271 thoughts on “The Pits

1 2 3
  • Habbabkuk

    What are you going on about, Craig?

    I hope that’s not a reference to Andrew Neil’s “Sunday Politics”, which is , as usual, excellent. Over time (but not necessarily in the same programme) Andrew subjects politicians of all persuasions and all policies to vigorous questioning and challenge.

    • Bert

      Sunday Politics, like Daily Politics, is the same old propaganda nonsense.

      The questioning is contrived to fit within the agenda.

      These people would not be on the BBC if they seriously questioned the status quo.

      I have just finished reading Mark Blyth’s Austerity The History of a Dangerous Idea. Throughout he makes it clear that austerity does not work and – historically – never has. I am now well into Jim Rickards’ The Road to Ruin, in which he shows – rather obviously – that neo-liberal economic thought is a nonsense.

      Austerity serves to make the working class pay for the mess created by the greed of the 1%; and neo-liberal theory is an excuse to carry on with the never-ending greed of the 1%.

      If the likes of Andrew Neil and JoCo hammered these idiot politicians they would constantly be pointing up that their whole economic agenda has not worked, does not work and will not work. The thinking of the neo-liberal lot is fundamentally flawed and this has been obvious from the early-mid-nineteen-eighties. Non-linear dynamics makes a monkey’s butt out of equilibrium theory. Regulation is essential to maintain any semblance of stability.

      The likes of Neil and Coburn; and all the rest of the patsies at the BBC never seriously question; they play a game of putting on appearances.

      Bert.

      • Habbabkuk

        Well, Bert, that’s a point of view. And thank you for standing in for Craig (not sure it’s the “answer” he would have given but I do appreciate your effort to “help”°.

        Be that as it may: from where do you derive the notion that the BBC’s job is to “seriously question the status quo”?

        Or is it just something you and various other malcontents think the BBC should be doing?

        If it is the latter, then fair enough – but it is not an intellectual argument and has no more validity than the views of those who do not believe that the BBC’s job is to “seriously question the status quo”.

        Hope that helps.

        • Bert

          I would not presume that the BBC must always question the status quo but that they most certainly should when the status quo is demonstrably wrong. That is the first claim of Journalism: to hold power to account. The likes of Neil and Coburn are journalists; and Neil certainly is… before turning to broadcasting, he has spent his life in newspapers.

          I see no problem or presumed bias in expecting the BBC’s current affairs people to ask the awkward questions whatever they may be.

          Right now the greed of the capitalists is wrecking the planet; we are in the midst of the sixth great extinction. We – humans – may not survive to the end of this century and the capitalists are banging on as if nothing was wrong. They have their bought-and paid-for “think-tanks” producing papers that contradict the body of the science; meanwhile the literature overwhelmingly recognises that industrial behaviour is ruining the planet – just as I am doing right now 😉

          To return to the point as originally made, The economic system simply does not work the way the neo-liberals say it does. Hence it is no surprise that it breaks down every few years and we are made to pick up the pieces while the fat-cats go on raking it in.

          Bert.

          • Habbabkuk

            “I would not presume that the BBC must always question the status quo but that they most certainly should when the status quo is demonstrably wrong.”

            ____________________________

            You see, Bert, we’re back to personal opinion again, aren’t we. The status quo (whatever you mean exactly by that rather wide-ranging expression) may be “demonstrably wrong” in your opinion but not in the opinion of others.

            Hence your comment does not provide an adequate answer to my question “from where do you derive the notion that the BBC’s job is to “seriously question the status quo?”.

            In fact, it reinforces my point that it is not an intellectual argument but merely a personal opinion which has no more and no less validity than any personal opinion to the contrary.

            Over and out.

        • Loony

          It is good to see that you are displaying an interest in defining what is and is not an intellectual argument. Perhaps it would be easier to understand your point if you had given some indication as to what you believe the role of the BBC to be.

          Your attempt at erecting a straw man regarding the serious questioning of the status quo appears half hearted or lacking in intellectual merit.

          It is not obvious what you mean by “status quo” Consider for example that prior to 2008 the concept of zero interest rates and massive money printing was of interest only to the lunatic fringe. Suddenly it assumes the status of a key cornerstone in the management of modern economies. No serious inquiry into this phenomena can come to any conclusion other than it enables the massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich. I note that the BBC does not tend to major on this theme.

          Similarly even a basic understanding of demographics reveals that with regard to immigration there is effectively no limit to the number of candidates for immigration into the UK. Clearly the UK is a finite entity, and surely it is not controversial to observe that you cannot fit an infinite quantity of something into a finite space. Again the BBC does not tend to address such issues.

          You can go through all of the major issues – from ongoing wars and the UK’s role in initiating and maintaining those wars, through to the ongoing criminality of the financial sector, and the BBC will come up lacking.

          The exact role of the BBC is debatable. But the fact is the BBC acts as a lackey for raw power and is prepared to run any argument, no matter how puerile or mendacious that the powerful instruct it to run. I do think that too many people would believe this to be a role that BBC should be playing.

          • Habbabkuk

            “It is not obvious what you mean by “status quo” ”
            ______________________

            A good question, Loony, and I should also like to know what Bert meant by it in his post that started this little mini-discussion (“These people would not be on the BBC if they seriously questioned the status quo”).

            Perhaps you should put your question to Bert?

            °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

            As for the role of the BBC, I’m happy to stay with the BBC’s charter.

            If you think the BBC’s role should be other; perhaps you’d care to put pen to paper and draft an alternative charter for the perusal of readers?**

            ______________

            ** In other words – to return to a theme of mine – don’t just gripe and be negative (that’s easy); be positive and do something (rather more expensive in terms of time and intellectual input, eh?)

            Over and out.

        • D_Majestic

          They do the exact opposite of making any attempt at questioning the status quo. Or any part of any of the tightly-scripted official agenda. Seek out the Youtube clip of an academic being interviewed about Castro’s Cuba. All we get is the aforementioned tightly-scripted etc. etc. from the interviewer. While the expert who has actually been there far more than any BBC researcher on a computer has, replies to each point from personal experience-not the official lines as defined in the agenderised script.

        • Dave Price

          Habbakuk said, in reply to Bert:

          [?]??? ?ℎ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?ℎ? ?????? ?ℎ?? ?ℎ? ???’? ??? ?? ?? “????????? ???????? ?ℎ? ?????? ???”?

          But Bert did not claim this was the BBC’s job. Moreover, he asserted that someone who seriously questioned the status quo would not be working for the BBC.

          Further Habbakuk said, right at the start of this ‘mini-discussion’:

          ?????? [????] ???????? ??????????? ?? ??? ??????????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????????? ??? ?ℎ???????.

          Does Habbakuk mean to say that Mr Neil does in fact subject neo-liberal politicians to the sort of questions Bert lists?

    • Jim

      More drivel from Craig. During the debate on here about the purported bias of Laura Kuenssberg, and Craig’s feeble smear of David Babbs & Joe (the petition’s organiser), he actually praised Andrew Neil’s impartiality.
      Which is evidenced again here in his forthright grilling of the halfwit Suzanne Evans of UKIP :

      https://youtu.be/chyY_qSrvFw

        • Jim

          Craig as ample time to apologise for his smearing, all it would have taken was a simple ‘Yes, I see what you’re saying, I’m sorry’…but he lacks the humility and decency to do that. I’ve said kudos to Craig for his stand on the Uzbekistan torture issue. But as I said before, that does not give him carte blanche to engage in malicious unfounded smears against good people. So take your offence-taking on his behalf somewhere else.

  • Sal

    Sounds like a rotten Sunday morning! Hope you escape soon! Treat yourself to a good book and cancel the Patientline till you’re better!

          • nevermind

            Who is looking after you on a regular basis and makes sure you take your pills in the right order, Habby?

            Do you think that your inquisitive line of interrogative questioning is partial to Craigs recovery, or are you just trying to play boss here again?
            you are one slimy old sod.

        • Sharp Ears

          13.02 Mind your own business Nosey Parker. Craig’s domestic arrangements are his own affair.

  • Bert

    Why on earth would any sane human being PAY to be propagandised by the British Bullshit Corporation?

    Bert

    • fred

      I’m reminded of the story about a hotel reception which got a call from an old lady staying with them disgusted that she could see a man with no clothes on in the room opposite hers. The hotel manager went to her room to apologise and when he looked out of her window he said “I don’t see a man in the room opposite”. “You have to stand on a chair” said the old lady.

    • Mick McNulty

      I stopped watching BBC news and politics shows several years ago. Apart from the occasional film about the only other thing I watch on BBC nowadays is Family Guy, and the reason I still pay for a TV license is it’s the only way I know that keeps their bailiffs from my door.

  • Tom Welsh

    Craig, UKIP is not exactly “anti-immigration” – far less racist in any way.

    The UK’s population density is already double the EU average. So it makes little sense for still more people to crowd into our little islands, instead of staying their own countries and working to make them better. Incidentally, it has been calculated that the maximum sustainable population for the UK as a whole, in the long term, is 16 million. Think on.

    As for “racism”, that’s a complete red herring. In fact, with less immigration from Europe, the UK should actually be able to welcome more people from other parts of the world such as the Commonwealth countries. I don’t really know what “racism” means, as there is no such thing as “race” – the idea is a long-exploded 19th century notion akin to phrenology and eugenics. If it means anything, presumably it is the instinctive wariness of strangers (of any kind) in the sometimes lengthy interval before they become familiar and are no longer perceived as strangers. In an ideal world, perhaps none of us would have any fears or rservations about people whose appearance, speech, religion or customs seem different from our own. But then this is still officially a Christian nation, yet its actual values are diametrically opposite to the teachings of Christ in most respects. It is not an ideal world.

      • Habbabkuk

        Against whom is their racism directed? Is it against EU citizens or some specific sections of EU citizens, is it against immigration from third countries or certain third countries, or is it against all of these?

      • Loony

        So UKIP are racist – but deliberately destroying the economies of Southern Europe and effectively forcing people to emigrate is not racist.

        Launching wars and destroying a whole range of countries and again effectively forcing people to emigrate is not racist.

        The UK is incapable of feeding itself or heating itself and so it trawls the world stealing other peoples food and energy – in a non racist way of course.

        Ah but it doesn’t steal though does it – no it pays for what it takes with pieces of paper that it prints pictures of the Queen on. Oh look what happens next, why you create an economic crisis in the worlds emerging economies. The British are like a house breaker who steals from one persons house and then burns down all the neighboring properties – So very moral, so very pure. Now where are all those nasty racists.

  • Peter C

    “Patientline system”. What is Patientline? Patients are being charged to watch the telly or something?

    P.S. Don’t know what you’re in for Craig but get well soon (as they say).

  • CE

    Patientline is a complete joke. My dad spent hundreds when my mother was in ARI long term. Best of luck for a speedy exit.

  • Clydebuilt

    Craig…… Get Well Soon…… Highlight of the political morning , was Ed. Balls on Pesto n …… How quickly can he get back into the commons…..
    Then there was the ridiculously low seat that tge guests had yo sit on…… Their heid’s were just above desk level……

  • bevin

    “… where do you derive the notion that the BBC’s job is to “seriously question the status quo”?”
    I imagine that it is in the BBC Charter. It is difficult to conceive of an institution in the BBC’s position which is not expected to criticise the status quo.
    The problem is that it merely pretends to do so, deflecting, for example, questions about the nature of capitalism by blaming problems upon the greed, idleness, stupidity and-the old favourite- beer of the working class.
    In fact the BBC is hypercritical-as is all the capitalist media- of the faults of its paymasters the poor bloody taxpaying infantry.
    What the BBC does not do-and in this is is like Habbab- is to allow its prejudices and ideology to be subjected to any systematic and sustained enquiries.
    The BBC provides small talk as the ship sinks. And who better to do so than Neill whose mouth has been dedicated to his masters’ service throughout a long and shameful life.

    • Loony

      Oh bevin. In common with most other people and organizations the BBC no longer knows what the status quo is – so it cannot criticize it either in reality or in pretense.

      Who cares what the nature of capitalism is? There is no capitalism, it died in 2008. Capitalism embodies the notion of free markets and the concept of creative destruction. Actions taken in 2008 and pursued to this day were designed to make sure that failed and failing organizations remain in place.

      Take a look at the Dow on the day of Trump’s presidential victory. Down 800 points and then up 100 points (that is a round trip of 1700 points) all in a few hours. Do you seriously think this to be a characteristic of any market.

      Nobody cares about the greed, idleness and stupidity of the working classes – because the working classes basically no longer exist. They are no longer needed for work, They are needed merely to consume and as long as they are not too idle to consume all is well with the world.

      You are living in a kleptocracy. No-one would support a kleptocracy which is why t is absolutely essential that no-one ever speak this truth. The more people like you bang on about capitalism the more use you are to the kleptocrats as you serve their agenda by diverting attention from their naked theft.

      • bevin

        You are wrong. The idea that capitalism, as defined by you, died in 2008 implies that capitalism, as defined by you, existed then. Or ever.
        You should read Polanyi on markets.

        • Loony

          OK so there has never been “pure” capitalism, just like there has never been “pure” Marxism or “pure” Communism. Proponents of all such systems routinely claim that if only it could be implemented in its “pure” form then nirvana would arrive here on earth,

          However a central tenant of capitalism – as defined by substantially everyone – are the twin concepts of markets and creative destruction. As these features have been removed from the system then it follows that there is no capitalism. It is not a question of anyone being right or wrong it is a simple statement of fact.

          Think about what the word capitalism actually means. It is surely about the accumulation of capital so that the accumulated capital can be deployed or invested for productive purposes. A necessary corollary for the accumulation of capital is savings. Zero interest rates removes all inventive for savings – therefore the policies adopted are by definition anti capitalist.

          Surely someone with your views should be cheering from the rafters as current policy is far more effective in destroying capitalism than any Marxist treatise could ever be.

          Marx was probably right when he postulated that capitalism would be destroyed as a consequence of its own internal self contradiction. Ask yourself why people with this insight were so slow to react when something happened that they alone were expecting to happen. Why did you and your fellow travelers simply hand the wreckage of the system to the kleptocrats?

          For what possible reason can you expect people to rally to your cause when you have so comprehensively abandoned them and then have the temerity to deny what you have done.

    • Habbabkuk

      “… where do you derive the notion that the BBC’s job is to “seriously question the status quo”?”
      I imagine that it is in the BBC Charter”
      ________________________

      “I imagine”.

      Have you read the BBC Charter, Bevs?

      • Loony

        You could read the law and afterwards would be left with no understanding as to how or why HSBC is allowed to act as agents for funding Mexican drug wars.

        Alternatively you could read the BBC charter and afterward be left with no understanding as to how and why the BBC is allowed to act as a propaganda mouthpiece for the prevailing kleptocracy.

      • bevin

        I most certainly have NOT read the BBC Charter. Commiserations to anyone who feels it necessary to do so.

  • Sharp Ears

    UKIP are all over the ‘medja’ today. As you saw, Nuttall was given space on Marr. There was also a UKIP woman on an LBC phone in calling for seasonal workers to be given the boot as soon as the work was finished. Didn’t get her name.

    Agree about Patientline. It swallowed money when I used it in 2011 after an orthopaedic operation for a fracture. The funny thing was that I could reach it with my arm in plaster nor operate it so a kindly health care assistant (from the Philippines god bless her for her kindness and jollity) came to the rescue.

    In the good old days there was a portable telephone trolley and a communal TV in a separate room.

    Patientline e went bust in 2008 and was acquired by Hospedia.
    http://www.digitalhealth.net/news/23931/patientline-acquired-by-hospedia
    http://www.hospedia.com

    You are on a ‘patient journey’ Craig!

    • Loony

      In the last UK General Election UKIP garnered some 3.8 million votes and one MP. Are you suggesting that the views of these 3.8 million people be totally ignored by the media. Perhaps all media space should be given over to people who seemingly are unable to comprehend the meaning of the word “seasonal”

      • Old Mark

        Craig wasn’t exactly specific when writing – ‘the BBC relentlessly push the UKIP anti-immigration agenda’, but given he is ill and hospitalised that is quite understandable (and like many other commenters I wish Craig a speedy recovery).

        However I now learn courtesy of the comments thread that Marr interviewed the new UKIP leader this morning- I’ll check it out on the iplayer later but in the interim can other readers advise whether the Marr interview with Nuttall was the sort of softball interview Jon Snow conducts repeatedly with ‘refugee activists’ on C4 news? And if that is all Craig’s beef is about it sounds pretty misplaced to me.

        Perhaps Craig’s compatriot Marr feels it is now his bounden duty to be an anti Jon Snow on this subject -and not before time, given the accurate observations of BBC lifer Johyn Humphrys, who confirmed 2 years ago what many of us sensed- that BBC bias on subjects such as Europe & immigration is if anything in the opposite direction to that which Craig alleges-

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10688000/John-Humphrys-BBC-not-sufficiently-sceptical-about-Europe-or-immigration.html

    • Clark

      “You are on a ‘patient journey’ Craig!”

      I hope not! Call a tech from from the Fringe Office to gaffer down the bed’s castors!

  • Concerned troll

    Mr Craig Murray, very sorry to hear that you’re in hospital! And sorry too for comming here as one of those “concern trolls” you’ve been on about. But I must ask: Was Pilger’s documentary supposed to premiere at the embassy of Ecuador in London 2nd of December? You wrote that in your former post. I haven’t heard anything about it elsewhere and I can’t find anything about it on the Internet now either. You said something about this coming to have a calming effect on those of us concerned about Julian Assange’s status. Well, now we’re even more concerned!

    Hope you’re getting well soon!

    • Habbabkuk

      I saw the recent interview of Mr Julian Assange by Mr John Pilger.

      And was not impressed.

      It was like the sort of interview people on here regularly complain about when it’s the BBC which is conducting the interview – no hard questioning, no probing, just fawning and encouraging ans taking every opportunity to push his (Pilger’s) usual West-hating line.

      A little like getting Charlie Richardson to interview the Kray brothers on the rights and wrongs of East End gang culture.

      Rumours that a despairing Mr John Pilger is about to leave his comfortable and safe London life and emigrate to Cuba/Venezuela/Russia or China are unfounded. Remember – you read it here first!

  • Tony_0pmoc

    Craig, The Patientline system is not morally disgusting. I’ve visited many people in hospital since it was introduced about 10 years ago. All of them refused to pay to use it. Not one.

    So for almost their entire stay in hospital – they were free from Brainwashing.

    It helps in the recovery process.

    Turn it off.

    What happened anyway?

    Accident or something like Gallstones?

    I thought the Scotch would have dissolved them.

    (Drink loads of water too)

    Tony

  • Bert

    Habbabkuk

    I see your point but very strongly disagree with your central premise.

    If something is merely a matter of opinion then so be it. But I am not talking mere opinion but science. This is an essential point being made by Rickards. On the economy it is a clear matter of equilibrium theory being applied to a system that is clearly a non-linear dynamic. It is not reasonably possible to argue against Rickards’ point. It is not mere opinion but high quality scientific fact.

    This does mean that scientific facts can never be wrong – of course they can – but that you need a somewhat higher standard of evidence to challenge it.

    I have understood intuitively that the economy is a complex non-linear dynamic since the early nineteen-seventies. But it was not until the mid-nineteen-eighties, and the popularisation of Mandelbrot’s work, that it became clearer and laid claim to more substantial scientific foundations. Notions such as the efficient market hypothesis or rational expectations hypothesis are simply not true statements about the way the real world works. Consider a short quote from Noam Chomsky:

    First of all, the role of finance in the economy has exploded, so the share of corporate profit by financial institutions has just zoomed the 1970s. A corollary to that expansion has been the hollowing out of industrial production, sending it abroad. This has all happened under the impact of the kind of fanatic religious ideology called neoclassical economics—hypotheses that have no theoretical grounds and no empirical support but are very attractive because you can prove theorems if you adopt them: the efficient market hypothesis, rational expectations hypothesis, and so on. The spread of these ideologies, which is very attractive to concentrated wealth and privilege, hence their success, was epitomized in Alan Greenspan, who at least had the decency to say it was all wrong when it collapsed. I don’t think there has ever been a collapse of an intellectual edifice comparable to this in history—at least, I can’t remember one. Interestingly, it has no effect. It just continues. Which tells you that somehow it’s serviceable to power systems. [Chomsky, N. (2015) ‘Masters of Mankind’ London. Hamish Hamilton [p. 133.]]

    Neo-liberal equilibrium theory could only be proved in situe. On the one hand, it has no empirical findings to support it, the evidence as it has developed has tended to bode poorly for the theory, and, on the other hand, it has plainly failed to achieve any major claim made for it.

    Bert.

    • Johnstone

      Thank you for that
      Yes, and E F Schumacher discussed the dangers of simplification using the concepts of divergent and convergent problems and the other economist of that era Kenneth Boulding whose ‘Coming Spaceship Earth’ is here now. Who doubts his infamous metaphor now?

      The realisation that economics is subset of the biosphere has dawned upon the ordinary people if not think-tank economists. In 1965 Boulding predicted that the future of planet earth would be dependent upon economist becoming environmental economics. Sadly however the current environmental economic discourse being championed by the natural capital movement ( Zac Goldsmith et al) conceptualises biodiversity and ecosystems as goods and services that can be represented by monetary values in policy processes. Its narrow instrumentalism is incommensurable with logical reasoning and downplays the role of scientific knowledge. Yet another neoliberal scam.

  • Sharp Ears

    Thank goodness the Austrian people have seen sense and have given the big E to Hofer.

    Austria far-right candidate Norbert Hofer defeated in presidential poll
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38202669

    ‘Projections based on early results give Mr Van der Bellen 53% to 46% for Mr Hofer. The margin could change, but officials said the result would not.

    Mr Hofer had campaigned on an anti-immigration platform amid disquiet in Austria at an influx of refugees.’.

    • Old Mark

      Projections based on early results give Mr Van der Bellen 53% to 46% for Mr Hofer. The margin could change, but officials said the result would not.

      I do hope the projections in Austria today are not as off beam as those in the UK in June; readers will recall that shortly after the polls closed here on 23/06 Farage as good as admitted defeat- and look how that turned out.

      One premature admission of defeat may be deemed an accident, but if the phenomenon happens twice…

  • BrianPowell

    An interesting thread started on Twitter about BBC QT and UKIP. @WomenDefyUKIP on Twitter timeline looking at Alison Fuller Pedley, the Audience Producer at BBC Question Time, and her apparent connection to Britain First, EDL and Leave campaign. I can’t vouch for any of the exchanges.

  • michael norton

    Woman mayor and two female reporters are shot dead by a SNIPER who blasted them in the head and torso with a hunting rifle as they left a restaurant in Finland

    Police confirmed a 23-year-old man has been detained following what is believed to be a random attack, which killed Imatra City Council chairman Tiina Wilén-Jäppinen and the two reporters.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3998566/Three-young-women-Finland-shot-dead-SNIPER.html#ixzz4RtSjr56U

    Almost unbelievable

  • Habbabkuk

    Norton !

    In Austria, the far-right, nationalist candidate is defeated by the pro-EU candidate Van Den Bellen.

    And you ain’t seen nothing yet. Watch Mrs Merkel sweep to victory next year, commiserate with Mr Wilders as he enters the slammer, mourn Mrs Le Pen as she gets hammered in the second round of the French Presidential.

    It’s not the Eu that’s breaking up, Norton.

    It’s you and your miserable wet dreams 🙂

    • michael norton

      Even The Greens and the LibDems
      will sometimes hit a winner but it’s a bit like an addict in the bookies,
      usually they loose because they are loosers.

      • Jim

        Nah, decent people just don’t like thugs that’s all. Let’s hope this is the start of something good & Le Pen gets the bumsrush from the French electorate.

    • Loony

      Jim – What is the good news from the Austrian election? Surely not the news that the election only took place because the first one was rigged by the democracy hating European ruling elites.

      Or maybe you mean that vote rigging and election fixing has a bright future in other jurisdictions. What a pity the Italians are onto people like you and have rigged their referendum to ensure that whatever the result Italy wins and the EU loses.

  • Dave

    The problem is the neo-con/Lab definition of a racist is an Englishman who refuses to commit suicide or anyone who critics Israel. The fact is mass-immigration is racism towards the indigenous population wherever it happens and its the mark of an occupation government that opposing immigration is portrayed in the controlled media as the racist rather than anti-racist position and the BBC despite the Charter is biased towards the front bench establishment position.

  • michael norton

    UK defence secretary announces £100m deal to improve RAF drones
    The Guardian

    we seem to spending like crazy on defence, nuclear power stations, full sized aircraft carriers,
    railways, airports, handing vast sums to other countries

    I thought there was no money or have they found some?

    • bevin

      They made the money.
      That is what they do when they want some.
      They don’t make money for the things that you need, or the NHS or housing for the homeless because, frankly, they don’t give a damn about them. Besides which nothing is more calculated to incentivise the young to do what they are told than news that another person who didn’t, or couldn’t, froze to death in a ditch a week after being kicked out of the Cancer Ward.
      Which they could no longer afford to operate.

      • Loony

        Any chance you could provide the name of the person that froze to death in a ditch a week after being kicked out of a cancer ward?

  • RobG

    The ‘Jonathan Pie’ concept rapidly gets a bit thin, but I thought his latest one was quite good. No mention of Pizzagate, of course, which is what the ‘fake news’ meme is all about:

    All The News is Fake!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg31rn_9eao

    If you want a real laugh, you can find the BBC’s attempt to debunk Pizzagate buried deep in the bowels of their web site…

    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985

    The same BBC, of course, who for decades employed a mega peodophile by the name of Jimmy Savile, who was a close friend of Margaret Thatcher and members of the royal family. This is not conspiracy theory, it’s fact.

    Bill Oddie will be familiar to the Brits on this board. For those outside the UK who might not know who he is, Bill Oddie was in a very popular 1970s comedy show called ‘The Goodies’, and ever since has been a long-time employee of the BBC, doing various shows and radio programmes. Here’s Bill Oddie speaking shortly after the death of Jimmy Savile (sound quality is not brilliant but those interested should listen to this closely)…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgwDg-T8d-g

  • Alcyone

    Craig, you need as good as an unlimited data package on your mobile. These days you can get that very affordably even on a sim-only deal. If you’re under a contract, ring the retention team and tell them that you are seriously considering a competitor once you’re free. It’s a very competitive market these days. Even Sky is getting in on the act aggressively. I have to admit I even like some of the Fox coverage on the US election.

    Btw, concern-trolling has shifted towards Hillary:
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/12/04/watch_paranormal_investigators_search_the_woods_for_hillary.html

    Not Hilarious but Hillaryous:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeWQm_q_Lqg

    Best news of 2016: Hillary can’t show her face. Thank God!

    • RobG

      I’m one of those people who refuse to use a mobile phone.

      Apart from the damage that electro-magnetic radiation does when placed close to your skull, it also enables the security service vermin to track you 24/7.

      But of course I’m mad…

1 2 3

Comments are closed.