The Hundred Days’ War – ‘Boris’ has now won the Tory Leadership, but will he win the war that’s about to start?

The Hundred Days’ War will be a series of conflicts waged from 24 July 2019 to 31 October 2019 by the House of Downing Street, leaders of the United Kingdom of Britain, against the European House of Union, over the right to rule the Kingdom of Britain. Each side will draw scarce allies into the war however

This will be one of the most notable conflicts in history and will mark the subsequent decline of the EU, and the redevelopment of strong national identities in both the UK and Europe. Make no mistake about it, but the disastrous EU project will be entering the end game this year– and the unelected, unaccountable, spendthrift, Brussels hierarchy completely understand that, so will fight the UK’s successful departure tooth and nail, won’t they? Moreover, they will be aided and abetted by the imbedded British fifth columnists to boot, eh?

Tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon we will have a new Prime Minister, one Boris Johnson – indeed the 77th prime minister of Britain. Before even appointed by the Queen, he is a man already maligned as being an incompetent PM – BY SOME OF THOSE IN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY ITSELF [‘Remainers’ of course), despite the fact that he has been chosen in landslide votes both by the Tory MPs in Parliament AND by the grass- root constituency membership [in both Johnson got double the votes of Hunt].

The reason for that denegation of the man BEFORE he has actually entered the door of Number 10, is that he is a committed BREXITEER [unlike the booted-out Theresa May, or the U.K.’s Brexit pro-EU civil servant negotiator Olly Robbins] and Johnson knows that the Conservative Party has no future unless the UK leaves the EU by 31 October 2019, so his approach will be totally different to his predecessor. Furthermore, [unlike the booted-out Theresa May, or the U.K.’s Brexit pro-EU civil servant negotiator Olly Robbins] he has the will and the guts to face-down the likes of EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, European Council President Donald Tusk, and the commission’s top civil servant, Martin Selmayr [the Machiavellian “puppet-master”] – who in reality personally had control of the European Union side of the Brexit talks departure.

Johnson has said that there is a 1,000,000:1 chance that he will be successful, so will get a new and acceptable deal out of the EU clowns – unfortunately he is an outstanding journalistic politician but certainly no competent bookmaker, is he? No, and many of us think that perversely he has got the odds absolutely the wrong way around, indeed? [The bookies offer 2/1 against us leaving the EU on time whether WITH or WITHOUT a Deal].

You see, financial and jobs stability issues dictates that the EU needs to capitulate on its unacceptable basic demands entrenched in the current withdrawal agreement, which May unsuccessfully tried to get the Westminster Parliament to sign-up to – as the impact of a ‘disorderly’ No-Deal BREXIT will seriously damage the EU itself [as well as hurt the UK in the short term] when it and its biggest players are already in the mire so will be unable to cope with further setbacks, surely?

[Germany (Europe’s largest economy) registered zero growth during the fourth quarter of 2018 so narrowly avoided recession, and will now face an instant slump in business regarding automobiles, pharmaceuticals, chemical and petroleum products; while Belgium will be hit with huge losses and drop 2.35% of its GDP; Ireland faces grim economic prospects with a short-term drop in GDP and a dramatic long-term drop, together with increasing losses of jobs, major exports drop offs, and significant investment curtailment; ; France’s working and middle classes’ revolutionary ‘yellow vest’ protests (motivated by rising fuel prices, high cost of living, and disproportionate burden of government’s tax reforms), will now be reenergised by significant job losses; Italy’s unsolvable and mounting debt crisis will be hit when it is already likely to sink the eurozone and spark a financial catastrophe in stock markets across the world (It’s economy is the eighth largest in the world, and 10 times as big as that of Greece, which a decade ago, with a spiralling spending deficit, had to be bailed-out and financially rescued by the EU and IMF three times (£259bn; $330bn).ITALY IS TOO BIG TO BALE-OUT ]

None of this will matter of course to those in power at the EU though, as in Brussels, crass principle will overrule functional logic, wont it? Yep, it seems that they would rather see the whole building crash about their ears than to soften their stupid position on insisting that the single market needs to be ‘protected’ at all costs and that it would be compromised if there wasn’t a customs border between Ireland and Northern Ireland when the UK leaves the EU [and that’s NOT going to happen, is it?].

The most likely outcome over the next 100 days (3 months and 8 days) is a No Deal exit, and is one that Johnson has clearly said WILL be the result if the EU doesn’t reopen negotiations and offer him a sensible deal, wouldn’t you think? That said, many of us believed from the very outset that there was no prospect of Britain ever leaving with a Deal, and certainly that May’s BIG BUSINESS placatory proposal of Britain being tied to EU regulations for many future years without any say whatsoever was nothing short of utterly scandalous and did not deliver the BREXIT the people had voted for in the Referendum 3 years ago, did it?

The perpetuation of Project Fear with its dire and negative predictions of ominous consequences if the UK simple just leaves the EU immediately, is based on the Treasury mandarins’ use of a dubious financial model blighted by even more stupid assumptions [rubbish-in rubbish out], while other models [like developed by Cambridge or Brighten universities] and different more realistic base suppositions predict a positive economic outcome from BREXIT – it’s wait and see time, isn’t it?

The rats are leaving the ship they have tried to scuttle – Chancellor Philip Hammond, Justice Secretary David Gauke, International Development Secretary Rory Stewart, Education Skills and Apprenticeships minister Anne Milton, and Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan. They knew full well that under a Johnson led government they were heading for the sack anyway, but they pre-announced their impending departure tomorrow – one has to ask just why they have done so before the result of the leadership battle has been announced, eh? That is simply down to self-publicity as they know full well that they will get zilch press attention after today because the media will be fully occupied with the other more important events at Westminster and around the World.

Disgracefully May herself is hanging on until tomorrow and indeed doing a pointless PMQs, before seeing the Queen and telling her that Boris Johnson should take-over



[The expectation is that further government resignations and sackings of die-hard Remainers and ‘No Deal’ blockers, will inevitably follow in the next week as an optimistic Boris Johnson assembles a new Cabinet intent on delivering BREXIT by Halloween – will the likes of Hunt who has questioned Boris’ character, or Rudd who helped screw-up Theresa May’s government, themselves survive?]




The endemic existence of British ‘soft justice’ – an epidemic impossible to control?


The ongoing problems of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in the UK have been highlighted in a number of previous posts on this blog, and indeed it will have been obvious to all and sundry in Britain that the whole system broke down a long long time ago, don’t you think?

Now there are multiple reasons for that, but it all started primarily perhaps with the liberalising ‘do-gooders’ [including the likes of the intellectual pontificators of the Howard League for Penal Reform?], who somehow have convinced our society’s lawmakers and enforcers that any harsh punishment dished-out to criminals needed to be avoided at all costs – while it is clear that the ongoing debilitating heavy penalties are indeed those paid by the innocent victims of crime, isn’t it?

You see, there are a number of elements involved in a justice system which includes having laws to clearly define what crimes are and what consequences follow for those convicted of them, provision of a force to police the community against criminals and enforce the law by investigating crimes to identify the perpetrators, employment of fair and efficient facilities to try the accused and quickly convict the guilty, ensure due and effective appropriate punishment follows, attempt to rehabilitate offenders so they abandon a life of crime, and indeed deter them and all others from committing any criminal offences

For hundreds of years here in Britain, understandably there has been debate and dispute on the relative importance of all those various fundamentals of crime handling in the UK, hasn’t there? Well, there need be no further critical focused attention on that, because every single bloody element involved is now ‘up-the-creek-without-a paddle’ as the idiom goes, which has left the UK justice system in disarray, on its knees and in total meltdown, wouldn’t you say?

That is a dreadful state of affairs, but what is even more disgusting though is that our government is STILL doing absolutely SOD-ALL about it – as the good ship Justice is being scuttled.

Now, the biggest reason for that, by a long chalk, is MONEY, or to be more precise the lack of it, because the entire system has been financially starved to near death, hasn’t it? Oh yes, and that started long before cretin George Osborne dreamt-up the age of austerity that has now destroyed the basic framework of British society. [The justice ministry as a whole is being cut by 40% over the current decade].

While it is said that the rule of law demands that justice be separated at arm’s length from politics, it is not as simple as all that, is it? No, it is the politicians who initially control what the law says [judges make case law adjustments] and significantly they also determine how effectively it is implemented by exercising financial control over and availability of operational facilities,

However, not only are UK’s criminal laws in terms of crime designation and punishments both utterly inadequate and predominately archaically antiquated so often don’t cope with current-day criminality [like fraud/ hacking/ international gangs/ etc], and when furthermore our laws are constrained by Britain’s membership of the EU [or get overruled by it or not allowed to represent the will of the British people – capital punishment/life sentences/etc?], but our Westminster so called Parliament is so diverted by energy spent on fiddling expenses, bullying, and sexual harassment, that it has no time left to enact the much needed laws [for example 5 years have past and the law change to deny parole to killers who won’t disclose the whereabouts of victims’ bodies is STILL not on the statute book, eh?]

These days, successfully meeting the UK’s current demand for law enforcement is nothing short of a joke, because there’s insufficient money to deal with major criminals let alone protect the public and patrol the streets of our towns & Cities. While the ongoing threat of national & international terrorism is an increasing haemorrhage on budgets for both security and police resources, we see that because of funding cuts our outstanding and resilient police forces can no longer do the job required of them when numbers and resources have been decimated over the past decade.

Consequently, even in a climate of rising violence & knife-crime, unbelievably some 60% of crimes are no longer fully investigated, while in the large forces [like London’s MET (the largest force) and say Manchester], thousands of termed ‘low-level’ offences [say thefts, car crime, shoplifting, criminal damage] are not being pursued at all because the police simply don’t have enough officers to do so, eh? [It is NOT as if the police have developed a ‘casual attitude’ to crime, as some would have it, is it? However, unless officers are out of their Stations investigating crimes then clear-up rates will continue to be abysmal]

All of that of course has a horrendous impact on the victims of such offences [that including burglary and car theft], as well as having a destructive debilitating impact on the worst affected communities around the UK

Victims of burglary are certainly ones who are rightly aggrieved about matters, as they feel particularly ‘violated’ and insecure in that someone has been in their home and rummaged through their most private stuff, as well as looted their treasured property – but they then get little comfort knowing that nothing is done to corral the evil burglars, do they? No, the police have basically increasingly ‘given-up’ on investigating burglary let alone catching perpetrators, so we can’t sleep easy in our own beds, can we? Consequently, people now don’t always report burglary because they know that generally only one in twenty reports actually result in someone being even charged [let alone convicted], and in some areas that falls to much less than half of that.

[THE WORSE PERFORMING POLICE AREAS ON BURGLARY (reported burglaries resulting in a ‘charge’): – South Yorkshire 1.8%/ Northamptonshire 3%/ Gwent 3.1%/ Cambridgeshire 3.4%/ Gloucestershire 3.4%/ West Yorkshire 3.4%/ Kent 3.4%/ Avon & Somerset 3.6%/ Derbyshire 3.6%/ South Yorkshire 3.6%]

Even when criminals ARE caught, they regularly don’t face their day in open Court because the oppressive pressures on the system, deter all those involved in gathering evidence and getting charges laid, so it doesn’t happen. Those accused actually charged aren’t then banged-up awaiting trial but are given unsupervised bail, often unconditional bail [even sex offenders] – is it any wonder then that they go on to commit further offences when on bail [but that is only known about IF they get caught AGAIN so the disturbing stats on that are the tip of the iceberg]

Drastic cuts have also dragged the impoverished creaking court and prison systems into crisis, whence the straightjacket constraints on and the tools employable by the prosecutors, immensely favour the criminals at every stage, who then escape justice in their droves to pursue their lives of crime

Despite the indisputable fact that 98% of burglars get off scot-free, even those convicted can laugh-out-loud at the criminal justice system because sentences these days are so bloody light that burglars just return to their disgusting trade of creating misery with a slap on the wrist simply to become serial offenders, don’t they? [Just remember, theft of property used to be punishment by death in the 18th Century (the “bloody code”), eh?].

The whole system is skewed at every level, because of the glaring fact that there are by a long chalk insufficient prisons in the UK, so no place to lock-up the criminal bastards when they are caught, or when they are awaiting trial, or when they are convicted – therefore there is an incentive not even to apprehend them, a necessity to bail them, a desire to avoid banging them up on conviction, extreme pressure to give them light sentences, and a need to parole even some of the worst criminals who have committed serious violence or sexual offences when they have only served HALF of the jail term deemed ‘required’ by the Trial judge, as well as parole for dangerous manipulative prisoners who have been jailed indefinitely because they pose a serious ongoing danger to the public – all under a failed parole service resulting from a botched semi-privatisation four years ago.

Prison punishment nowadays is anything but punishment in the UK, when prisoners are more subjected to abject boredom than unforgiving punishment, incarcerated maybe but in an ever more indulgent environment with massive perks so ultimately more a training school for crooks than a rehabilitation unit, and where it’s easier to score drugs there in a jail than on a city centre street. Is it any surprise then that criminals come out of prison better equipped than ever for continuing a life of crime? The government’s drastic swingeing cuts to prison budgets has chopped staff to such an extent that prisons have become seriously dangerous places for both staff [assaults at unprecedented levels] and prisoners alike [assaults plus prisoner suicides escalating disturbingly], so many prisons are in crisis and basically are controlled by violent criminals and gangs.

Until criminals believe that the chances are that they are going to get caught and severely punished, they will carry on offending regardless, won’t they?

The latest crass ‘reform’ idea of the village idiot Justice Secretary is to wipe clean the criminal records of those who have been over four years in jail, even if for murder, manslaughter, rape, sex offences, assault, robbery, fraud, drug-dealing, or anything bloody else – the only provision apparently being that they haven’t offended ‘recently’ [does that mean they qualify if they come out of prison after say 20 years, do you think?].

The bizarre thinking behind this proposal is that it will make it easier for them to get a job – now doesn’t the nincompoop know that the reasons criminals with un-spent records can’t get jobs is because employers wishing to make safe recruitment decisions DON’T WANT such criminals in their midst? So the grand strategy is to hoodwink employers into thinking they are giving jobs to normal law-abiding citizens?

No doubt the ‘plan’ will have to be backed-up by a massive budget to pay compensation to employers, employees, and general public, who then are severely harmed by those incognito serious criminals allowed to masquerade as lawful, trustworthy, reliable, honest workers, wouldn’t you say? [Currently, someone if asked MUST tell an employer about past crimes IF the conviction is ‘un-spent’ (with a prison sentence of more than 4 years the conviction is NEVER ‘spent’). However, it’s against the law to refuse someone a job because they’ve got a spent conviction except if a disclosure and barring service record check shows that they are unsuitable]

So the idea is no longer to actually ‘rehabilitate’ criminals in prison [i.e. train them not to BE criminals] and do so before they commit major crimes, but to ‘pretend’ they are NOT criminals to be wary of downstream, eh?


[This Country needs to restore its past reputation for law and order competence, and to do so needs a major prison build programme and adequate funding to put back 7000 prison officers lost , an immediate increase in police funding with an extra 20,000 police officers recruited just to match on previous staffing, and full refunding of the criminal justice system to allow it to resume effective operation]

The BIGGEST casualty of BREXIT – the misguided Paddies from the Republic

Most people will well know that Ireland for a couple of hundred years was part of the United Kingdom and starting with the formation of the Irish Free State nearly a hundred years ago, moved onwards towards to become a Republic [previously referred to as “Eire”] seventy years ago.

Because of those historic ties, the Irish people have continued to have enjoyed a very close relationship with the British to the extent that freedom to settle here has been common – that of course has become an endorsed right under the EU’s freedom of movement arrangement.

Ireland has achieved a top 10 slot in the wealthiest of nations league and certainly that is related to its trade links with Northern Ireland and mainland Britain.

However, now all that is going to change because of BREXIT, isn’t it? Yep, three years ago, the Union collectively voted in a Referendum to leave the EU and although it didn’t happen on schedule (29 March), it is a betting certainty that it will finally be enacted by 31 October this year – then the shit is going to hit the fan, and not least for the Irish, eh?

Britain failed abjectly to escape the suffocating clutches of the EU not only by having an incompetent Prime Minister, but because the unelected EU’s Fat Controllers would not genuinely fairly negotiate the EU’s departure and Ireland played a willing accomplice’s part in all of that stitch-up – a role that doubtless will come home to haunt them, don’t you think?

Currently the British public is incandescent with rage that the Country is still in the EU and that anger is predominately targeted towards the clueless Tory government, but also against indecisive Labour, which reneged on its commitment to respect the voter’s decision to Leave to cynically try to get into government.

However, the ‘anti-Britain’ role played by the Irish at the EU over the past 2½ years has been completely masked so far, but when it gets exposed later, the previous Anglo-Irish relationship will on this side of the Irish Sea switch from one of condescension to one of grudge, won’t it?

You see, Ireland’s economy is linked at the hip with its relationship with the UK and Britain leaving the EU was always going to cause dire problems for Dublin, whichever way the cookie crumbled, eh?

However, what their government SHOULD have done was get us a ‘good’ deal rather than side with our enemies in Brussels so that we ended-up with a rubbish deal offer that was soundly rejected. That simply means the UK will most likely leave this year with a totally disorderly ‘no deal’ outcome – which delivers ‘the worst possible scenario’ knock-on effect to the Irish economy, BOTH SHORT AND LONG TERM

Basically, a predicted disorderly ‘no deal’ for the UK, will present Ireland with grim economic prospects – a short-term drop in GDP and a dramatic long-term drop, together with increasing losses of jobs, major exports drop offs, and significant investment curtailment [that is according to Ireland’s official figures]

You see, Ireland’s economic exposure to Brexit has been a matter of major concern for it, as exports to the UK have been ‘growing’ and are increasingly more than to any other EU country, so we remain the Republic’s largest export market – with 34 per cent of its products heading here despite the BREXIT volatility and uncertainty

There now exists a loss of good will between Dublin and London and this is going to surface when the going gets tough next year for both countries as the BREXIT fallout kick-in.

This difficult situation will be of course be highjacked by those on either side of the Irish border intent on splitting the Union and our leaders will need to be on the ball to counter that and to continue to deliver Britain’s ongoing self-determination commitment to the people of Northern Ireland – those who must NEVER be abandoned.

Well, on the more general front, the financial soothsayers predict that the UK will be the country hardest hit by a ‘no deal BREXIT, both in relative as well as in absolute terms – like serious job losses, and a 4.4 % drop in the country’s GDP – but that it would also be a “short-term effect”.

EVEN IF TRUE THAT IS A PRICE WE MUST BE PREPARED TO PAY TO BE A FREE NATION, surely? However, we would not suffer alone as according for example to the adverse predictions of the job losses, we would take just 30% of the total compared to the EU’s 70%. Furthermore, in addition to Ireland being in the mire, amongst others, the in trouble already powerhouse Germany will hit the buffers with an instant slump in business [automobiles, pharmaceuticals, chemical and petroleum products], Belgium will be the worst hit with huge losses and dropping 2.35% of its GDP, while France’s significant job losses will fuel the yellow vest protests – and of course Italy is already a financial basket case within the EU


[Now whether any of those true facts will get the EU to back-down and give Johnson/Hunt a new deal, is anyone’s guess because the EU’s unaccountable ‘in charge’ people don’t give a damn about any individual county’s plight, do they?]


The UK civil service, politicians, MPs, Prime Ministers, and candidate Prime Ministers – all exposed by BREXIT as being “economical with the truth”?

Some 33 years ago in a major trial in Australia, the UK Cabinet Secretary of the day, the most senior civil servant in the United Kingdom, indeed the senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and responsible to all Ministers for the running of Cabinet Government, coined the modern political catchphrase of “being economical with the truth”

Under cross-examination, he justified his silly government lie about it needing a book when already in possession of the manuscript, as simply perhaps being economical with the truth, from whence the phrase has become one that elucidates how those in power who get caught-out with blatant lying, try to get away with it by claiming they only gave ‘a misleading impression of the truth’, eh?

Well, you’ve probably noticed that they are all still at it in spades, and truth manipulation has been rife in recent weeks due to the Conservative leadership election and its BREXIT connotations, eh? One of the two men left in the unseemly joust will become the UK’s Prime Minister in just 3 weeks’ time, and will be selected in a postal ballot by possibly as few as 80 thousand people (fifty percent of voting Conservative party members), out of a UK total voting population of some 47 million, so that is just 0.2% of us – and this is democracy?

The two candidates of course are Boris Johnson, the Brexiteer favourite, and his opponent is Jeremy Hunt, the lapsed Remainer underdog. Both of them are liars/porkie tellers economical with the truth, of course?

Both men are using the leadership hustings to announce major Conservative party policy changes which are totally outside of the remit on which the government was elected and for which they clearly have no real authority to commit to even IF they are elected as leader since any changes have to go through the parliamentary process, don’t they? Promises based on hot air, eh

Multi-millionaire Hunt, a friend of the Murdoch clan, the richest member of the Cabinet, is a distant relation of the Queen, the son of a Commander in the Royal Navy, was privately educated at the exclusive Charterhouse boarding school, is a former member of the Oxford Uni Bullingdon club, who now claims to be part of those in society who have struggled with hardship, which is difficult to square with the actuality that he is from the same privileged classes as is Johnson, don’t you think? After a number of failed start-ups, he made his big-bucks using (nepotism?) the British Council with a jointly owned company (with a media bigwig) teaching the Japanese to speak English, so despite being bankrolled throughout, he now claims to be an astounding ‘risk-taking’ entrepreneur who will transform the Country with his business acumen, no less?

He describes Johnson as a coward, and implies he is a flawed character who shouldn’t be trusted, while he himself has the better personality to be PM, despite some scary skeletons in his own cupboard including tax avoidance, a dubious role in the BSkyB affair, and somehow in the first case getting selected as an MP in a seat vacated by a Health Secretary relative.

Why Hunt has found it necessary to defame Johnson and join the eliminated candidates in undermining the Tory party itself is anyone’s guess, since Boris is quite capable of making his own gaffs when out of the immediate clutches of his constrainers – like furious rowing with his mistress, eh?

For his part Johnson accused Jeremy Hunt of dirty tricks when it was leaked that Boris as Foreign Secretary had called the French ‘turds’ over BREXIT and got it covered-up –why Johnson doesn’t realize that the public knowing what he called the French is actually a feather in his cap and not detrimental, it’s not at all clear?

Both Johnson and Hunt are standing on a platform of renegotiating a deal with the EU by the 31 October this year. Now that is said in the face of the glaring truth that the EU has said for some 8 months now that it WILL NOT change the Withdrawal Agreement that erstwhile PM Theresa May signed-up to, eh?

Johnson is adamant that the date is set in stone and a No Deal outcome will prevail [notwithstanding that Speaker Bercow says Parliament will get the chance to block it] if that day arrives without a revised deal – he says his threat will ensure he gets a new deal.

However, Hunt says he ‘may’ seek a further (the THIRD) date extension (‘short’?) if needed and claims that he is an ace negotiator so can get a new deal [is this the same man that as the longest serving Health Secretary EVER (6 years), oversaw the abject failure of the NHS during his watch?].

The claims of both have to be analysed in the context that the non-accountable powers that be in the EU (Jean-Claude Juncker (President of the European Commission) & Donald Tusk (President of the European Council)] will STAY in post until 31 October and that is exactly why the EU chose that date, isn’t it?

So, our ‘economical with the truth’ next PM will find that the ONLY way the UK will be able to leave the EU is via a No Deal [by default?]

The diehard Remainers tell all and sundry that Parliament can STOP a no-deal Brexit, but can recalcitrant MPs really do so when the default position is that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October, and so without changes to the law Brexit will happen on that date regardless of whether there is a deal or not, eh? Furthermore, as the government controls the timetable in Parliament, it can thwart the blocking of a no deal, and it would prevent backbenchers again seizing control as they did last March

If push comes to shove the new PM can also go for the nuclear option and prorogue Parliament (unprecedented in modern times), to prematurely end the parliamentary session which would have the effect of excluding Parliament from the Brexit process as it would kill all the House’s business, but without actual dissolution [notwithstanding that parliament’s democratic mandate is fundamental to the UK constitution!] – Bercow says he would prevent it but the power to prorogue Parliament falls within the royal prerogative, doesn’t it?

One cannot really rely on politicians or politicised organisations to mean what they ‘seem’ to say, eh?

Like the Treasury, acting in cahoots with the Bank of England with its project fear in 2016 before the Referendum, and currently with its prophesies of financial Armageddon if Britain leaves without a Deal, like the Labour party’s commitment to respect the BREXIT result but thwarting BREXIT, like the LibDems denouncing democracy with its ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ slogan, like the CBI the house of multinationals pretending to speak for all business and undermining Britain’s future prospects, like Remainer Theresa May’s insistence at the outset that she was an excellent EU negotiator, but then handed the job to a committed ‘federal Europe’ civil servant and returned claiming to have got a good deal when both Remainers & Leavers saw that it was a pile of shit, and when she had committed over a hundred times that we would leave the EU on the 29 March and yet she overruled her own Cabinet to ask for date extensions [also she called a snap general election having repeatedly said she wouldn’t], like the supposed hardcore BREXITEERS of Gove, Fox, and Leadsom who stuck it out to the bitter end in May’s Cabinet and repeatedly voted time and time again for her BINO (Brexit in name only) plans and her crap so-called deal

Following recent fiascos, claiming just being “economical with the truth” no longer cuts the mustard, and it is difficult to see how trust can EVER be restored in the British political sphere, but ‘perhaps’ the Brexit Party under Nigel Farage can do it, as in his second coming to front-line, he has shown himself to be most accomplished politician for two generations – but then again, his party needs to develop some bloody policies first before being allowed into Westminster, don’t they? However, NOTHING is going anywhere until a proper BREXIT is achieved and if the UK stays lied to the EU for any further years, both the Tories and Labour as parties will be dead in the water, don’t you think?


[Conservative Party members will receive their postal ballots at the end of the week with the winner and the next Prime Minister being announced on Monday, 22 July (the bookmakers rate the candidate’s chances as: Johnson 86%, Hunt 17%)]]


The modern British Broadcasting Corporation is in decline – well past its ‘sell-by’ date?

Many of us never thought we would see the day when our deep-felt commitment to the iconic BBC would wane, but unfortunately for many it now has, wouldn’t you say?

The BBC is of course nearly 100 years old now and during those years it has been a beacon of excellence in the world of broadcasting, and has beaten all other broadcasters into a cocked-hat, not only in the diversity and memorability of the output it has created, but in the way it has been run.

It all began of course with radio and following on from that the BBC was there at the birth of television in the 1930s, played a crucial role in the nation during WWII, brought TV to the masses in the 50s, and a decade later provided colour TV.

Now, the BBC has been successful primarily because some very talented men [sorry no women so far, eh?] have been appointed as Director-General in a role that combines ‘chief executive’ with ‘editor-in-chief’ of the BBC.

The very first bloke and founder of the BBC was powerhouse John Reith and it was indeed he who created the successful operational framework for public service broadcasting in Britain that delivered programmes to educate, inform and entertain, but he had to fight tooth and nail to prevent the politicians of the day get their fingers in the pie – others since have been much less effective on that front, perhaps?

One has to appreciate that in the early days the only radio programmes were transmitted by the BBC and the only television pictures came via an aerial and from the public service provider BBC or Independent television – in modern times that has all dramatically changed particularly in the case of TV when there is a plethora of choice with hundreds of channels provided by subscription service cable and satellite providers, eh?

The millstone that has been round the neck of the BBC for many many decades now is its source of funding. The income of the corporation to run the television, radio and online services comes primarily from the government’s TV licence fee [i.e. a government TAX] paid by ALL users of live broadcast TV [fees totaling £3.83 BILLION in 2017/18 – representing ¾ qtrs. of the BBC’s income].

The major problem that the BBC always faces is that it has to regularly go cap-in-hand to the government of the day to get the fee increased as inflation rises and costs go up – the government actually ‘froze’ the licence fee in cash terms from 2010 until 2016 and since then it only goes up in line with inflation until 2022. That all means of course that government has a stranglehold influence over the BBC, doesn’t it?

Yep, and that is now having major consequences for the corporation, caused by of an issue with the social concession of universal free-of-charge TV licences for the over-75s – which has operated since the year 2000 and is received by around 4.55 million households

You see, back in 2015 when the government had its last licence fee negotiation with the BBC, intended it was said to finally provide “financial stability” for the corporation, austerity obsessed chancellor George Osborne decreed that the Treasury would no longer be responsible for providing financial cover for those free TV licences and instead that the BBC would be expected to pick-up the substantial bill itself from 2020. The beleaguered BBC was far too weak to put up any strong resistance to that ultimatum and that has been its undoing, hasn’t it?

Mind you, there should be no doubt that the government’s strategy on this matter was outrageous, since the BBC is neither a government department to be controlled by Treasury diktat, nor is it part of the Country’s welfare system that functions to deliver social benefits, is it? The government should have been told to piss off, whatever the consequences – where could that kind of transfer of welfare responsibility end, eh?

Well, the shit really hit the fan on the issue just 2 weeks ago when the incumbent Director-General of six years Tony Hall (Lord Hall) brutally announced that the BBC are going to scrap free TV licences for almost four million over-75s – it will only continue for those on benefit.

There has been widespread condemnation of the BBC for its crass decision, not least because it is not just reneging on an agreement made with government four years ago, but it is also smashing a committed promise made to 3.7 million over-75s – indeed that copper-bottomed assurance to pensioners was made by the Tories in their 2017 manifesto that got them reelected. The disturbing latter fact shows just how ineffective the current government has become when we see an institution like the BBC taking it on and giving the finger to its spending decisions, eh?

Now, all this has come about at a very bad time for the previously much loved and respected BBC, as there is now much deep dissatisfaction with both its current funding arrangement through tax, and moreover with its recent lacklustre performance.

The licence fee has been an increasing bone of contention as many viewers have other alternative ‘paid-for’ service providers, or they stream television to computers, tablets, or mobiles, so they don’t really see why they should have to pay ‘a tax’ to contribute to BBC channels and services they don’t necessarily use nor like. Enforcing the licence fee system is also problematic and large fines of £1000 are widely resented – besides much of the public and more to the point many politicians, no longer accept that licence non-payment should be a ‘criminal offence’ – it is at most a civil matter, surely?

Moreover, increasing numbers of people are dissatisfied with the BBC’s somewhat staid and slanted service output, which is targeted at quite a restricted audience, and some would say that for a supposedly neutral public service broadcaster, that at times it lacks objectivity and seems very biased in its approach to controversial topics [that would specifically include BREXIT where it has clearly been supportive of the government’s Remain line]. Also, these days one can find much better programmes elsewhere, and often its output lacks quality of thought and professionalism [the insensitive format, the debate bias, and the series of appalling blunders the BBC exhibited in its ‘gate-crash’ Tory leadership broadcast last Tuesday is a glaring case in point], while in general its output descends to the lowest common denominator in its quest to match the dross of the crap commercial channels.

The BBC seems to inexplicably believe that its viewers of predominately intelligent, discerning people, want a never-ending programme diet of cookery, house hunting & relocation, bric-à-brac & antique sales, outdated & irrelevant chat shows, incomprehensible & meaningless game shows, medical dramas and soaps seemingly used solely to promote relationship & diversity issues, repeats & re-runs of past quality items galore, low-interest sports events & with just post-time reviews of major sport goings-on, etc, eh?

That is coupled with the BBC scandalously enabling personal tax reduction by secretly paying TWO THIRDS of its highest-paid presenters and actors [freelancers] “off the books” so to speak, by channelling their earnings though ‘personal service companies’ [£74million in payments dished out over 4 years], a practice which allows both the BBC and the worker to pay less tax – that is despite the corporation pledging to stop the practice 7 years ago, eh? (The BBC had refused requests made under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose information about the practice)

[Payment via a company allows the BBC to avoid national insurance while the performer avoids income tax at source of up to 45% and instead pays corporate tax of 19%]

The BBC’s blatant sex inequality on pay has been exposed – showing that the top four male presenters across the BBC were collectively paid almost four times the total amount of the top four female presenters. That is coupled with unwarranted enormous salaries of the so-called stars, which when uncovered over a year ago, the majority of the viewing population couldn’t comprehend why [which apparently resulted in some pay-cuts – guilt & embarrassment?]

[The BBC has been  forced to publish a list of those earning above £150,000 a year but we don’t know anything about the biggest earners paid through their personal service companies, and payments made through BBC Studios etc are also hidden – LAST YEAR ALONE:

    • £1.75million to a football presenter of matches already played (was £1.8million the year before) & he also is supported by highly paid analysts including one on £420thousand (was £550thousand the year before)
    • £1.7million to a radio presenter (was £2.5million the year before when he did a TV show as well)
    • £610thousand to a radio presenter and TV chat show host (was £900thousand the year before)
    • £560thousand to a radio presenter
    • £530thousand to a newsreader and elections presenter (was £600thousand the year before but reportedly he took a pay cut)
    • £450thousand to a radio and TV presenter (was £750thousand the year before but reportedly he took a pay cut)
    • £420thousand to a radio presenter (was £450thousand the year before but reportedly he took a pay cut)
    • £410thousand to a radio presenter
    • £410thousand to a radio presenter with some TV work (was £650thousand the year before)
    • £410thousand to a TV presenter was £650thousand the year before
    • £410thousand to a radio presenter was £650thousand the year before)
    • £380thousand to a female radio presenter and TV host ( was £500thousand the year before)
    • £359thousand to a radio presenter (was £400thousand the year before)
    • £340thousand to a female radio presenter
    • £340thousand to a radio presenter (was £350thousand the year before)
    • £310thousand to a radio presenter
    • and others who have also been pulling in £300thousand or so

Radio presenters seem to be the BBC’s high paid elite – WHY? Where does the competition for their services come from that necessitates big bucks, eh?


    • Radio listeners DON’T actually pay ANY licence fee to use that service
    • The BBC Director General not only ALREADY draws BBC pension but ALSO gets a BBC salary AS WELL – so is on £530thousand
    • The PM gets just £149thousand TOTAL salary
    • The average salary of UK FULL TIME workers is only £35thousand]

While the BBC should not have been expected to fund free TV licences, it has nevertheless got itself embroiled in the betrayal of millions of over-75s [1.8 million over-75s live completely ALONE and TV provides a lifeline], and it will doubtless pay a high price for that, won’t it?

Why Hall thinks that the BBC will get away with biting the hand that feeds it, is anyone’s guess, but crossing the Treasury and embarrassing the government in breaking its manifesto pledge is pretty non-recoverable, don’t you think?

The most likely outcome now is that the licence fee will shortly be scrapped, the BBC will have its feet held to the fire and it will be challenged to get its future income from subscription services – then the value and quality of its output will be put to the ultimate test of consumer satisfaction. Its cosy little isolated world of the luxury of not having to perform to obtain massive unearned income will have gone – will subscriptions to Radio1, Radio2, Radio3, Radio4, Radio Five live, Radio London, really pull-in the many millions of pounds needed to support the BBC’s loaded radio presenters, do you think?


[Will creativity and excellence become the byword the BBC again, will talented programme makers be attracted back to the new model BBC, and will presenters start to get paid only what they are worth, do you think?]

Falsely accusing someone of being ‘racist’ is commonplace – time to make it illegal?

It is 50 years since Britain’s first Race Relations Act was passed, banning racial discrimination in public places, but it has become a common and effective ploy to denigrate with impunity, someone’s character by labelling them as a “racist”, hasn’t it?

Yes, while in this Country people cannot get away with making damaging tenuous accusations against others of criminality without dire consequences, so why when it comes to tagging targets with racism assertions, is it open house, eh? Just try a tweet to say a non-convicted person is a burglar, or a rapist, or a murderer, etc, and your feet won’t touch the ground on your way to a cell will they, eh?

Now, such casual charges of racialism are intentionally personally injurious to those under attack and are used to create a hostile environment for them, and is one that cannot be escaped from because a person cannot show they aren’t racist – it is a known logical fact that it is impossible to prove a negative assertion, isn’t it?

Yep, the burden of proof must always be on the person making an assertion, yet in the case of racism, they try shifting the burden of proof onto the person who denies it –the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise is an unacceptable fallacy

There should be no doubt in people’s minds that indeed there are pockets of racists remaining in Britain, but that has to be put in the context that when gauging the level of racism here compared to other countries, metrics show that the UK is actually one of the least racist countries in the world – things have come a long way since the old days of the post WW1 seaport race riots of 1919, in which white crowds attacked Black and Minority workers, their families and communities. [It is however a well reiterated “myth” that in the 1960’s it was standard to see signs for digs saying ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ (simply invented by Irish activists in the 1980s!)]

[In 1968 Mahesh Upadhyaya from south Yemen became the first person in the UK to bring a racial discrimination case to court using the then recently introduced Race Relations Act 1968]

The greatest use in history of this tactic of denigration of others as being racists, surely has to apply to the BREXIT situation, as the Remainers after losing the EU Referendum in 2016, immediately explained the situation, without an iota of proof, as one where Leavers were clearly just vile racists who were Empire fantasists who hated or were antagonistic towards immigrants – at a stroke 17,410,742 people, over half the voters no less, were deemed to be prejudiced, and discriminatory against someone of a different race, eh?

And so it has gone on with those allegations for the past three years, despite the very fact that evidence shows that prejudice against immigrants in this Country is amongst the lowest in Europe.

People in the UK cannot these days make any reasonable bleeding comment or voice any responsible opinion on anything involving race, religion, or other counties without the destructive slagging brigade denouncing them as racists, can they?

For example we currently have, as part of the Conservative leadership campaign, the usual crowd of Remainers, political activists, terrorist apologists and the like, MPs, and even supposedly renowned TV presenters & interviewers giving credence to totally unfounded claims that Tory Boris Johnson is an Islamophobic racist because he has made some pointed but valid remarks about women wearing the niqab and the burka, the Muslim body and head-gear that obscure the female face.

Well, those who attempt to denounce Johnson with their wild xenophobia claims are so shit ignorant about it, that they have idea of the circumstances, context, or even tone of his comments, do they? No, because if they did they wouldn’t malign him at all – they don’t appreciate that what Johnson in reality DID was write a thousand word newspaper article last year, DEFENDING the right of Muslim women to actually wear such clothing, and in it he clearly denounced Denmark, with a reputation as a easy-going country, but nevertheless one that like some other European countries, had strangely just introduced a legal ban against the burka.

[A fine of 1000 kroner (about £120) had been imposed on a 28-year-old woman seen wearing a niqab in a shopping centre in the north eastern town of Horsholm (a scuffle had broken-out as someone tried to rip it off her head)]

Yes, indeed he wrote that if a constituent came to his MP’s surgery with her face obscured, he should feel fully entitled to ask her to remove it so that he could talk to her properly, or if a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then that also applied, as those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct, but equally he determined that while in certain circumstances such as those, human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read their expressions, it is a different matter telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business.

So when most ordinary people here would simply agree with all of that, why do the human rights and Muslim organisations’ idiots cause an uproar and get away with a claim that such analytic comments are “offensive”, or that the article was “anti-Muslim” and would “whip up hatred of women who wear the niqab and burka”, do you think?

Does any of that Johnson comment sound in any way like a man who is in fear of, has hatred for, or is prejudiced against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally, would you say? [Indeed his great-grandfather was a Muslim]

[Counties currently with a ‘full’ burka and niqab ban: France [2004], Belgium [2011], Chad [2015], Cameroon five provinces [2015], Diffa Niger [2015], Brazzaville Congo [2015], Tessin Switzerland [2016], Denmark [2018]

Included in Johnson’s comments were:

Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that’s still no reason to ban it”

“I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam”

“If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree”

“it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes.”

In fact, most ordinary British people who know the specifics, actually agree with ‘straight speaking’ Johnson’s opinions on this topic, not least when the reality is that very few (immeasurable) Muslim women in the UK actually wear the full face veil attire, yet the man is repeatedly required to express regret for ‘causing offence’ when not only was none intended but none should have been caused – that so-called offence has all be manufactured by extremists and troublemakers, hasn’t it?

[The current British scenario clearly demonstrates that the time has come to balance the scales of justice, so that our effective laws that make racial and religious discrimination illegal in the UK, are buttressed by making it an offence to make unwarranted or unproved public allegations against others of being discriminatory]

Obesity ‘sucks’, so time for ‘effective’ action – shut the fast-food shops?


You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know what is the root cause of obesity, do you? No, it is self evident because being overweight, being fat, being obese, just results from eating too much for your body’s particular energy needs. This has become a major health problem even in less populous places, when around the World overall some five per cent of all children and 12 per cent of all adults are now obese.

Now, that is a troubling issue here in Britain also, although we are nowhere near the top of the obesity league, and it is evidenced in many other countries as well – particularly as we notice with our overweight cousins in America [33% are obese], eh? Britain has the highest obesity rates in western Europe as evidenced by 30000 associated deaths,


      1. American Samoa (7 South Pacific islands and atolls)
      2. Nauru (tiny island country in Micronesia, northeast of Australia)
      3. Cook Islands (15 islands country in the South Pacific, with political links to New Zealand)
      4. Tokelau (a remote group of atolls in the South Pacific Ocean, halfway between Hawaii and New Zealand, accessed by boat from Samoa)
      5. Tonga (Oceania, kingdom of more than 170 South Pacific islands, many uninhabited)

17.Egypt (just ahead of the US, has the biggest weight problem of the world’s 20 most populous countries)]

Obesity has become a modern day catastrophic health issue in the UK – it will overtake tobacco smoking as the biggest cause of preventable death – and is one which has been brought about by a number of interconnected factors, hasn’t it? Yep, while large swathes of the World’s population suffer from poverty and food shortages, conversely we in the West suffer from affluence and food gluts – we not only have an ‘over-sufficiency’ of food but we have an ‘over-indulgence’ of choice, which inevitably encourages excessive eating and non-water drinking, leading to excessive calorific intake which the body is geared-up to store as fat for energy use in harsher times – which NEVER come, eh? So people simply get fat and fatter, and ill and ill’er, don’t they?

The thing is that the general population in the UK leads a pretty sedentary lifestyle these days, with minimal physical activity expended in work activities [manual work replaced by machines, you see], nor indeed in home activities [labour saving devices abound including even robot floor cleaners, all remote controllable via the internet], nor either in getting around [walking replaced by cycles, replaced by cars, buses, and trains]. A good indicator of just how bad things have got regarding the common lack of physical activity in ‘normal’ life [essential for the body’s wellbeing] is the growth and widespread use of gyms which used to be the prerogative and the need of the ‘idle rich’ to try to keep fit [there are nowadays over 7,000 gyms in the UK with a membership of about 10 million (1 in every 7 people in Britain is a member of a gym – the other 6 just get fat?) – the irony is that most go to the costly gym to use a waking/running machine so users go absolutely nowhere, when they could just walk/run outside on the ground for free and actually go somewhere interesting, eh? Others are keeping fit or are losing weight by regular cycling – in some places up fourfold over the past 25 years

Then of course, the debilitating issues of excessive food consumption and lack of normal exercise, is amplified as well, by people’s changing use of their free/social time, aren’t they? Digging the garden has been replaced by using the rotavator, scything the grass superseded by the push mover, superseded by the petrol/ electric mower, cutting back the hedge or bushes by the strimmer, the sawing-off of tree branches is delegated to the chainsaw – moreover these days everybody stays indoors incessantly, so possibly suffers sunshine deficiency, and just nobody plants potatoes or grows vegetables in their gardens, however big: walking a mile or two to the cinema has been replaced by a car ride at best, or more likely an evening (or seven?) in front of the telly watching fantasy on Netflix or Sky or others playing sport: no need now for a trip out shopping and lugging a heavy load home, as it’s not just the infirm, but even the millennials that have their groceries delivered every week, and just about EVERYBODY buys their other goods online to avoid the effort of hitting the high street: visiting family and friends, however local, is totally out of the question these days, when no one communicates face to face anymore because all human contact for everyone has been subverted by the ‘must be answered’ mobile phone, texting, and the now addictive social media, hasn’t it?

Coming finally to the crux of the matter of dealing with obesity then, we have the totally un-tackled matter of the plethora of fast food outlets in our towns and cities, which not only has driven-up the UK’S obesity crisis, but is continuing to do so and will carry-on ad infinitum unless it is brought to a halt, won’t it?

Now, despite the ‘obesogenic environment’ issue, where conditions of everyday life promote obesity, being on the agenda for a decade or more, no British government has had the balls to do anything about it – not only frit of the powerful food industry but wary of upsetting the voters, as well? Irresponsible? Most certainly, so allowing incessant promotion and harmful cut-price deals, often targeting children, by the ‘conscience-challenged’ advertising brigade., conjoined with over-indulgence of the personal choice of the unwary, the weak and the lazy, to override parliament’s national duty to protect society from bloodsucking business, but they just ‘watch and wait’ as overweight and obesity has holed the good ship NHS below the waterline and will continue to take-on water fast until it sinks, has been disgraceful, don’t you think?

[Cost annually to the NHS £25billion (?), with admissions to hospital due to weight and obesity doubled over 4 years (stroke, heart decease, cancer, diabetes, mental health, asthma, gallstones, hip replacement, knee replacement, toe amputation, limb amputation, pregnancy risk, liver disease, kidney disease)]

It will not have escaped the attention of many that the Government have more recently been making some lame attempts to tackle the Country’s obesity problem, but only by trying to curtail the food industry’s panache for flooding Britain with unnecessarily over-sugared food and drink – but it is pissing in the wind because it’s not working, as evidenced by the industry’s total failure to voluntarily meet official and agreed sugar reduction targets, and that’s because the ‘couldn’t care less’ blighters who produce killer processed-food make their quick bucks by selling garbage food that has been over-sweetened to make it palatable, don’t they?

[Of the top 20 brands responsible for the greatest amount of sugar, 50% made NO CHANGE, 33% cut some sugar, and 12% simply ADDED MORE SUGAR]

There is though that single area which can be targeted instead, and one that will be much more effectively, and is that of junk and fast food outlets, as they have become the ‘in-your-face’ blight of our high streets and are turbo charging the epidemic that is dragging Britain into the obesity abyss, by their pursuit of a shed load of dirty money and while doing so are wreaking the lives of adults with over a quarter of us obese, and even crushing the futures of our youngest children [one in five of our British children are now obese when they leave primary schoolbrought up’ on fast food by irresponsible parents hence they learn to prefer it for the rest of their lives, eh?)]

The general problem with so-called ‘fast-food’ is that it includes ingredients which have almost no nutritional value in our body but can have significant negative effects on our health – it is ultra-processed [which results in higher calories than normal cooking], and also ladened with sugars, fats, sodium/salt, starches, monosodium glutamate (MSG), lacks sufficient fiber, is vitamin-less and most destructively it is just all-pervasive, easy, stacked full of flavourings, cheap & highly affordable, uses bright primary colours to attract the young, is heavily promoted & marketed, but is junk fattening food, that causes early death – a decade of life is lost by the obese

As you might guess, fast food restaurants kicked-off in the US (nearly a hundred years ago), so it is just like many bad things we in the UK have to blame America for (as well as good stuff, of course), isn’t it? As you might also suspect, the fast food chains McDonald’s and KFC were also there early into the game of making the world obese and they have grown now into multinational corporations with outlets across the globe

  • [McDonald’s have been in the UK for 40 years and are the biggest fast food chain here with some 1250 outlets]
  • Rutland is the ONLY county in Britain that does NOT have a McDonald’s, but the chain is trying to open one and a big row is underway as locals are demanding planning permission be refused]


Most people don’t realize that for those who live near to a fast food shop the risk of obesity doubles, nor that we all underestimate how much we are eating and overestimate how much we will burn off with exercise – it’s almost impossible to burn-off a takeaway!

The high streets in our cities, our towns, and our villages, instead of being the bastion of community retailers like butchers, bakers, greengrocers, clothes shops, or the like, has transformed into a haven for junk food outlets, to the extent that you wouldn’t be able to walk a dozen yards along a main road in some big centers without passing a fat-food peddling unit, would you? No, there are some bloody 60,000 of them in UK with many towns now ‘dominated’ by burgers and kebabs outlets as well as the more traditional fish & chips shops.

[Blackpool, the vintage, iconic, seaside resort, was identified in 2015 as possibly the takeaway capital of the UK with 279 takeaway shops – so roughly one takeaway for every 500 people of the town’s population].

The government needs to formulate a strategy to not only halt in its tracks the growth of that type of business, but to roll back the ones that are out-there already – there has to be a game changer whereby it is no longer profitable to be in the fast food business. The problem is compounded by cheap take-away deliveries through Just Eat and Uber

To start, the local authorities must be forced by government legislation to refuse planning permission for ANY new fast food shop/takeaway without exception and whatever justification, AND in conjunction with that require a ‘change of use’ when a junk food premises changes hand

A new sales tax at the point of purchase, which takes into account both nutritional value and calories of foods, HAS to be imposed. It needs to progressively increase year on year in a similar manner used in the fuel price escalator to reduce usage, but in this case be tied to obesity levels – and kept in place until that illness crises has been cured. [The massive funds so raised should be ‘ring-fenced’ and allocated to the NHS]

That will raise the price of fast food which MUST become much less affordable, but in doing it is going to hit hardest the low-income groups and poorest communities and areas of the Country where it is indeed the most popular –AND CAUSES THE GREATEST OBESITY and the maximum risk of diet-related disease. That therefore is a problem that the government needs to deal with in parallel so that such communities can afford healthy food and become less ill – that requires ministers to increase welfare benefit payments to low-income households, and include help through maternity food vouchers and universal free school meals

[A ‘Food Foundation’ study last year reported that 4 million children in the UK live in family households that cannot meet the government’s own healthy food guidelines for fruit, vegetables, fish and other healthy foods]

Now the food industry and its fast food corporate giants will squeal like stuck pigs and fight tooth and nail against such a move but our society already has the evidence that nothing voluntary works with them as their attitude is solely profit, profit, profit, and bollocks to peoples’ health – exactly the same bloody attitude displayed by the tobacco peddlers [who only got seen-off by debilitating legislation, eh?]

There is evidence already from elsewhere [Hungary and Mexico] that junk food taxes work by changing people’s eating habits for the better and that junk food manufacturers are forced to reformulate products to healthier recipes.


[If the UK government doesn’t immediately resort to enacting tough tax measures on the junk fast-food pushers we can say goodbye to health and the NHS within a decade]



The once great ‘Conservative and Unionist Party’ is humbled and humiliated – now to be trashed by overtly ambitious ‘’nobody’ leadership candidates?

You don’t have to be a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party nor indeed a supporter of it, to be deeply interested and overtly concerned about who is going to become the next leader of that party, do you?

No, because that person is also going to be our Country’s Prime Minister and that is of critical importance to everyone in the UK. Yep, but the population is going to have foisted on it, a man or woman running Britain who has been put in that elevated and privileged position without either the knowledge or agreement of the voters – selected by say just 105 Tory MPs at Westminster and chosen by as few as 62 thousand constituency members, eh?

Well, we may not like it, but that is the way things are run in this so-called democratic country, isn’t it? In 2016 Theresa May was both selected and chosen as PM by a mere 165 people and that shows the folly of just a relatively few idiots making such an important decision. Those 165 Tory MPs should be hanging their heads in shame but instead the bulk of them will be out there again seeking to anoint the next holder of the office. Back at that time a post published here said that May wasn’t up to the job and so it proved, didn’t it? How didn’t those MPs see it as well? Probably because they were adamant Remainers who expected her to scupper BREXIT as she has endeavoured to do, eh? It was somewhat of a surprise to some of us that the Conservatives had chosen a woman when they had had before the dire experience of Margaret Thatcher, who like May had to be hounded out of Downing Street – but after nearly a dozen years as dictator in her case and not less than the three of May’s tenure

Oh yes, in full gaze of the world, May has certainly humbled and humiliated our great nation because she was determined that it was to be ‘her own way or no way’ – she alone was responsible for repetitive capitulation to the unaccountable EU hierarchy and negotiating a crap deal that disenfranchised this Country. In doing so she has in the process also pretty well destroyed the Conservative Party because when the chips were down, she wouldn’t go – even now she won’t go immediately and that could be the coup d’état for her party, surely?

The Brexit Party has in a matter of weeks come out of the traps running and is already snapping at the heels of the Tories – we will see tomorrow night exactly what it has achieved so far and what it has done to the Conservative party, when the results of last Thursday’s EU election are announced, won’t we? Well, it is a party that has ambitions to become a third force in UK politics and that could well be evidenced in under 2 weeks’ time when it contests the Peterborough by-election – it’s a marginal seat that the Tories would have expected to seize back from Labour whose reputation has been tarnished by their MP being imprisoned. Back in 2016 Peterborough was ‘Brexit central’, with the city split 60/40 for leave, and the Conservatives had a bad showing in this month’s local elections and lost overall control of the council. The stage is set for the Brexit Party to make its mark there with its first MP, don’t you think?

The Conservatives are heading into even rougher waters though, as everyone and their dog of their MPs will be throwing their hats into the ring to become the next Tory leader and hence Prime Minister, and that is simply going to demean the whole process, isn’t it? Those imbeciles who don’t yet have the qualities or qualifications to lead a government will damage the standing of those who do – the half dozen who so far have entered the fray are Matt Hancock (current Health Secretary), Jeremy Hunt (current Foreign Secretary and ex-Health Secretary), Boris Johnson (ex- Foreign Secretary who resigned over May’s BREXIT plans), Esther McVey (ex-Work & Pensions Secretary who resigned over May’s BREXIT plans), Dominic Raab (ex-BREXIT Secretary who resigned over May’s BREXIT plans), and Rory Stewart (appointed this month International Development Secretary).

It is mooted that another dozen MPs apparently think they can do the job of PM [for example Steve Baker, Sir Graham Brady, James Cleverly, George Freeman, Justine Greening, Michael Gove, Sajid Javid, Andrea Leadsom, Nicky Morgan, Penny Mordaunt, Priti Patel, Liz Truss].

Some of the candidates know quite well that they have a snowball in hell’s chance of being selected but nevertheless they will stand to promote their image and boast of their credentials in the hope of a good appointment in the Cabinet – while ignoring the damage that such a bun fight will do to the Conservative ‘s image.

The Tory MPs will select two candidates for the wider party to vote on, and the overriding principle for their choices has to be that the ones picked are capable of winning a General Election. In selecting May in 2016 they blew it because she was the one politician who had zilch idea on how to relate to or communicate with, the public – and that was self-evident even in those days, wasn’t it?

The other priority is that the new Leader has to have the gravitas and clout to drive through BREXIT and that has to be fully leaving the EU and not BINO (BREXIT in name only), otherwise there will be no Conservative Party around to fight the next Election, will there?


[The Conservatives will be leaderless for months, the Labour party has a leader the public don’t trust, the LibDems seek a new leader, and the new kid on the block the Brexit party has one of the outstanding political leaders of recent times – it’s interesting times in Britain, eh?]




‘Fake News’ about the Lisbon Treaty which is ‘supposedly’ favourable of BREXIT undermines the true case against the EU – so was published by wrecker Remainers?

Not many of us, who are merely ordinary members of the British public, will have actually read the Lisbon Treaty nor know of the details therein, will we? No, and that very fact has been seized-upon by those plotters with vested interests, who are determined to halt BREXIT in its tracks and keep the UK handcuffed to the EU forever, it seems?

They have used the internet to publish a pack of lies about the content of that Treaty and make outrageous claims of its impending adverse impact and the consequential doom that will descend on this Country – ‘if we remain in the EU’

Now, the whole intention of all that fake-news is to wind-up into frenzy those in favour of BREXIT, so that they have the entirely wrong information and in a panic, publically shout-off their mouths about it all – whence they can be shot down in flames as being blatant scaremongers who don’t know their arse from their elbow, eh?

Two months ago, the organization ‘Full Fact’ [the UK’s independent factchecking charity] reported that since last December its many versions, which are getting more strident, of the load of bollocks and misleading issues about the Treaty’s 2020 implications has gone viral on multiple platforms of social media. The clear intention behind that persuasive campaign is to perpetuate the myth that has been deployed far and wide over the past 3 years by the shameless Remainers and their associated Parties, which is that those who chose ‘Leave’ in the 2016 EU Referendum “were misled and didn’t know what they were voting for”

Now, there is always a significant danger of getting sucked-in by internet con merchants and for example we increasingly we see things like adverts for designer goods at knock-down prices placed by scammers and fraudsters using clone websites and social media to steal from the unwary internet user

The specific article containing a list of invented frighteners about the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, was in particular very convincing, and in some respects quite plausible to those who are conscious of the controlling and oppressive nature of the EU – many many people will have been taken in by it, so nobody who has been duped by it, need feel guilty, but they should warn those to who they have passed it onto, that it needs to be completely disregarded – there are enough ‘true’ facts to actually condemn the EU on, without falling for the ruse of believing outright falsehoods and fake news, isn’t there?

[The rule of thumb is if something seems unbelievable then it probably is, so check the facts independently. Like, is the information originating from a reliable source (not just the one who passed it to you), or is it actually out-of-date (some stuff can be years old), or are there other sources to evaluate it against (if not don’t trust it), is the author or person publishing it identifiable and credible (anonymous sources often have an agenda), or is any verifiable evidence included (Google things to check), or even what is the reason that it’s been put out (possibly to swing public opinion or promote discrimination)?]

Some of the list of significant crap claimed about the Lisbon Treaty includes:

  • that it comes into force in 2020 – when actually the Treaty has already been in place now for a whole decade
  • that all member states lose their abstention veto in 2020 when in reality all voting changes have already been implemented and for those issues that require unanimity the so called veto still applies
  • that in 2022 all members will become federal states of a federal EU with all veto powers removed when neither assertion is in any way true
  • that in 2022 all members will be forced to join the Euro currency which is a clear fabrication as in fact the UK has a specific opt-out referenced to in the Treaty itself
  • that in 2020 the London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt to be integrated into a EU stock exchange resulting in massive job losses – when the truth is a proposed ‘non-move’ business merger between London and German Exchanges was actually ‘blocked’ on monopoly grounds by the EU itself
  • that the UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 – when this is just plain false, as the UK has opted-out of the EU area that doesn’t have internal border controls, and Britain itself unilaterally decides if that is to be changed
  • that the UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrentwhen the reality is that this is completely made up, as the EU doesn’t currently even have an army and could only implement common defence policies by the ‘unanimous’ agreement of ‘all’ states. Not only does that give Britain a veto at the EU, but also the UK parliament itself would have agree and hold a referendum about it. Furthermore, the use of British nuclear weapons is solely a sovereign matter for the UK and one where only the Prime Minister can authorise use
  • that the UK loses full control of its taxation policy – when in actuality the EU only ensures tax rules are consistent with relevant EU policies, and all member states have to have broadly similar rules and minimum rates on VAT, and taxes on petrol, tobacco and alcohol, but the EU and has no part to play in national taxes either in raising, setting, or spending. Any future alteration to EU tax policy is subject to ‘unanimous’ agreement so Britain like the other member countries has a veto
  • that the UK loses its standing in the Commonwealths – when the assertion is meaningless mischief making, since the Commonwealth is solely a voluntary association of countries with no legal obligations to one another, isn’t a trading bloc, and the UK is merely one of 53 free and equal sovereign states which as such a community has been in place for the past 70 years [The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth – only a symbolic position]


[The creating of news stories to deliberately fool others has been around forever, but in modern times with the advent of the internet and its resultant plethora of social media platforms, it has caused an explosive rise of fake news, disinformation, propaganda, deceit, and opinion manipulation. It is regularly difficult nowadays to tell the difference between a lie and the truth, particularly when it is circulated on social media sites – where fake news travels faster, furtherer, and has a greater destructive influence. The problems created by such news which is not simply inaccurate, but is totally made up, is compounded by increasing numbers of people now primarily getting their news from social media rather than the traditional and more reliable sources of printed and broadcasted news]

Theresa May “I’m a ‘Remainer’ at heart as I have fully demonstrated – so I will REMAIN at No.10 no matter what”?