BREXIT on 31st October 2019 ‘DEAL’ or ‘NO DEAL’ – just a Boris Johnson negotiating ploy?


Boris Johnson won the Conservative leadership election last month and took office as British Prime Minister on 24 July 2019 on a hustings platform of taking the UK out of the EU on October 31 this year, come hell or high water.

However, there is a massive campaign afoot to completely rubbish that commitment and say it is just a bargaining tool with no legs – no doubt because the powers-that-be controlling our media [like the BBC, HuffPost, Guardian, Observer, Independent, Mirror, Financial Times, Mail on Sunday, Times] are innately biasedly anti-BREXIT so are mega-anti-‘No Deal’ BREXIT.

Now, that wouldn’t really matter so much, except that the problem with those theories that it is all an elaborate wind-up and Johnson is bluffing over a no-deal Brexit, dramatically undermine the UK Government’s ability to get the EU to renegotiate our departure by this year’s Halloween. The media, the anti-Brexit activists, and the plotting Tory MP village idiots, who are falsely talking-up the ability of the current parliament to block no deal, or bring down the government to force a General Election vote, or being able to create a Government of national unity, all before the end of October to stop Britain exiting the EU without a deal, are in reality ensuring the shit hits the fan and No Deal is not just a possibility but becomes a reality

Boris Johnson has been in power just 18 days, but since the very first moment of his premiership he has altered the whole BREXIT ball game, hasn’t he? Just look above at the powerful hardline Cabinet of ‘October-committed’ Leavers that he has appointed, whence the May’s diehard Remainers blockers have bitten the dust.

He has also set-up a so-called war cabinet of six cabinet ministers with the declared mission of delivering Brexit within the 100 days before exit date [which is now just 82 days away]

He has also tabled his intensions, backed with funding, to deal with the Country’s out of control crime situation [caused by his predecessors it has to be said] with restoration of police and prison officer numbers, building many more prisons and banging-up felons behind bars in accordance with the law and judges’ sentencing – all essential and well overdue criminal toughness measures and a breath of fresh air, don’t you think?

While parliament is now in recess, the bulk of MPs are naturally intent on taking advantage of the holiday season, but conversely the level of Cabinet activity is unprecedented, enormous funding has been now released by the Treasury for BREXIT, major consultations inside and outside of government on BREXIT are underway, all ministers’ political advisers (SpAds) have had holidays banned until November, and the civil service have been priority refocused on exit day preparations  – all sounds like serious stuff then, but some say only just window dressing, eh?

Whereas there are some reports that because of Johnson’s pronouncements and the ramping up of the UK’s no-deal planning attempts to intimidate the other EU27 countries, that important EU leaders are on edge, it is equally said that others in Brussels claim that his no-deal Brexit threat strategy is merely an obvious tactic to spook them, which will cut no ice either in Europe or in Britain, and that the threat of a no-deal Brexit would not break EU unity– who knows which view will prevail, eh?

Certainly, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is reiterating his view that a no-deal Brexit would hurt Britain more than the rest of Europe – but nevertheless alarmed Irish businesses are furiously demanding that the EU go back to the negotiating table, as the blind pursuit of EU unity is fatally endangering their country’s economy.

Realists amongst us know full well that it takes time for political effort and money to work itself through the system to deliver the intended results, so you don’t have to be a haulier expert to appreciate that the BREXIT plan to suddenly recruit say many hundreds of extra port customs staff to prevent lorry hold-ups at Dover in November is unrealistic, but it will indeed shorten and reduce the ongoing impact of a no deal departure from the EU, if that is the outcome. While Johnson has declared that the UK was much ready on March 29, will be ready by October 31, and it was vital that our EU partners saw that, we don’t have to rely on that optimism absolutely – Britain will muddle through with flying colours as usual.

[The UK were barred from making such adequate preparations, which should have been enacted a long while ago by our anti-BREXIT, arch-Europhile, ‘Philip Hammond’, who as Chancellor knowingly refused the funds in order to thwart us leaving the EU (over a year ago, Calais port authorities make preparations in case there was no Brexit deal, which included hiring hundreds of additional customs officers and extra border control facilities, so to avoid potential logistical chaos over there)].

Those of us who want a no deal exit with a clean break from the EU, do so because we know that any short-term pain is better than being tied-up long-term in the EU and under Brussels’ control without even any say.

In truth, betting wise it’s even stevens about the UK leaving the EU this year, but the prospects of doing so are at least now realistic, whereas a month ago they certainty were not.


[The political crisis and public diversive turmoil that has paralysed Britain for 3 years now has been directly caused by a losing side’s unprecedented refusal to accept defeat in a democratic national voting decision. The effect has been just like ‘a rotten apple spoils the barrel’, when we now see the SNP both rejecting the result of their ‘once in a lifetime’ independent referendum of 5 years ago as well as the United Kingdom Union’s decision on the 2016 EU referendum, and with the LibDems’, the Labour party, the Green party, Plaid Cymru all fighting dirty against BREXIT]


The UK’s threat to the EU of a ‘No Deal’ BREXIT – has it suddenly become ‘real’?

The official campaign in favour of leaving the European Union in the 2016 Referendum


It is a well know fact that Theresa May, while pretending to the British public that her view was that “No Deal is better than a Bad Deal”, at no stage ever attempted to threaten the EU with a no-deal BREXIT exit during withdrawal negotiations. That’s why they would only offer Britain a bum deal that tied us into the EU forever, when it required the UK to sign-up to a new never-ending binding Treaty, whereas the Lisbon Treaty at least had Article 50, the legal process for leaving the EU in a couple of years.

It is a lesser know fact that Theresa May, while pretending to the British public she was forced by the Cooper-Letwin bill to extend the BREXIT date to 31 October 2019, in reality had NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to accept an extension to October when the requested date of June was rejected by the EU. That’s why they refused to make changes to the crap Withdrawal Agreement as they thought Britain could be forced into staying in the EU until it was approved or indeed Article 50 withdrawn.

However, the EU hierarchy [Michel Barnier, Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk] clearly have overplayed their hand as they are now up against PM Boris Johnson who has made a ‘do or die’ Brexit pledge for Britain to leave the EU by Halloween – with or without a Deal.

Whereas, conciliatory  ‘Remainer’ May stuffed her cabinet with Remainers and surrounded herself with similar like-minded aides, hardball  ‘Leaver’ Johnson has turned his Cabinet into a Remainer no-go area where everyone had signed-up to leaving in October, and he has supported them by gathering a formidable backroom team of experienced Brexiteers and campaigners led by a rottweiler-type ‘enforcer’ [joint founder of ‘Vote Leave’]

Now, Johnson explains that he is NOT aiming for a no-deal exit and wants to negotiate a Deal with the EU, but many of us believe that that will prove impossible, not least because a hoard of past and present MPs are telling the EU that parliament WILL block a no deal BREXIT and stop the UK leaving this Halloween – they will undermine Johnson’s insistence that the EU must capitulate and renegotiate, won’t they? [Perhaps alternatively, Johnson could obtain an interim  ‘free-trade deal?]

[The likes of Europhiles: Philip Hammond (ex-Chancellor), Dominic Grieve (a former- Attorney General), David Gauke (ex-Justice Secretary), Rory Stewart (ex-International Development Secretary), Greg Clark (ex-Business Secretary) Stephen Hammond (ex-health minister), Sir Alan Duncan (ex-foreign office minister), Anne Milton (ex-skills minister), Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir Peter Bottomley, Damian Green, Kenneth Clarke (a former chancellor), Michael Heseltine, Oliver Letwin, John Major (a former PM), Tony Blair (a former PM), Gordon Brown (a former PM), Anna Soubry (a former minister)

Moreover, a group of 24 parliamentarians include LibDems and SNP MPs has started a legal action in Scotland aimed at preventing the shutting down Parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit – they won’t succeed but they will boost the impression that BREXIT without a deal is the most likely scenario

Well, the bad news for those backbenchers and others driving the EU towards a no-deal BREXIT, is that there is snowball’s chance in hell of them stopping no-deal at this stage, or forcing Johnson to ask for a further extension, or indeed getting rid of PM Johnson and forming an interim government before the October leave date.

You see, the insurmountable problem that the wreckers face is that in February 2017, by a massive majority (votes 494 to 122) Parliament put into law empowerment of the government to implement the decision of the 2016 referendum and withdraw from the EU on the ‘exit day’ [now reset from 29 March 2019 to 31 October 2019], with OR WITHOUT a deal.

[That Bill extends, and applies in relation to, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and does not contain any provision which gives rise to the need for a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly]

Johnson has insisted that, come hell or high water, there will be no further extensions – only the PM can ask for one and even if one was requested all 27 EU countries would have to agree, so there’s no way can our parliament ensure there is an extension of the exit day. Furthermore, there are significant financial implications which would ‘normally’ require government support

New legislation will be required to enact any Deal agreed with the EU, or undeniably to prevent a no-deal Brexit. It cannot be claimed that the latter is denying the will of parliament since indeed it WAS parliament that created the current Bill in the first place, and any new motion or expression of current parliamentary opinion, has no legal effect whatsoever, does it?

The only realistic way that parliament itself can stop no deal happening, if Johnson is forced by EU intransigence to go that route, is by it snatching control of the legislative process from the Executive. There is little or no likelihood of that occurring or of new legislation being successfully passed, when faced by a determined Government, is there? No, the practical difficulties would be insurmountable as untrained rebel backbench MPs would themselves have to draft and navigate new ’error-free’ relevant bills through both Houses, wouldn’t they? Those who might raise however the example of last April’s Cooper-Letwin rubbish bill, which did precisely that, should be aware that Theresa May’s wishy-washy administration simply collaborated in that process as it could easily have been halted in its tracks – she ignored the will of her Cabinet by ruling out a no deal Brexit and actually needed another BREXIT delay [and as is her forte she wanted to dodge responsibility for it, having promised a 108 times to leave the EU on March 29].

The alternative course of action for the EU lovers to crash no-deal, is to bring down the Johnson Government, and Hammond has vowed to do just that, as apparently he believes it is in the national interest so surpasses Conservative party interest, hence he is already plotting with Labour to achieve that end – by working through the summer recess with Labour’s Keir Starmer, and Tories Letwin, Grieve, and others who oppose no deal

Well, they are pissing the wind because it won’t work, will it? Nope, a ‘no-confidence vote’ can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn. Even if successful, it doesn’t mean an immediate dissolution of parliament, but instead, a stay of execution for 2 weeks to establish if there is a government capable of securing the confidence of the Commons – and there wouldn’t be one, nor a government of national unity, that would satisfy the Crown, would there?

Most certainly Boris Johnson would remain as Prime Minister throughout, as is his perfect legal right, although a General Election would be automatically triggered. The date of such an election would though be decided-on by Johnson himself (by advising the Monarch), and although following a dissolution there must be a minimum of 25 working days before the election, there is no maximum. Johnson would most certainly hold the election in November 2019 so AFTER the UK had left the EU in accordance with the existing legislation.

Oh, the Remainers are already squealing like stuck pigs at that prospect, as they claim it would be unconstitutional when convention dictates that no alteration of policy should occur during the pre-election period. But we don’t have a constitution do we, and conversely it would be wrong for the PM to introduce a change that circumvents the 2016 Referendum or the existing legislation on leaving the EU, wouldn’t you say?

Doubtless the wild shrieking will intensify if and when that time comes, but it will fall on death ears because it would not be unlawful and there is no way that Johnson will call an Election BEFORE the UK have left the EU, when he knows full well that it is a lost cause because there is widespread anger and distrust in the Conservatives who had abjectly failed to exit the EU after 3 years – they cannot do anything in government until that issue is put to bed. Neither Tory or Labour will get a majority in Westminster until Britain is out of Europe, eh?

If BREXIT is delivered as now scheduled, there can be no question about it that Johnson will call a general Election regardless, but that will be next year by preference so that he can re-establish a working majority which is essential to effective governance [the current situation is a majority of only one despite the support of the Irish DUP

While the British people have the highest regard for our nearest European neighbours, though they may be a bit more circumspect about those further afield in the EU, but there is generally utter loathing for the EU organisation itself which was doomed when set up to be undemocratic and when it prioritised an overriding objective to destroy the individuality of its member nations


[Those intent on a dirty deeds onslaught on the new Boris Johnson Government ought to be aware of how the House of Commons’ timetable significantly constrains their opportunities. The House is currently in Summer Recess until the first week in September and apparently after just 8 working days it shuts up shop again and goes into an over 3 weeks Recess for party conferences, till it returns in October, a short 18 working days before ‘exit day’ – not much time for skulduggery]

Note: there is sparse appetite in the Commons for revoking Article 50 to cancel BREXIT and so the result of the Referendum [less than a couple of hundred] – the anti-democracy ‘LibDems’ of course, the dissociative identity disorder ‘SNP’ who want independence but to be controlled by the EU, and a chunk of memory challenged ‘Labourites’ who don’t know they lost the vote


A devastatingly and destructive role was played by the BBC in the BREXIT situation – time to hold a judicial Public Inquiry?

Over the past four years, the BBC has consistently played a pivotal but ‘biased’ political role on BREXIT, don’t you think? That is why its dealings on BREXIT now requires an immediate judicial public inquiry to be set-up into the culture, practices and ethics of the British Broadcasting Corporation on what has been a critical milestone matter for the UK

The BBC commenced an anti-BREXIT campaign on behalf of the elite and the Conservative government in early 2016 when PM  David Cameron announced he would campaign for Britain to remain in the EU after he falsely claimed he had secured a good deal that would give Britain “special status” in the 28-nation EU bloc

Doubtless though, that was a ‘quid pro quo’ for six months previously the BBC being granted future licence fee increases in line with inflation until 2022 [the fee beforehand having being frozen since 2010]

So, the BBC became a willing promotional participant in the government’s ‘Project Fear’ in its attempt to coerce the population to vote ‘Remain’.

When the Referendum’s outcome turned-out to be ‘Leave’, it was generally expected that all Parties, MPs, organisations and voters, who had previously supported staying in the EU, would accept the result, and get behind the process of extracting the UK from the bloc. However, instead of that, some including the likes of the disgusting LibDems, diehard Europhile Tory MPs [including grandees], and even discredited ex PMs and past and present Cabinet ministers, defied British democracy and set out to thwart BREXIT as best they could

The ‘respected’ BBC itself became the prime vehicle for the anti-BREXIT elite establishment and big business to undermine the Referendum result, as it unashamedly provided an unwarranted platform over the past three years for countless political nobodies to become powerful and peddle their bile against a genuine BREXIT, aided and abetted by its over-paid presenters and programme makers. This is all done of course under the guise of being fair, neutral, and covering both sides of the debate – when in the first place there should NOT have been any debate when a democratic decision had already been clearly made – it’s not something that happens after a General Election, is it?]

The BBC, a public service broadcaster and the largest broadcaster in the world, supposedly is objective and independent of government or commercial influence, so has an obligation solely to its audiences and when reportedly it employs journalists who exercise independence of decision-making on broadcast content (albeit under the guidance of managers).

Some doubt must be cast on both of those matters in light of it and its staff’s biased behaviour on BREXIT, and moreover since the government has a stranglehold influence over the BBC, when the glaring fact is that it as an organisation is sycophantically-dependent on the government’s licence fee for ‘three-quarters’ of its funding of well over £5billion

[For example the BBC was forced to take on extra funding commitments including the World Service and Welsh-language S4C in 2010, while a potential killer blow of shifting the cost of paying for free TV licences for over-75s from general taxation to the BBC was only dodged by the Trust chairman jumping-ship – but the government subsequently got its way on that ‘welfare social costs’ burden in 2015 (a commitment made which surprisingly the BBC has now four years later performed a U-turn and reneged on)]

Because of its actions, it is the BBC which must be held ‘most’ accountable amongst the others for the Country’s failure to extract itself from the EU after over 3 full years, despite the people having voted to do just that, and had fully expected full control to have been taken back by the UK after just 2 years. Moreover, this has resulted in massive anger and polarisation of the population, uncertainty with untold strains on commerce, as well as unnecessary unbelievable cost – that is why there has to be an inquiry into how and why this has happened, and those responsible brought to task, eh?


[Such an Inquiry can be set up on the lines of the Leveson inquiry into the British press]

An irresistible force meets an immovable object – BREXIT?

Boris’ first full day as PM

Most of us know of the ‘irresistible force paradox’, though few of us will actually appreciate the answer to the question of “what happens when an irresistible force collides with an immovable object”, do we?

Well, we are all about to experience first-hand that very encounter, because we are about to witness the irresistible force of the Boris Johnson government hitting the immovable object of the unaccountable EU Juncker executive.

Neither can Johnson continue as Prime Minister nor the Conservative Party survive in future, if the UK does not leave the EU by the end of October 2019. He has made it crystal that if the EU refuses to renegotiate and offer an acceptable Deal, that Britain WILL leave on time WITHOUT a Deal, and he will NOT ask the EU for an extension of time [unlike May who disgustingly sought and obtained 2 such extensions] – so it is indeed DO OR DIE for Johnson, isn’t it?.

On the other side of the Channel and the argument, we have of course the European Commission (EC) led by President Jean-Claude Juncker and First Vice President Frans Timmermans, who have taken a hardline position on BREXIT and who have repeatedly said that the Withdrawal Agreement deal negotiated with Theresa May is a “done-deal” and that it will NOT be changed, enhanced, nor renegotiated.

The ONLY way that the immovable object of the EU becomes ‘movable’ is if it becomes ‘convinced’ that Britain is intent on leaving with No Deal in October – solely if necessitated because a deal has not been agreed.

The ONLY way that the irresistible force of the Boris Johnson government becomes resistible is if the inborn diehard, anti-democratic Remainers, both in Westminster and without, persuade the EU hierarchy that those in Parliament can block a No Deal outcome – which what they were clearly able to do under Theresa May because she was a weak, indecisive, conciliatory, and obtuse Prime Minister – Boris Johnson is anything but, eh?

That said, it is already on the cards that the second of those scenarios is the most likely result, isn’t it? Yep, seven days ago the anti-democratic, Referendum denier, fanatical hardcore Remainers caucus, have attempted again to booby trap BREXIT and do so a week before Boris Johnson was elected as Prime Minister – a bill about NI was hijacked and bizarrely amended in a move to prevent September/October ‘prorogation’ [ending the current parliamentary session – which was due to end as has already run for 2 years instead of 1].

The 36 Tory rebels who either abstained or voted against the Government on a 3-line Whip, were orchestrated by text messages and led unbelievably by one Philip Hammond, May’s bloody in-post Chancellor no less. [The Government was defeated by a majority of 41]

May’s behaviours on the issue are utterly inexplicable as not only did she ‘ignore’ advice to pull the Bill to thwart this predictable outturn, but in a final act of weakness she failed to sack the Chancellor, or the four Cabinet ministers, or three other ministers who were part of the rebellion – Hammond is the first chancellor ever to defy a three-line whip and get away with it, eh?

[Abstainers: CABINET Philip Hammond (Chancellor), David Gauke (Justice Secretary), Rory Stewart (International Development Secretary), Greg Clark (Business Secretary); MINISTERS Stephen Hammond (health minister), Sir Alan Duncan (Foreign Office minister), Anne Milton (skills minister); OTHERS Gillian Keegan (parliamentary private secretary), Richard Benyon, Simon Hoare, Julian Sturdy, Sir Nicholas Soames, Vicky Ford, Sir Peter Bottomley, Damian Green, Sir John Hayes, Huw Merriman, Tom Tugendhat;

Jeremy Hunt (May’Foreign Secretary) also ABSTAINED but he says ‘by mistake’)

Kenneth Clarke (Former chancellor, EU lover, rebels on every BREXIT vote, and the only Conservative MP to vote against the triggering of Article 50) had permission from the Conservative whips not to vote(?)]

Chancellor Hammond has compounded that treachery by widely briefing here and abroad that he’s confident that he and his gang of wreckers will block No Deal and that he will if necessary, even bring-down the Johnson government to do so.

[No doubt he expects to be helped by Speaker John Bercow, eh? They will fail though, because the Commons’ dynamics have dramatically changed – Labour will have lost the votes of their Leaver supporting MPs as it has now declared itself as a Remainer party; and the LibDems now have no credibility as it refused to accept the result of the 2016 Referendum, and are campaigning for a second one (a so called ‘People’s Vote), but say they won’t accept the result of that either if it’s Leave]

Oh yes, there are many out there including past and guilty figureheads who have embarked over the past three years to strangle BREXIT at birth, and they have been aided and abetting by the media (not least by the ‘biased’ BBC doing the Cameron government’s business, and ever since providing a springboard platform for them to promote dumping BREXIT)

[like Dominic Grieve, Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Oliver Letwin, John Major Tony Blair, Anna Soubry, Guto Bebb, etc]

The totally unencrypted message the irresponsible Remainer idiots are sending to the EU is that it DOESN’T in fact need to make any deal amendments as the Europhiles in Parliament will block a No Deal outcome, so Johnson’s irresistible force has become fully resistible by the EU immovable object

The EU’s treatment of a major player like UK on BREXIT has simply reinforced the Eurosceptics in other countries, so in the next decade don’t be surprised to see more referendums [GREXIT, ITEXIT, SPEXIT, FREXIT, followed by EU Administration, will you


[The consequence of all that is of course the clear certainty that Boris Johnson WILL proceed with a NO DEAL departure on Halloween, meaning that all that the Remainer BREXIT troublemakers have forced precisely the outcome they were trying desperately to thwart]


ANSWER Irresistible force paradox – the paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects. The “paradox” is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa





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]