humour there….and of course spending the last two years deriding, mocking and insulting Trump…the sneering is of course ongoing.

Emma Barnett told us Boris was a ‘joke’ for saying such a terribly demeaning thing about Corbyn….not herself seeing the hypocrisy in her claims as she uses a personal insult to criticise him.

Then there’s UKIP and their ban on Burkas….the BBC can’t help reporting, again and again, that ‘people think they are racist, Islamophobic, nazis and BNP-like’…..never mind Merkel has just announced something similar…and of course France has its own ban….

Germany agrees to ban female civil servants, judges and soldiers from wearing the full-face burka at work

A draft law to ban German civil servants, judges and soldiers from wearing full-face burkas at work has been agreed by the country’s parliament.

The move comes after Chancellor Angela Merkel called in December for a ban on full-face Muslim veils ‘wherever legally possible’.

The BBC has also spent the day mocking Trump for his ‘achievements’ in his first 100 days in power…never once admitting that he had 95% of the media against him as well as the Democrats and much of his own party, never mind a good portion of the intelligence and security agencies and Democratically aligned Establishment…including politically motivated judges acting outside their powers.  Personally I think Trump has done pretty well and certainly put America back on the map internationally in so many respects.

And what did Obama achieve?  Obamacare…..and that was forced through by Democrat shenannigans…To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along.”…The American system of governance was shafted.

How Obamacare Became Law

It was the trickiest legislative move ever accomplished in the Congress.  Here’s my best play-by-play:

Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010.  If you recall, Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was unable to pass their version of a healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They essentially stripped the bill of its original language and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obamacare.

The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare.  However after the bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died.  In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown.  That meant that if the House made any changes to the bill the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the amended bill (because they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare).  So Senate Leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Pelosi: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes if the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare.  This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. At this point PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.

Confused?

We all were.

And it got worse.

Remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy.  Therefore in order to pass the Act Senate Democrats decided to change the rules.  They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule (this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill).  This rule was only supposed to be used for budget item approvals so that such items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60.  Reconciliation was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. But that didn’t stop them.

So both of the “Acts” were able to pass both houses of Congress and sent to President Obama for his signature without a single Republican vote in favor of the legislation.  The American system of governance was shafted.  To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Double Trouble

 

 

The BBC is up to its usual tricks doubling up on ‘disaster’.  The GDP figures were out yesterday and showed a slight slow down….this ‘disaster’ the BBC has been trumpeting all day in every bulletin is because of inflation, due to the pound falling, due to Brexit.  They topped off the narrative, just in case you hadn’t got the message, with a clip of Sturgeon telling us we’re all doomed, doomed she tells you!!  Not at all sure why the BBC chose someone who has such a vested interest in stirring up trouble to comment on something that needs sensible, expert comment rather than shrill, highly political ranting other than they could guarantee she would provide the necessary anti-Brexit angry bombast.

When the news is good you don’t hear a peep out of the BBC let alone a day long blaring prophecy of coming apocalypse that is the usual BBC soundtrack to the slightest bad news.

Britain is still doing better than most countries and what the BBC bulletins weren’t letting on is that the vast majority of inflation [over two thirds] is due to international commodities rising and the price of oil increasing due to OPEC pumping out more as they failed to destroy the US fracking industry in the economic war the Muslim oil countries launched against the US.

The BBC’s reluctance to admit that is strange as they said this about the cause of Europe’s rising inflation in March…

Eurozone inflation has risen above the European Central Bank’s (ECB) target rate for the first time in four years.

The increase in inflation is largely due to rising energy prices, and analysts do not expect the ECB to alter its current stimulus programme.

However Britain’s inflation is due to Brexit, the fall in GDP due to shoppers ‘tightening their belts’ as Brexit hits them in the bank balance…they are feeling the pinch as they also feel the squeeze….

Consumers have been feeling the pinch since the beginning of 2017, with inflation sitting at its joint highest level for more than three years at 2.3% in March.

The squeeze on household spending power has led to weaker retail sales, which recorded their biggest fall for seven years in the three months to March.

The BBC’s interpretation, that this is ‘belt tightening’, consumers ‘feeling the pinch’ or a ‘squeeze’ on household spending’ is just that, an interpretation….compound that with the fact that inflation is mostly due to world price factors and not Brexit and you have a very skewed and political picture being painted by the BBC….consider this…look how the BBC explains away the fall in US growth and then comes back with a much more positive picture for later in the year….and yet no Brexit and no rapidly falling dollar……

US growth rate hits three-year low

The US economy slowed dramatically in the first three months of the year, according to official data.

GDP expanded at an annual rate of 0.7% in the first quarter – the slowest rate since the first quarter of 2014.

The slowdown was down to stagnant consumer spending, economists said.

“Household spending was held down by a drop back in motor vehicle sales from a near-record high at the end of last year and the unseasonably warm winter weather, which depressed utilities spending,” said Paul Ashworth, chief US economist at Capital Economics.

But there’s a bounce later in the year….

The Trump administration may be reassured by the trend in recent years for growth figures to be depressed in the first quarter, but then pick up later in the year.

“US GDP figures are typically weaker in the first quarter, so this reading is in line with the seasonal trend,” said Nancy Curtin, chief investment officer at Close Brothers Asset Management.

But he thinks consumer spending will “rebound” as personal income showed healthy growth and data suggests that consumer confidence remains high.

Close Brothers’ Ms Curtin also pointed out that other data suggested strength in the US economy .

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Loading the dice

 

Interesting how some very political stories are being given a very high prominence by the BBC….of course they make no mention of the election but you know that the reason they are running these stories is because they want to promote Corbyn [well, Labour] and damn the government.  Many interest groups know this and are queuing up to get some airtime with their tales of woe.

A couple of weeks ago the police were making a lot of noise about lack of funding and the BBC gave them plenty of airtime, and today we have the BBC telling us of an alarming rise in violent crime, a very recent rise after 20 years of crime falling they are keen to mention.  The BBC rely on police figures for this but also at the end of their reports reveal that the British Crime Survey says crime levels are actually static.  Why is that of interest?  Because the BBC has changed its tune…Mark Easton used to bang on about the British Crime Survey telling us it was far more reliable than the police figures which, he told us, couldn’t be relied upon because the basis for their collection was constantly changing whereas the BCS never changed, it was he said ‘a thing of beauty…unchanging, reliable, representative, independent and informative’.  Trouble is that was wrong.  The BCS changed all the time in how they gathered their data…the computers systems changed, the software changed, the company that ran it changed…and Easton trumpeted the fact that this was a survey of 40,000 people…but in fact of that only around 1,500 of these crime reports were counted once the unreliable ones were filtered out…and who made the final decision as to what counted as a crime in these surveys?  The Home Office…hardly impartial.  Easton was of course countering claims by the Tories that violent crime was going up under Labour….Easton was defending Labour….but now the BBC suddenly has a preference for the police figures….must be an election coming and the Tories are responsible for a rise in violent crime…as made clear by Police figures, says BBC.  In 2010 Easton told us that the BCS was  regarded as the best measure of crime trends.’

How about the NHS?  In the run up to the Stoke and Copeland by-elections the BBC was hitting the airwaves hard with tales of an NHS in crisis, the day before Corbyn was due to go on PMQs the BBC released a survey that condemned the government…Corbyn used that on PMQs…and Labour ran its campaign in Stoke and Copeland based on the NHS……any thought that the BBC were working hand in hand with Labour to help them out in the by-election and are now doing the same during the general election?

We have had blasts from junior doctors, again no direct link to the election was made and yet we know that was the intent.  The other day the BBC hit the A&E wards and we were told that it had never been as bad as this in 20 years and was ‘dangerous’…absolutely no reference as to why there may be problems at A&E such as a massive increase in patients from around 14 million in 2004 to over 22 million now and seemed to take no account of the fact that the Tories are putting in more money than Labour said they would at the last election and indeed Burnham said he would cut not raise spending in 2010…

Curb NHS spending pledge to save other services, says Andy Burnham

Schools and social care ‘could be badly hit’ by plans to increase health spending year on year, says shadow health secretary

Conservatives ‘irresponsible’ to oppose cuts to NHS: Andy Burnham

Andy Burnham, Health Secretary has accused the Conservatives of being irresponsible by pledging to reverse cuts and changes to A&E and children’s services in the NHS.

Will the BBC be asking Labour if its plans now to massively increase spending will come at the cost of other services such as schools and social care?  Irresponsible?

Today Guido has a perfect example of how the BBC engineers the debate by using supposedly neutral commentators who turn out to be hard-line activists…

BBC’s ‘Community Nurse’ is Prolific Corbynista Campaigner

Yesterday evening the BBC News Channel interviewed nurse Danielle Tiplady live in her NHS uniform. The on-screen caption described her only as a “community nurse“. Tiplady was highly critical of the government on NHS workers’ pay: “I know one friend for example who’s being forced to sell her flat because she cannot survive on a nurses’s salary.” The implication was that this is an ordinary nurse speaking on behalf of her colleagues…

Tiplady’s appearance was subsequently clipped and shared on Jeremy Corbyn’s official social media channels. The optics of an ordinary, uniformed nurse criticising the government would, of course, be irresistible for Labour. But neither the BBC nor Team Jez mentioned that Tiplady is far from your average nurse. While softly spoken on the news, Tiplady is, in fact, a vociferous hard-left campaigner…

  • Until recently Tiladay’s Twitter account used the name “Danielle vote Labour”.
  • Her bio still contains a heart emoji for the Labour Party.
  • She has addressed dozens of protest rallies where her favourite chant is “Tories out!”.
  • Addressed a CND rally alongside Corbyn while a student nurse at Kings College London.
  • Writes for “revolutionary socialist website” Counterfire.
  • Writes for the communist Morning Star.
  • She is a leader of the “sack Jeremy Hunt” Bursary or Bust campaign.

 

Just the usual lack of due diligence by the BBC when finding someone to comment on highly political issues.

 

Reference Mark Easton’s attack on the Tories during the 2010 election.….in 2010 police figures bad, BCS good….now in 2017, police figures [saying violent crime rising] is good, BCS [saying crime static] not so good….

New figures released today have thrown an incendiary into the election debate on violent crime.

Analysis of hospital data for England and Wales, by academics at Cardiff University [191KB PDF], shows there were 64,000 fewer violence-related attendances in emergency departments last year than in 2001 – a fall of just over 15%.

This contrasts with Conservative claims that violent crime has increased by 44% since 2002. It also appears to contradict Liberal Democrat analysis that hospital admissions for assault are rising.

The BCS, which identifies more than twice as many crimes as the recorded statistics, asks more than 40,000 people each year about their experiences of violence and is regarded as the best measure of crime trends. It suggests the number of victims of violence has halved since 1995.

Police records of violence are thought more unreliable because they are affected by people’s willingness to report crimes, police activity and changes to methodology.

 

Or this…once again telling us not to trust the police figures and to rely on the BCS…

Want crime trends? Just ask people

Recorded crime figures have always been a lousy way to identify crime trends. They are really a measure of police activity, their priorities and the confidence of the public to report crime.

Now we know that the statistics watchdog doesn’t trust the police recorded crime figures, what faith can we have that crime really has been falling for the past 20 years?

The answer is plenty.

The UK Statistics Authority has said that police recorded crime data in England and Wales should no longer be designated as National Statistics because of accumulating evidence that they may be unreliable.

o how can we be confident about crime trends? Well, at a very local level it is hard but at a force or national level there is a much better way to measure what crime is really like.

Ask people.

Each year for more than 30 years, something like 40,000 people in England and Wales have been asked how crime has affected them in the previous 12 months.

The British Crime Survey (now the Crime Survey of England and Wales or CSEW) is a world-renowned invention. Using robust statistical modelling, it identifies far more crimes than are recorded by the police.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Pitts

 

A supposed journalist, Jack Pitts from WalesOnline, who doesn’t want to talk to one of the most controversial figures in the UK even though he is happy to write stories about him behind his back and libelling him as being ‘Far Right’……astonishing…a story turns up on your doorstep and you turn it down.  Journalist or gossip columnist?

Definitely one for IPSO if not the courts….thanks to Mice Height for this….

 

 

Presumably Tommy Robinson is complaining about this report in Wales on Line which tells of a group of Muslims who wanted to talk to him…he is up for it and invited them to come with him…but they refused to get in the van and then accused Robinson of having run away….when he clearly hadn’t and was more than ready too talk….Robinson prepared to talk but a journalist is unwilling to talk and back up his own claim that Robinson is ‘Far Right’…..

This is what happened when a Swansea Muslim confronted a former leader of the far right EDL

 

 

Oh the irony….Pitts reports with glee of this ‘confrontation’ but when it comes to himself he clams up and refuses point blank to explain himself.

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

BBC Journalists are pro-immigration extremists and racists

 

Who are the extremists, those who want to allow immigration but also to control it in order to make it manageable so as to ensure better integration and that services are not overwhelmed, or those who work to smash national borders, loyalties, ethnicity and cohesion by throwing open the borders to allow in absolutely anyone and everyone who wants to come here?

The BBC, and the EU, are the real immigration extremists, the EU intent on creating loyal EU citizens who no longer care for their own nation state [and nothing to do with economics], the BBC’s extremism is even more insidious being centred on an ideology of anti-white, anti-British, racism.  The BBC, as with the Labour Party, wants to ‘brown Britain’, to rub the Right’s nose in diversity..in effect to breed out the white people, a form of ethnic cleansing.  The BBC has an inbuilt antipathy and hatred of all things British, it hates the old Empire believing it did nothing but bad and that we must now apologise and grovel to those whose land we colonised and that ‘Whiteness’ is a sign of a malignant person, a racist and oppressor who must be stopped from ever again having the whip hand as they see it….thus white people must be made to disappear….literally.  It is an irony that though they preach and celebrate ‘diversity’ what they really want is a world where everyone is exactly the same….it is a utopian dream based upon a very dangerous ignorance and naivety, a complete lack of  understanding of human nature.

It is, as said, the BBC journalists who are the real racists who are trying to promote a very nasty form of racism and yet it is these same journalists who persist in labelling anyone who wants to ensure a stable and successful society by controlling immigration as racists or of the Far-Right….not a day goes by when the BBC does not mention Marine Le Pen and ‘Far-Right’ in the same breath and yet you look in vain to find ot why she is so labelled…in fact the one indepth study of her life and politics, by the BBC itself, declared she wasn’t ‘Far-Right’…and yet….

Clearly the BBC institutional editorial decision has been to label her so, a deliberate and targeted political smear by the supposedly impartial BBC, a deliberate attempt to interfere in the French elections just as they attempted to do in the US [and yet they report in outraged tones of supposed Russian interference….which merely revealed the darker side of Clinton and the Democrats in their emails…and thus did a real service].

Lord Hall Hall really should be hung out to dry but of course Ofcom is full of BBC stooges and left-wingers who wouldn’t dream of actually holding the BBC to genuine account…if they did the whole corrupt edifice would have to be torn apart and replaced by something that was genuinely impartial or at least balanced with some right-wing journalism…let’s have half of the licence fee for a ‘Fox News’.

That went on a bit longer than I expected…it was only meant to be an intro to an article by David Sedgewick who also looks at how the BBC reports on Le Pen, immigration and the EU…

The BBC’s ever shifting far-right goal posts

The BBC wilfully confuses the policy of extreme right-wing ideologies with just about any party or politician who dares question the sanctity of mass immigration, says David Sedgwick. 

In the run-up to the French elections the BBC have been excelling themselves. Fearing victory for Marine Le Pen’s Front National party, our impartial national broadcaster has responded by upping their anti-Le Pen rhetoric to even higher levels, if that were at all possible.

The corporation has its own reasons for polarising the debate into this simple for / against dichotomy. Our politically neutral national broadcaster sees as a threat any political party that opposes its own unquestioning support for the neoliberal open borders agenda, and thus expends a considerable amount of its energy and resources attempting to nullify this threat.

That any western European nation would have the temerity to even think they have a culture worth preserving would strike Broadcasting House editorial staff as quaint, indicative of some ghastly, thinly suppressed form of white supremacism.

Furthermore, selling the dubious tenets of social engineering to such people has proved to be an almost impossible task. Much to the BBC’s annoyance it appears that a significant majority of people are somewhat attached to their heritage, culture and antecedents, what in the parlance of the cultural Marxists would be disparagingly dismissed as mere nostalgia or sentimentality.

How then to convince a population to vote against its own interests, to surrender its heritage and accept the social upheaval that is a natural consequence of unceasing mass immigration?

Easy. Play the ‘far right’ card. Smear. After all, pulling out a smear is far less taxing then constructing a compelling enough argument that convinces people to abandon their heritage. Playing the far right card allows the BBC and its fellow travellers to simply bypass potentially bothersome arguments they know they cannot possibly win.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

BIAS COSTS….

Seen this?

The number of senior BBC managers paid more than £150,000 has risen, despite assurances the figure would fall. A National Audit Office report said there were 98 people on that salary level last year, up from 89 in 2012. The BBC said reductions in the overall number of senior managers mean some staff now have more responsibilities, which has been reflected in their pay.

It’s the “special funding model” which allows these scavengers to fill their boots at our expense.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

They’re not laughing now

 

The celebs who packed out the audience and were laughing so hard in 1997 aren’t laughing so loud now as the joke becomes reality, Littlejohn aside…let’s build that wall!!!…

 

 

 

Shame coz they need something to laugh about as their richly diverse and cosmopolitan lives are being devastated as one of their fave ethnic foods is being sabotaged and is off the shelves…

Houmous crisis hits supermarkets as ‘metallic-tasting’ dip recalled – leaving empty shelves

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Red Widgets for Deliverance

 

The Red Wedge celebs are out in force for Corbyn, all the usual suspects and no doubt there will be many a comedian amongst them…some aiming to be funny, some not.

It’s just as Billy Bragg once admitted, that when a Tory government comes along its like putting lard balls out for the birds…they all come flocking…the birds being the lefty right-on bunch who get gainful employment from the BBC to fill the airwaves with their prejudices and call it comedy….the Obama worship comedy workshops are back industriously churning out Red Widgets by the millions for the People’s education and bemusement.

The latest humorous narrative that is amusing the Notting Hill hill-billies [they kinda are hill-billies, so inbred, only marrying and socialising with their own, stuck in their own little cultural backwater taking potshots at anyone who dares to enter into the swamp] is that Trump has killed satire, that he is so bizarre and absurd that nothing they can come up with can trump Trump for funny.  Of course that is supposed to be a ‘satirical’ attack in itself….that Trump is so absurd….the people who really kill comedy and satire are the comedians themselves who suddenly vanish when a black man becomes president or someone who espouses their own values and beliefs…suddenly not so funny.

Nothing funny about Obama?  The man who ‘won’ a Nobel peace prize even before he was President?  Essentially because he was Black. A man who gloried in killing Osama and who dropped 30,000 bombs on the Middle East on the quiet when he thought no one was looking but made lots of noise about withdrawing all those boots on the ground out of the front door to great lefty liberal praise….never mind Iraq then was left to the tender mercies of its Shia rulers and left a vacuum for ISIS to step in…an ISIS recreated with lots of help from Assad who was free to operate and kill hundreds of thousands of his own, destabilise the Middle East and send millions of refugees fleeing across the region as Obama stood back from taking action that would mean  having to take responsibility and again reaped the plaudits from his fans at the BBC for his ‘quiet diplomacy’.  A man who was shocked and outraged by what he claimed was Russky interference in American Democracy and then proceed to lecture us in Blighty to vote to stay in the Eu and informed the German people that Merkel is the must-vote-for candidate.  A man who promised so much but failed so badly…the Middle East in flames, Guantanamo still open, racial tensions in the US increased, Obamacare a disaster, politics ground to a standstill…and a man who refused to admit that Islamic terrorism was ‘Islamic’.

The BBC naturally loved Obama and could find little to criticise him over never mind mock and abuse him as they do Trump, not just in their ‘comedy’ but in their news programmes as well.  There’s no comedy in the fact that Beeboids, to a gender-free-person, all would be appalled at anyone blacking-up and yet they all really, really want to be black themselves…well not black but you know, culturally black, with it, down with the hood, basically a form of colonialism, trying to appropriate a whole culture and say ‘we whiteys are here to help you poor little fellows…you need us to succeed’.

No, no comedy value in the BBC’s Obama worship. No comedy mileage in the BBC’s pre-Brexit hatred of Bankers, Big Business and Capitalism, its love of the populist Occupy movement and then the sudden screeching reversal when Brexit and Trump looked liked terrifying possibilities…then the new narrative became ‘populism’ is akin to Fascism, the Bankers, Big Business and Capitalism are our friends…we need them…they are what makes this country great, profitable and powerful.

Who’d have thought 40 years from now we’ll all be living in hole in t’road?  Unseen footage of a Remain campaign advert that tells us how bad times were pre-the glorious EU and what we can look forward to if we voted for Brexit…

 

No comedy in the liberal tears as they declare the world is at an end, that the world now stops at the White Cliffs of Dover..no more trips to Paree, no more wine, no more cheese, no more baguettes….it’s all over.  Back to grey, drab, white, 1950’s Britain with rationing and living in holes in the road, with Fascists marching down the street lyncing anyone not quite white enough and the only food available is jellied eels and mash…fish and chips banned being a well known Jewish culinary creation.  Yep, farewell multicultural Britain, farewell cosmopolitan, diverse Britain, farewell my Polish maid, my Romanian gardener and my Swedish Au Pair, farewell my lovelies, it’s been nice and thanks Jews for all the fried fish.

 

Never mind.  Jim Davidson’s still alive and kicking…the BBC will still have him to fall back on when the luvvy comedians flee this benighted land stalked as it will be by angry little Englanders, economic ruin and deep misery.

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Minority Report

 

It’s, we’re told, a brave man who predicts the political future…but the BBC give it a go anyway.

On Saturday Jim Naughtie signed off his report on the French election with the thought that it was ‘rather scary’…meaning of course the possibility that Le Pen may surprise everyone.  Today we had Hugh Schofield telling us that we ‘shouldn’t be fearful of a Le Pen victory…because she won’t win.’  Any bias there?  To be fair Chiles did call Schofield out on that and Schofield tried to wriggle out by saying he meant Le Pen would in essence wreck the economy and destroy Europe…no bias there then.  And of course the BBC continues to call Le Pen ‘Far-Right’ but as yet I can find no definition from the BBC of what ‘Far-Right’ actually means…and the same Hugh Scholfield in a moment of honesty produced an indepth look at Le Pen’s life and concluded she wasn’t Far-Right but actually of the Left politically….other than on immigration.

But there’s the rub….the BBC’s working definition, unwritten, is that if you want to control immigration you are Far-Right’…code for ‘Nazi’ and way beyond the pale.   It cannot be ‘nationalism’ as the BBC would then have to describe Sturgeon as Far-Right as well as the IRA….but consider that May has just reiterated her aim to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and yet the BBC do not call her Far-Right…why?  Because they know they would not get away with it and would be called out on it.

What does this show?  It shows the BBC’s blatant manipulation of the news by using language and labels to define people and groups in order to signal either approval or disapproval of people, groups and ideologies.  Different people with very similar policies get treated and labelled differently according to whom the BBC wants you to vote for.

It’s the same with the term ‘populist’…ironically Chiles had an expert on today who pretty much spanked the BBC approach by saying people use the word ‘populist’ to denigrate those they dislike, to bash your opponents, and that it was simplistic to lump so many groups and people, such as Trump, Le Pen, Farage, Wilders [and of course Putin, Erdogan] in together…something the BBC does all the time.

Later on tonight [20:00 R4] we have another attack on Le Pen…apparently, according to all the trails for the programme, the French working class are too cultured and intelligent to vote for her…so again, no bias there.

On ‘PM’ we were treated to an ‘imaging’ of what a Le Pen Presidency would look like after 100 days…naturally she was in deep with Trump, even building a Trump Tower next to the Eiffel Tower [not saying this BBC fantasy was complete cock but it was] and of course she would destroy the economy, murder all immigrants and put all EU bureaucrats in concentration camps…but she would build motorways….so that her tanks could move rapidly on Moscow after she falls out with her new husband…Putin.

Maybe I misheard the BBC but it went something along those lines.

We later had Macron’s 100 days [17:44:50]…a similarly dystopian view…all anarchist riots backed by Mélenchon and a Le Pen wanting a piece of the action.

What’s the point of such negative rubbish?  Not as if the BBC is any good at predictions having failed to predict Trump, Brexit and a Tory majority…indeed the BBC told us that the era of one party winning a majority was over and it was coalition government all the way now.

[Also note the BBC was trying to rewrite ‘history’ for future reference at around 17:16…if Iraq and Syria implode after ISIS is finally destroyed and removed then the BBC is claiming that it will be the fault of foreign interference ..er not actually the lack of interference then from Obama?…not the fault of the Islamic terrorists then?  And does the Iraq government and Assad not play any part at all in this?  Seems not.   No, ISIS is in fact a stabilising influence…maybe they should be left in place….how very Jeremy…fascinating how the reporter backs up his claims with quotes from an ISIS fighter in an FSA prison who tells us it is all the fault of foreigners and peace is the only answer, war only brings hatred and division…amazing but true…Hitler said he only wanted peace and that was what he worked for, the BBC believed him…if only we hadn’t fought against him Europe would be one big united family that maybe included Russia as well..and all those people needn’t have died….no more wars!  Nothing a man like Hitler could do would be worse than a war]

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Corbyn Chaos?

 

In a prevous post we noted that Corbyn was spouting a new line on nuclear weapons, that he wouldn’t use a ‘first strike’.  This gives the impression, no doubt intended, that he may use nuclear weapons in response to an attack…when everything he has said in the past has suggested he would not, under any circumstances, use nuclear weapons.  This new position by him was completely accepted by Marr and Humphrys without questions, no journalistic scoop about Corbyn’s apparent bombshell u-turn that he would now use nukes.  That is odd because Jo Coburn on today’s Daily Politics was pretty sure that Corbyn had said he would never, ever use nuclear weapons in any circumstances…..

 

Note Nia Griffith also comes up with the idea that he wouldn’t use a first strike…thus perpetuating the myth that Corbyn would use it….because ultimately it would be his decision whatever ‘we’, the Labour Party, thought as a group.   The interview cuts off there in the clip and so I haven’t seen if Coburn responds to that first strike comment….it is surely a crucial phrase that utterly changes Corbyn’s position on nukes…either he is lying or he has u-turned hugely.  I wait for the BBC to clear this up….and their own reporting…can’t have one lot reporting Corbyn will use nukes and one lot saying he never, ever will under any circumstances can we?

Just watched the whole thing and after Griffith mentions ‘first strike’ Coburn ignores that and says Corbyn is mouthing his usual line…ie never, ever press the button…but that’s not true is it if he is now disengenuously suggesting he might…but not as a first strike.

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

THE OUTSIDER?

The BBC’s fake news agenda is in full flow during the French Presidential election. Last night, the BBC chose to run with poll forecasts showing Macron in the lead even as the actual results showed Le Pen in the actual lead. Then, when Paris – that most enriched of French cities – came in for Macron, the BBC switched to actual results! Lamentable pro Macron bias. This morning it has become even more ludicrous as the BBC chooses to cast Macron as “the outsider”? WHAT? This former Rothschilds banker provided economic guidance to uber Socialist President Hollande! He is supported by Merkel and Obama. I see Osborne has rallied to his side. Blair supports him. He is the quintessential INSIDER, but the BBC are on one of their predictable fake narratives. What a fake broadcaster.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone