Us & Them


See this man here with his sleeves rolled up and his tie tucked into his shirt? He’s got his sleeves rolled up and his tie tucked into his shirt because he’s the kinda guy who rolls his sleeves up and gets stuck in, the kinda guy who may wear a tie but doesn’t stand on ceremony, not when he’s meeting nurses and doctors and people who do real jobs, people who have real lives and real problems.

This man with his sleeves rolled up was Christened Gideon Oliver Osborne and he’s the son of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet Osborne and Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock.
Like many of his class, Gideon was privately educated at top notch public schools and then went up to Oxford before being given a shoe in job at The Telegraph, then a shoe in job with the Tory party’s propaganda unit, then a shoe safe Tory seat in Tatton, then a shoe in ministerial job with his old Bullingdon Club toff pal, David Cameron.

That’s not to say Gideon hasn’t got talents and his entire non-career has been thanks to the archaic culture of deference and aristo worship that promotes its own and cosigns millions of talented kids to a zero hour, poverty pay welfare wasteland.

No, Gid is a magician who has conjured £2 billion out of thin air to invest in the NHS, the same NHS he and his Tory cronies have been running down and selling off piece by piece to their city mates for the past 30 years. Size of an elephant! Izzy wizzy let’s get busy! Alacazam! Just like that!

This is 2 billion that didn’t exist a few days ago but y’know, there’s a general election coming up and the Tories need to neutralise that boring old Labour charge that they don’t care about the NHS because they’re too rich to use it. Well, some people will fall for it, but then again some people will always fall for it and then again, some people will count on a Labour victory to save them from these evil parasites and these people will be sold down the river again by Labour politicians who have also largely been promoted and pampered in their own Party elites.

Blair and Brown rolled up their sleeves too when they wanted to show the media that they were in touch with normal people, that they too were the kinda guys you can trust to get a job done. Ed Miliband has rolled up his sleeves as well. He buys into the sleeves rolled up symbolisim of career politicians as honest brokers of change for ‘ordinary people.’

I’ve got an appointment for a routine scan at a hospital 10 miles away from my home tonight, when the local one is just up the road. Ah but the local hozzy is now for day patients only and the NHS Trust has targets to hit, so savings have to be made and fuck you if you’re half dead in an ambo with a heart attack cos A&E is half an hour away if you’re lucky.

The myth that ‘we’ can’t afford the NHS is the same myth that the Tories use when they want to cut benefits, cut pay rises, cut pensions, cut social services, cut education spending, cut the things they don’t use and can do without. But threaten to cut the obscene tax breaks to public schools or ban fox hunting or farming subsidies and then all of a sudden, those small government fanatics come crawling out from under their rural rocks and begin shaking their fists at the temerity of ‘class envy UK.’

It’s still ‘US’ and ‘THEM’ it always has been and it always will be.

Posh v Skint


There is a rule of thumb that all TV producers seem to follow when focusing upon the extremes of the British class system. The upper classes must be shown to be a charming, eccentric but essentially decent bunch who have lost their influence, power and riches and now have to make do by pimping out their castles and palaces to tourists. At the opposite end of the social spectrum the ‘underclass’ must be portrayed as foul mouthed, living in squalor, prone to crime, drink, drugs, prostitution and reliant on welfare handouts yet proud, patriotic and potentially ‘saveable.’

BBC2’s ‘Posh People’ and Channel 4’s ‘Skint’ both broadcast last night (Monday 24th November) were timed to clash with each other, so that viewers could perform their own crude ‘compare and contrast’ class analysis. Here’s mine.

‘Posh People’ followed Tatler magazine staff as they waltzed from one ‘society function’ to another; – a polo game, a fashion shoot, a royal Ascot meeting, a horsey side-saddle race, an arty happening and such like. People like Lord Glasgow showed off his stately pile that had been in the family since the Norman conquest. He jokily referred to one of his illustrious forebears who once threw a servant through and plate glass window at a party and told his host to ‘put him on the bill.’

We also got the standard shot of Oxford’s notoriously riotous Bullingdon Dining Club (y’know Dave and George and Boris and co whose photos have ‘mysteriously disappeared from circulation) who also indulged in thuggery, vandalism, whoring, drugging and debauchery but ALWAYS paid for any damage. Not to pay would be ‘bad form’ you see.

Whereas in Grimsby we visited a derelict trawler yard, a deserted fisherman’s alehouse, several unkempt households with fierce dogs and pregnant cats, bongs and grafittied walls. We met petty, pothead criminals on tags, drunken ex-sailors watching DVDs of the good old days, potty mouthed but patriotic fishwives defending the fucking Queen’s honour and a youth club pastor who gave the kids somewhere to expel their energy.

The kids who visited the ‘Shal’ (Shalom) youth club were as energetic and rowdy as their Bullingdon opposites yet were likely to end up on tags, in jail or crippled from a joy riding accident like their older brothers and sisters. Social mobility is a revolting term to throw at these young people, barely able to write, never mind afford 9k a year uni fees. What has changed from the times of Kez for those left behind in the undertow of the great meritocratic wave that washed across the land under New Labour? We’re all middle class now eh?

When words like ‘austerity’ ‘recession’ and ‘depression’ are used, media types always fall behind tried and tested formats that other media types then attempt to explain in terms of quack psychology and pseudo-political theory. Up will pop ‘Spirit Of The Blitz’ type nostalgia documentaries attempting to forge a sense of national unity, relentless royal propaganda packaged as history or culture, knit yourself a mansion, bake yourself a holiday home 50s hausfrau ‘lifestyle’ shows presented by minor aristocrats and WI types.

There will also be a glut of ‘reality’ show that are no more real than TOWIE or Made In Chelsea . Shows like this and many other that demonise one part of society – the poor – whilst delighting in another – the rich.

There will subtle or not so subtle editorial subliminal messages sent out and on ‘Skint’ it was obvious as a drug addled prostitute sobbed at the birth of her kitten while her own son was placed in care that a POINT was being made. You could just hear the viewers muttering ‘pity you never cared for your own kid as much as you for that kitten.’

Such examples of snide and cruel editing are often lost on the subjects themselves. ‘Informed Consent’ is a subjective and abstract notion to someone who is too busy getting men ‘to shoot their muck’ to make ends meet (as it were).

On ‘Posh People’ the sub-text followed the usual unwritten rules; there was no context offered other than that of the subjects apart from the thorny issue of ‘relevance’ – are posh people ‘relevant?’ a timid voice asked Tatler hacks at the end of programme 1. Relevant to who, relevant to what? The BBC’s line is that old money toffs (y’know ‘old money as in 1066 n’ all that) may be anachronistic and isolated from the real world but that’s not THEIR fault.

But it IS their fault. They have choices and they can refuse to follow the same ancestral paths mapped out for them from birth; boarding school, finishing school, Oxbridge, career in law, the city, on the ‘farm’ (as a custodian) or even as editor, fashion editor, contributing editor or can lad for The Tatler. The cycle of privilege, elitism, snobbery, power continues from generation to generation even if they admit a few new money billionaires to their select parties to sneer at every decade or so, be they Americans, Arabs, Russians or Nigerians.

These people have the luxury of opportunity. Those growing up on East Marsh in Grimsby will turn in a different cycle mapped out by poverty, poor education, benefits or low pay, pay day loans, prison and drug/alcohol abuse. Ah, but they have enough money to smoke weed, to feed dogs, to buy beer don’t they? They have choices too, say the self-appointed ‘Squeezed Middle’ of law abiding, pension paying, mortgaged to the hilt millions who watch these programmes in order to swoon at the toffs and sneer at the chavs.

Anyone who dares to have a pop at the toffs and their media propagandists are accused of suffering from ‘class envy’ but I don’t envy these people and their shallow, insulated existence, I pity them for their arrogance and their insolence as much as I pity the fishwife with the union flag tea towel and the royal tea mug for allowing such a state of inequality and injustice to exist in the 21st century.

Evan Almighty?

Evan Davis exclusive

Evan Davis is the type of presenter the BBC can wheel out to prove that they’re ‘diverse.’ He’s gay you see, and he reputedly has pierced nipples. How un-BBC! Yet, gay or not, Davis is typical of the BBC careerist, past and present.

He has risen through the ranks from a smug and patronising economics reporter, through a smug and patronising radio 4 anchor to a smug and patronising presenter of the BBC’s flagship ‘heavyweight’ news programme, ‘Newsnight.’

If you thought Jeremy Paxman was a self-satisfied, condescending lightweight punching way above his intellectual weight, then his replacement makes Paxo look like Plato. Last night he felt confident enough in his own intellectual abilities to take on one of the world’s leading political thinkers, Professor Noam Chomsky.

To prove how misguided and out of touch Chomsky was, Davis took to the streets of London in a typical shopping area where ‘ordinary people’ gathered to buy their dinner and bully people to donate to Great Ormond Street Hospital. It was probably right outside the BBC’s own building and Davis was set to prove Chomsky wrong.

Armed with a few isolated Chomsky quotes, Davis asked a total of six people, a middle aged woman in a yellow top, three embarrassed looking builders and two charity muggers if they agreed with the following statements :

“Neo-liberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless.”

“Do you”, Davis asked yellow top woman, “feel demoralised and socially powerless.”

“Not really” she answered.

Stick that on yer CV Chomsky!

The three builders merely looked bemused and one of them just went ‘ha well, ha ha.”
One of the middle class chuggers said she felt Noam’s statement was ‘too negative but admitted she was from a little village, as if this had anything to do it.

Case Proved. Davis 1 – Chomsky 0

Next statement :

“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”

“That’s a difficult one,” Yellow Top Woman replied, “because immigration is the biggest question.” (they cut her off before she no doubt expressed the very fear that Chomsky was highlighting)
The Chuggers agreed that immigration was what ‘they’ wanted us to talk about whereas the builders refuted the ability off anyone to manufacture fear because all these things – immigration, drug addicts, was ‘just natural.’

Davis 2 – Chomsky 0

Just in case the viewer wasn’t bright enough to catch Davis’s heavily edited, infantile drift the Great Man summarised thus :

“There is a time and place for philosophy and revloution but unfortunately that time and place is not now, well not until after Christmas atleast.”


If this may have struck many as a typically ‘balanced, impartial and fair’ BBC report, Davis went further and grilled Chomsky back in the studio. Sat in front of a backdrop of flames in Ferguson, Missouri, Davis began his ‘interview’ by asking Chomsky is he was disappointed that, at a time of anger with the elite, people were reacting by moving to the right supporting the tea party is the US and UKIP here, instead of moving to the left.

Chomsky answered politely that this analysis wasn’t correct and that there were other forms of protest such as the huge climate change rally in New York recently. Hmm. Davis seemed to think he had the old man on the ropes here.

“The difficulty of your position’ he intoned ‘is that you are telling people what you think is good for them.”

At this point I rather hoped Chomsky would lose his rag and butt Davis in his snotty beak but Noam kept his cool and replied that he was only telling people what HE thought based on y’know ‘evidence.’
Davis kept up his pathetic attack however.

“Isn’t it patronising to class people as consumers not citizens?” said the man who only minutes before had patronised ‘ordinary people’ such as the builders, by thinking the only thing they could possibly aspire to was a microwave oven.

Here Chomsky should really have walked off but no, he tolerated Davis’s insults and replied that the 70% of those on the lowest incomes had zero effect on government policy and the higher the income became the more governments created policies to suit the wealthy.

And so to the riots in Ferguson (hence the backdrop).

“We’re on a time budget” Davis stated as if his guest was an expensive luxury the BBC couldn’t afford.

“Does it surprise you that events like that in Ferguson are still happening in today’s America?”
“Do you? Y’boss eyed cunt?” Chomsky replied. If only. No, the prof again retained his cool and repleid that over 500 years of slavery, African Americans had only had a few scattered decades when they had a shot at entering the mainstream of American society.”

And that was that. Thanks Noam but we’re on a budget here.

Now, many people, especially those at the BBC itself, continue to believe in the myth of the corporation’s much heralded yet utterly fictitious reputation of ‘impartiality.’ If I had the time and the energy, I could analyse each and every news report, economics, social or historical programme and pull them to pieces, in fact I have done this but y’know I’ve got a real job to do.

Websites like ‘MediaLens’ and a few academics do this essential detailed critique every day, not that it makes any difference because there is a culture both of denial and cover up within the BBC, an absolute refusal to admit that they are either culturally biased by their own Oxbridge prejudices or coerced into obedience by their political paymasters, on whom their six figure salaries depend (or both). The BBC Trust ofcourse is filled with political and corporate placemen who are cut from the same cloth and therefore protect their pals wherever possible.

Davis is the type of right wing lightweight that has taken over at the BBC. These people, the self-elected ‘mavericks’ and ‘tough talkers’ of Radio 4 and Newsnight only operate in a narrow spectrum of accepted opinion. Chomsky is therefore treated with the kind of contempt that Russell Brand recently encountered for daring to take the likes of Paxman and Davis on.
As Davis said of his subject last night.

“Venerated by many, loathed by many, occasionally feared.”


BBC defenders argue that the alternative is Fox as if the BBC’s own propaganda is any better than Murdoch’s. Davis obviously has supporters in very high places within the corporation and bias against even the soft left is now blatant and sustained as the Scottish referendum coverage proved. Chomsky may be loathed by many, usually those with power and influence, people like Davis and his BBC pals for example.

Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain


Economics doesn’t exist. Like theology, economics exists as a word that has come to mean other words, like business, trade, capitalism, industry. It has become a word that people with a vested interest in the by-product of ‘economics’ – wealth – use to camouflage their greed.

These people will try to convince you that their con trick can somehow be rationalised into a science or, worse, a philosophy. They will produce diagrams and equations and invent new words and languages new symbols and technologies to bewilder us with but, deep down, behind the smoke and mirrors, there is only a big pile of cash being protected by judges, soldiers, policemen, spies and politicians.
Here’s an example of the way greed merchants try to dress up their selfishness as science :

An example of such a model is given by the comparative statics of taxation on the profit-maximizing firm. The profit of a firm is given by
\pi(x,t) = x p(x) – C(x) – t x \quadwhere p(x) is the price that a product commands in the market if it is supplied at the rate x, xp(x) is the revenue obtained from selling the product, C(x) is the cost of bringing the product to market at the rate x, and t is the tax that the firm must pay per unit of the product sold.The profit maximization assumption states that a firm will produce at the output rate x if that rate maximizes the firm’s profit. Using differential calculus we can obtain conditions on x under which this holds. The first order maximization condition for x is\frac{\partial \pi(x,t)}{\partial x} =\frac{\partial (x p(x) – C(x))}{\partial x} -t= 0 Regarding x is an implicitly defined function of t by this equation (see implicit function theorem), one concludes that the derivative of x with respect to t has the same sign as\frac{\partial^2 (x p(x) – C(x))}{\partial^2 x}={\partial^2\pi(x,t)\over \partial x^2},

Get that? There are people who study this shit, people who teach this shit, people who actually believe this shit. The ‘economics industry’ is a self-propagating model of its own invention – get enough people to believe in it, and it becomes true. So we have an entire global network of sorcerers, magi and sophists who churn out a familiar mantra; this stuff is ‘difficult’ it cannot be explained in simplistic terms that the non-economic minded could hope to understand but this too is part of the spell.
Perhaps the Wizard Of Oz put it best – ‘Pay no attention of the man behind the curtain.’ the one pulling all the levers, the one who has cast a spell over all of us, making us believe he’s all powerful when in fact, he’s just a tired old man clinging desperately to his position by using illusion and subterfuge.

Here’s a sample of what the ‘guys’ and ‘dolls’ here at Y’KNow The Dance have been discussing over the past week or so.

Newstwat Wed 12th November

The family of a woman beheaded by a paranoid schizophrenic have slammed the Welsh hospital. Staff at Glan Clwyd hospital in North Wales released Deyan Deyanov because they felt he was feigning mental illness by speaking ‘gibberish’. It was later discovered that the man was in fact speaking Welsh.

Unemployment has fell to a record low of fifteen according to latest figures released by The Office of Tory Lies. Chancellor, George Osbourne welcomed the dramatic fall saying “This is great news for our lie machine, in Britain today thanks to our austerity measures, every person has four or five jobs, spends half the year abroad skiing and buys a new car every Wednesday. That’s why we don’t any gyppos coming over here ruining it all by picking spuds for 2p a week.”

The poppy display at the Tower Of London was visited by a record 12 billion people, according to the BBC, who filmed the moat of poppies for a record 230 hours on their news channels. Mayor Boris Johnson denied 11.8 billion of visitors for tourists from abroad who didn’t know what the fuck was going on.
“What better way of showing our respect for the millions slaughtered in wars to protect our freedom than filling a prison moat where democrats and other subversives were murdered to protect the interests of the rich with the symbol of freedom?”

This year’s ‘I’m A Celebrity’ contestants have been named as Robert Mugabe, Harry Roberts, her from TOWIE, him from Gogglebox, him from Made In Chelsea, her from Geordie Shore, that one from Babestation Xtra, Rolf Harris and the fellar from the racist You’re So MoneyMarket advert. ITV bosses claimed that this year’s jungle fest was going to be ‘the shittest ever.’

FA Cup second round draw brings nation to a halt

The world held its collective breath just like during the Bay Of Pigs Cuban missile crisis when giant killing
Warrington Town FC were sensationally drawn away to Gateshead in the second round of the world’s most boring cup competition. ‘This is a massive day for us’ said nobody.

The weather where YOU live

It will be colder because it’s FUCKING WINTER. Buy a coat, put an extra blanket on yer bed and stop moaning, said David Cameron as he threw another veteran of WW2 on the fire


wilfSo here’s the Lidl marketing strategy mapped out as obviously as UKIPs. Once upon a time, Lidl, Aldi and Netto were derided as the poor people’s alternative to Tezzy, Asda, Waitrose and Morrisons. No longer, not in austerity GB where horsey aristocrats like Kirsty Allsop lecture us on the benefits of ‘upcunting’ and knitting our own servants quarters.

Lidl are now selling themselves as ‘surprisingly’ upmarket – with their faux farmers’ market ads full of hipsters and yummy mummys scranning 90% Columbian chocolate rib eye beef reserva bisque.
Their xmas ad takes the strategy ‘to the next level’ (as people who say ‘to the next level’ say) by actively naming their supposed rivals in the posh Hertfordshire set crimmy party war. As a servant places lobster, scallops and other ‘juicy, not dry goodies infront of the Tory Reich guests, they ponder the provenance of this boss scran.



Notice not Tesco or Asda or any of those povvy losers.

No, it’s LIDL!!!!!

Ooooh, these Harrods bag carrying Ocado soily turnip turncoats mutter to each other – ‘unbelievable!’ ‘Where we’re going now!’

Just as Wilko’s is now the Selfridges of bargain shops, so Aldi and Lidl (if not yet Netto) have found themselves raised higher by Home (and) Bargain(s), The Ten Bob Universe and Shit Stacked So High We Can’t Even Sell It superstores. It feeds into the ‘we’re all in together myth’ that the Torys would have us believe unifies the poshoes and the povs.

‘Why Samantha was in Lidl today and picked up a lovely Rioja for £30 and a hand reared Norwegian lobster for 60 pence.”

Supermarkets have become news items in a culture so debased by commerce that the M&S share price is a regular lead item on all news channels. Tesco’s fall from supremacy may be a cause of schadenfreude for many but these fuckers are all the same in the end, all after that buck however they sell themselves.

So, next time you’re in Lidl stood behind a sweat stinking fatty in mingey crocs with a massive bag of shite doggy chunks and an eight pack of jarg lager, wondering where all the Mercs, Bentleys and Rangeys are in the car park, just thank the lord, Netto still stocks frty giant hotdogs for fifty pence and Peter still shops at Iceland.

Phil Thornton


In about five months I will become the victim of a theft. It’s a theft that will cost me several thousands of pounds. It’s a theft I can’t do anything about as it’s a ‘legitimate’ theft, legitimate in that it is one that will be perpetrated upon me by HM’s government.

I’m not going to bore you with the details, other than to say it concerns a change to the rules of my pension, which have been in place, as is, since 1976, but to which the government can apparently alter to their financial benefit after nearly 40 years.

I’m not asking anyone on here to feel sorry for an embourgeoised cunt like me, but I do find it fascinating (maybe that’s not the right word) on how they have managed to pull this particular heist, and several similar, off.
See, for many years those in the elite power positions in the UK issue a familiar and powerful mantra; one that they have managed to convince large swathes of people of and do all sorts of hideous shit in its name.

It says simply: we can’t afford it.

We can’t afford the NHS; can’t afford pensions; can’t afford university education. It’s persuasive because it reduces economics down to a base ‘fact’, one that almost anyone understands because we all ‘can’t afford’ something we would like. The only problem is that it is based on two false contentions.

I’ll explain. In early 90s after going to the match since he was 14 and at aged 55 my dad decided he wasn’t going to go anymore. The reason he gave was not that Everton were fucking shite (a more acceptable reason) rather that he couldn’t ‘afford’ it anymore. Despite this claim he still got a new car every couple of years and bought a new house.

The fact was he was making basic economic choices. That’s what the government does, it makes economic choices. It made choices in the 1980s to spend £trillions on Trident and then later billions to enter a pointless war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it is my contention that it should be making better choices on what it spends its money on.

Not rocket science I hear you say.

It’s the second one where the lie really resides and this can also be illustrated by my dad. When he died he had money in his bank that he passed on which he could have used to go to the match. Like my dad our government has access to income it could choose to use in order to ‘afford’ things to improve society but it doesn’t.

It’s called taxation.

It could choose to take money from the super-rich and large tax avoiding corporations like Amazon and Google, to name but two, that don’t pay their share and with that money create a more equitable and fairer society- but it doesn’t.

I’m not talking about my middle-class pension here I’m talking about a real sea change in thinking. A government that is committed to returning us to the old days when we could ‘afford’ the NHS, free education, decent benefits for people unemployed through no fault of their own and pensions for elderly. Forget the shit about us all living longer. We all work fucking harder and for longer, so that doesn’t cut it.

If we can’t afford it now, then how come we could afford it in the 1960s and yet the country’s wealth has increased several fold since then?

The fact is we CAN afford it and they know it. We need a fundamental redistribution of income in this country, away from the top 10%, who have all the money, towards the bottom 90%. Everyone will benefit even the cunts you take it off. We just need to find a party which is committed to doing it. A party that has the moral courage and foresight to make it happen, to stand up to the vested interests of big business and the global super-rich and make society better for all. A part like labour were in 1945.

Just one problem:

There isn’t one here so you need to move to Norway.

Ste Carter

Five bands who are just too clever for their own good*

steely dan – the coen brothers of pop – are they ‘ersatz’ or ‘ironic’ satirists of post-modern pop jazz pastiche or just annoyingly overproduced soul-less smart arses?

scritti politti – they’re in love with Jacques derrida, read-a page and you they need ta – write a thesis on italian political theory in a faux reggae stylee

the pet shop boys – the PSBs have been through pop’s black hole and re-emerged as a tribute band of themselves minus any of the cheeky chart nous and self-mockery, the pair of whoppers

talking heads – that david byrne, he coulda been a serious writer ya know. maybe he chose the wrong medium eh? WASPy self-righteousness wrapped up in post-punk artifice. or summat.

blur – one minute they want to be ian dury, the next they wanna be pavement, next damon wants to be an afro-alchemical magician and them he’s a hologram of a second rate baggy band survivor with ideas above his talents.

* footnote – yes, I know the above bands have produced some outstanding music and i’ve nothing against pretentiousness, it’s just y’know they should book a holiday at butlins and watch shallow hal 3

This That & The Other

This – Professional Thick People…

‘Joey Essex’, ‘Rylan’, ‘The Apprentice’ contestants etc. It’s the modern day equivalent of the Victorian freak show. Wheel these people out for us all to laugh at. The difference is the freaks are willing and end up millionaires. Quite a market for them at the moment be they professional or amateur. The contestants on the various quiz shows sometimes show a remarkable lack of basic knowledge, in particular some of the university students are incredibly dense. I get the feeling this new twist on the ‘laughing at thick people’ thing started with Jade Goody. Oh, how the nation loved pointing and laughing at her and then pretending to actually respect her because they felt bad for her when she died. Remember when the ‘Big Breakfast’ had Caprice and Kelly Brook hosting after Van Outen left? They were both jibbed for being thick. Brook could barely read and Caprice couldn’t enunciate anything (the Mirror became Mrrr, quite famously) Well do you think either of them would get fired for that nowadays?…

That – Tim Howard…

The way he lined that wall up yesterday, and his “Kermit the frawg” style dive were a joke. He may as well have put a Wiley Coyote style arrow there saying “Put ball here”. “Dear Santa.. please, please, can we get a decent goalie for Christmas, preferably not a useless American one with a sh beared?”…

The Other – It’s all for charidee…

I haven’t had much attention this November. Nobody’s heralded me as a hero and I’ve only had one or two rounds of applause when I walk down the street. I ought to do something to garner some more positive attention…oh…hold on… ‪#‎WakeUpCall‬… brilliant! What charity is it for? Oh it’s something to do with Syria I think, or some country with an S in its name. Sorry I’m just playing with the filters on this picture of myself. Do you think my hair is messy enough? It needs to look like I’ve just woken up, but, you know, in a hot way. Now obviously giving to charity is great, but how about doing it without the righteous self-promotion? What happened to just being humbly and quietly generous? Why do we all need instant gratification from everything we do now?…

Paul Sharkey


What would we do without global industrial polluters like Unilever eh? Thank goodness Unilever are not in it for the money but to ‘help people feel good, look good and get more out of life’ as they say on their website.
Those Lever brothers eh? Looked after their workers in Port Sunlight and now are promoting new leaders/precocious brats who lecture people on sustainability as part of their Sunlight Project. Gee, I’m really glad this 50 billion euro turnover company is one of the good guys of corporate responsibility.

Never mind they made their dough from slave labour in the Congo during the 20s and are still digging up vast swathes of forest in Africa and Indonesia to grow their palm oil plants to help keep people ‘looking and feeling good’ with their soaps and shampoos.

Like many polluters, earth destroyers and land clearance merchants, y’know Maccys and BP and their cuddly banking pals, their PR spin masters try to present these greedy parasites as being part and parcel of the fight against waste and environmental destruction. It’s a nauseating strategy that places a tiny percentage of shareholder profits back into ‘community’ projects or sponsoring foundations as a way of sidestepping responsibility for the damage they create all across the world, especially in those lands with little or no worker’s rights.

But, hey, it’s OK cos Oxfam have teamed up with Unilever so they must be kosher eh? Their Project Sunlight campaign has this to say

“We believe there has never been a better time to create a better future for our children; a world where everyone has enough food to eat and no child goes to bed hungry.

Where every child lives to their fifth birthday and has the right to a happy childhood.

Where every home has enough water to drink and to wash, cook and clean.

And where everybody can enjoy life today while protecting the planet for future generations.

Project Sunlight is a movement that has already started.
It’s made up of a growing community of people who believe it is possible to build a world where everyone lives well
and lives sustainably.

Who recognise we can only achieve this if we all work together to do small actions every day that make a real difference.

And who inspire others to join us in making this the way everyone chooses to live.”

Greenpeace would probably take them up on their ‘mission.’


I’ve often wondered how they get live audiences for TV shows. I mean, who gets a babysitter, fights traffic, pays through the nose for a meal somewhere, struggles to get home, just to see something you could see on TV anyway? Could you really be arsed?? You know you’re only there to provide ‘atmosphere’, a flesh-and-blood laughter track. It’s the same with entire football crowds – anyone who goes the match these days knows we’re only there to be ripped off and to provide monetisable local colour for the ‘real’ worldwide audience and that nice Mr Murdoch.
Having made all the sacrifices to be there, audiences always give the impression they are grimly determined to enjoy themselves. Comedy is particularly bad – there is the forced laugh, the embarrassed laugh, the ingratiating laugh, the anticipatory laugh. Like every crowd situation, you are not really allowed to have an individual reaction. I cringe when I hear the happy clapping and bellowing that erupts on command at every end of sentence on many a painfully-unfunny sitcom or talent show.

Audiences on these shows always seem to behave like a gaggle, flock or perhaps cunt of seals, as if they’re determined to be manipulated and act as if they are enjoying themselves regardless of the dearth of humour or talent on offer. It makes no difference. You could just as easily engage in dwarf throwing or a gurning competition and you would always hear the ‘spontaneous’ [not] laughter or happy clapping according to directions given. You find studio audiences are typically the most obsequious and servile in social climbing. Not surprising really, given the likes of Miranda Hart’s sycophantic-flunkies who can’t help but piss themselves at her merely falling over each episode.
So that’s it folks, your half an hours up! Time for the chattering classes and the bourgeois-lefties to give themselves a big round of applause.

Paul Sharkey


While my beloved Liverpool FC were going through the formality of taking no points away from the Santiago Bernabeu last night, I had the pleasure of seeing the superb ‘Northern Soul’ film for the first and certainly not the last time. I strongly suspect that this gem will come to be recognised as a classic of British cinema in years to come, in much the same way that Ken Loach’s ‘Kes’ has been for the last couple of decades.

Northern Soul has much in common with Kes, in that it exquisitely captures a certain period in English northern working class life and culture in a way that anybody who lived through it can vividly relate to, fondly or otherwise,depending on your personal experience. Like Kes it uses a handful of cameo appearances by famously ‘northern’ folk to enhance it. For Brian Glover, Colin Welland, Dougie Brown. Lynn Perrie and Bill Dean see Ricky Tomlinson, Lisa Stansfield, Steve Coogan and John Thompson.

Billy Casper’s escape from the banality of everyday existence and dread of ending up ‘darn t’ pit’ through an
unlikely love and passion for falconry is mirrored in John Clark all-consuming hunger for the underground black American soul music of the 60s and the heady amphetamine driven culture of the northern soul club scene of the 70s. As Ken Loach’s directing style beautifully captured the grim spontaneity of daily life in late 60s Barnsley, so Elaine Constantine’s background in photography captures, with appreciable attention to detail, the sweat, clothes, rhythm and magic that was Wigan Casino in its heydey, including the beautifully observed and absolutely necessary acknowledgement to the part played by ‘speed’ in it all.

Then, above and beyond the craft of Ken Loach there is the music of Northern Soul, which is just to die for. As a professional DJ and card carrying anorak myself, I was delighted to hear that the standard crowd pleasing commercial anthems like Gloria Jones’ original verson of ‘Tainted Love’, Al Wilson’s ‘The Snake’ and Frank Wilson’s ‘Do I Love You (Indeed I Do)’ had all been ignored in favour of approximately two hours worth of much less well known but even higher octane floor burners. I’ll post a link to Elaine Constantine’s personal top ten tracks from the film in the comments section later, which are worth the time to anybody whose ears are not metaphorically ‘painted onto the side of their heads’. But here is Constantine herself explaining what it was about the magic of those legendary nights that she was attempting to capture ..

Martin Quirk .


Football eh? Fuck me! As someone with a red nose didn’t say. In the olden days, it used to be so simple. You played your best 11 players and you either won, drew or lost. There was the league, the FA Cup, the league cup and the European Cup (for league winners) and the Cup Winners Cup (for cup winners). There was 2 points for a win, one point for a draw and fuck all for a loss.

Yeah, I know we all know this and this isn’t some bogus nostalgia trip to the good old days because let’s face it, footy was mostly boring as fuck, played largely by skill free brutes and low scoring with teams settling for draws rather than risk losing a point. That includes the so-called Best Team Ever of the 60s and early 70s Liverpool, who were a far better, more exciting team once Paisley took over from ‘Shanks.’

The farce played out in Madrid last night has thrown up the contradictions and cynicism of modern football, as it is now not played but ‘managed.’ A manager doesn’t merely coach his players, make signings, motivate and discipline them, he acts as any other manager in charge of the company’s assets. In any other business, the credo that ‘the customer is always right’ never applies in football, where the fan is always the last person to be considered.
Fuck the 5,000 Liverpool fans who made their way to Madrid, many spending money they’ve saved since the draw was made. Brendan Rodgers likes to crack on that he’s a straight talking, honest fellar who doesn’t lie or attempt to deceive the fans, who he knows see through club spin and corporate bullshit.

Yet here he is fielding a team that he may have fielded in one of the domestic cup competitions (including that tin pot, the FA Cup) against the most successful team in Europe in the world’s premier competition. A game that was transmitted all around the world to billions of people. That this makeshift team played well, better in fact than his first team would probably have played, isn’t the issue. Rodgers was prepared to humiliate his club and those fans singing in the Bernabau in order to either make a point to his ‘senior players’ or to hedge his bets against Chelsea in a league that only serves to qualify them for the same competition next season.
He may also have more selfish reasons for such chicanery, to ingratiate himself with potential employers, even Real, by presenting a tough, enigmatic image. He even speaks the lingo was a Castillian accent! The Champions League is the ONLY game in town, the place where the true cream of the world’s talent are pitted against each other. International tournaments are obsolete, no matter how Blatter and his pimps try to whore the World Cup to those with the largest pockets. They only really serve as a marketing tool for agents, whether for players and managers and as a bribery gravy train for corrupt administrators.

On Friday the BBC are screening Warrington Town v Exeter City as a live game in the FA Cup. I doubt whether it’ll gain the same global audience as Liverpool v Real Madrid but it’ll be a more honest, sincere version of football than you will ever see on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening. (yes I know this contradicts the FA Cup charge but let’s face it, third round fever is now more a sneeze).

How To Build A Caitlin Moran by Julie Burchill


1 Take a girl from somewhere out in the sticks say Bristol or Wolverhampton

2 Get her listen to third rate ‘rawk n’ rawl’ type music in her teens

3 Think up some mythical way to transport her to that there London where her love and passion for third rate rawk n’ rawl type music will like scare the Oxbridge guys with their tiny dicks and quiffy swedes

4 Get her a job with a toppermost rawk n’ rawl type music magazine and then a presenting show on a rawk n rawl music type programme and then a column in a fancy paper about being a girl n’ shit and er being dead into rawl n’ rawk type music

5 Get her to write a book about how being a girl n’ shit and loving rawk and rawk n rawl n rawl type music is like a blast

6 Get her a job with the Dept Of Spin’s trade mission to China with Prince Harry and Beverly Knight

7 Dame her for ‘services to summat or other’

Next week ‘How To Build A Miranda Sawyer’ by Dawn Porter

BBC – In Who Do We Trust?


This is a response from the BBC Trust regarding a complaint I lodged in October of last year regarding the corporation’s all too frequent use of Tax Payers Alliance spokespeople to comment on matters of public policy.

This breaches their own editorial guidelines regarding the use of ‘campaign’ groups and the TPA is a self-stated ‘campaign group’ whose aim is to lower the tax ‘burden’ on big business.Essentially they are a fat cat funded ‘small government’ pressure group masquerading as a ‘grass roots’ taxation movement. They claim to have up to 27,000 supporters and boast of their access to the BBC and other media outlets to push their right wing message.

My point is that, if the BBC are happy to use the TPA (mostly unchallenged and NOT in a wider debate with alternative viewpoints from other organisations as they claim) why don’t they interview say, Unite’s Len McCluskey,who has 2.5 million members? Ah, but that would be ‘political’ and the Daily Mail would jump on these timid, establishment lackeys, fearful of a cut to the licence fee and their own cushy salaries.

After nine months of obfuscation, denial, buck passing and outright lies, the BBC Trust finally answered. As the BBC ‘celebrates’ 60 years of BBC News, 60 years of pushing the same royalist, establishment shite, here’s a typical example of how those who are ‘entrusted’ to ensure the BBC’s integrity respond to a legitimate complaint about their bias.

Our Ref: 2709782

27 June 2014

Dear Mr Thornton

Use of representatives from the Taxpayers’ Alliance on BBC output

Thank you for writing to the BBC Trust. I am responding to your appeal of 11 May

2014 about the use of representatives from the Taxpayers’ Alliance on BBC output.

I am very sorry that you were unhappy about elements of BBC output and that you

feel the BBC has not given you a proper response to your complaints.

The Trust is the last stage of the complaints process and everyone who works within

the Trust Unit is outside the day-to-day operations of the BBC. We review the

complaints that come to us to assess whether they should be put before the BBC’s

Trustees for them to reach a final decision. If you want to find out more about how

the complaints system works – and in particular about how the BBC Trust fits in –

this is the web link:


In deciding which appeals should be considered by the Trustees, we look at the

merits of the complaint and only those which stand a reasonable chance of success

are passed to Trustees. The Trust acts in the interests of all licence fee payers and it

would not be proportionate to spend a good deal of time and money on cases that

do not stand a realistic prospect of success. The link that I have given above gives

more information about this.

I am sorry to send a disappointing response, but I do not believe your appeal should

be put in front of Trustees. The BBC’s journalists and programme-makers are

expected to work to a high standard; those standards are set out in the BBC’s

Editorial Guidelines1 which underpin all BBC output. I have looked at your appeal in

relation to those Guidelines. This means I have assessed if the points you have

raised can be judged against the standards set down in the Guidelines. I have

attached with this letter a summary of your appeal as well as the reasons behind my



decision. As this Annex may be published, the writing style is formal: your name

does not appear, and you are described as the complainant. While I regret the

impersonal feel of this, I hope you will appreciate that it protects your own privacy

as well as helping the Trust to work efficiently.

If you disagree with my decision, you can ask the Trustees to review it by contacting

the Complaints Advisor, at trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk or at the above address, by 14

July 2014. You should state your reasons, which will need to demonstrate clearly

to Trustees why, contrary to my decision, your complaint stands a reasonable

prospect of success. Please send your reasons by this deadline in one document if


We may not consider any correspondence received after that, so if, exceptionally,

you need more time please write giving your reasons as soon as possible.

If you do ask the Trustees to review this decision, I will place that letter as well as

your original letter of appeal and this letter before Trustees. Your previous

correspondence will also be available to them. They will look at that request in their

September meeting (there is no meeting in August). Their decision is likely to be

finalised at the following meeting and will be given to you shortly afterwards.

If the Trustees agree that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then it

will close. If the Trustees disagree with my decision, then your complaint will be

passed to an Independent Editorial Adviser for investigation and we will contact you

with information about the next steps.

Yours sincerely

Leanne Buckle

Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser


Use of representatives from the Taxpayers’ Alliance on BBC output

The Trust’s Editorial Appeals procedure states that:

The Trust will only consider an appeal if it raises “a matter of substance”.

This will ordinarily mean that in the opinion of the Trust there is a reasonable

prospect that the appeal will be upheld as amounting to a breach of the

Editorial Guidelines. In deciding whether an appeal raises a matter of

substance, the Trust may consider (in fairness to the interests of all licence

fee payers in general) whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-
effective to consider the appeal.


The complainant first contacted the BBC Trust on 8 November 2013. He considered

that the Taxpayers’ Alliance was invited onto BBC programmes far too frequently

and that this was disproportionate to any support it might have. He stated: “…you

give this self-elected campaigning group a legitimacy that it does not warrant” and

considered the BBC had breached the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality. He

referred to the Taxpayers’ Alliance’s own website which made clear the importance

to the organization of its media profile. The complainant did not cite specific

examples of interviews which concerned him. The complainant was informed by the

Trust that:

There is a BBC complaints process in place to deal with instances where

audiences feel that there has been a breach of these [Editorial] Guidelines or

not met expected standards. This requires that complaints must be dealt with

in the first instance by the BBC’s management; the Trust’s role in this process

is to consider appeals from complainants should they be dissatisfied with the

responses that they have received from the BBC’s management.

The Adviser noted that, in subsequent correspondence, the complainant had

expressed the view this was inappropriate and he had again written to the Trust to

that effect. He had been sent a further response from the Trust which had stated:

I understand that you feel the BBC shouldn’t be investigating itself but

following this route from BBC management to the Trust means we can deal

with complaints in a logical progression and those most closely involved with

the complaint have an opportunity to respond first.

2 Under the Charter and Agreement, the Trust has a role as final arbiter in appropriate cases, and

must provide a right of appeal in cases that raise a matter of substance.


For example, if an appeal raises a relatively minor issue that would be complicated, time-consuming

or expensive to resolve, the Trust may decide that the appeal does not raise a matter of substance,

and decline to consider it.


The complainant took issue with this process, he considered that either the BBC or

the Trust ought to pro-actively assess output relating to the Tax Payers’ Alliance as

he considered it breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines – but did not have the BBC’s

resources to monitor output.

As the complaint had not been considered by the Executive, it was sent to BBC

Audience Services in the first instance. The complainant received a response at

stage one which included the following statement:

You have outlined a number of editorial guidelines that you believe the BBC

has breached, however you have not supplied any specific examples of when

you believe these breaches occurred. We can therefore only answer your

queries in general terms. What we can say is that we refute the suggestion

that the BBC has an inappropriate relationship with the TPA. The BBC makes

no judgement on the views or aims of the TPA. When they have appeared on

BBC programmes they do so to take part in a debate and it is the

responsibility of the presenter to chair that debate fairly and challenge the

guests accordingly. Having an organisation or individual appear on a

programme does not amount to bias. What is important is that the

organisation or individual is interviewed fairly, challenged where appropriate

and balanced by alternative opinions and arguments, either as part of the

particular programme or elsewhere in our output. We appreciate that you

may disagree with the views of the Taxpayers Alliance, but we feel that it’s

better in a debate to include the widest range of viewpoints possible.

The complainant remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to stage two. He


I would like you to explain to me the following :

* How many times the TPA have been invited to contribute to the BBC

across all media platforms over the past 5 years?

* What editorial criteria was followed by the producers when selecting

the TPA to comment.

* What issues the TPA were asked to comment on.

* How many times the TPA were included as part of a ‘wider debate’

with other organisations

* What criteria you use to vet ‘campaign groups’ as part of your policy

to use them for news purposes.

He received a stage two response from the Senior Editorial Adviser, BBC News, on 2

May which stated:

You state that use of the TPA is “symptomatic of the both the inherent

political bias of the BBC and the lack of public accountability when challenged.

There are many areas where I think the BBC’s news content is skewed and

constructed to tow a pre-ordained editorial narrative.”

Without a specific complaint about a particular programme, however, I am

not sure I can help you further. The research you suggest would have to

compare and contrast the use of the TPA with other organisations so it would

be very wide-ranging and costly. I am also not sure that its quantitative

approach would be of value without concomitant qualitative, and therefore

subjective, editorial conclusions. If, for example, the TPA had been invited to

appear on a hundred occasions over a certain period of time would this be

too few, too many or not enough?

The complaint was not upheld at stage two and the complainant was advised he

could appeal to the BBC Trust. However, the complainant instead replied to the

Senior Editorial Adviser, BBC News and referred to specific output that included the

Tax Payers’ Alliance which had been transmitted on 10 May 2014. He was advised

that if he wished to raise a specific complaint he would need to do so at stage one.


The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust on 11 May 2014 and stated:

By using the TPA on ANY BBC News or other programme, you breach your

own specific editorial guidelines on using ‘campaign’ groups to comment on

matters of public policy. Whether or not I agree with the TPA (and I don’t)

isn’t the issue. The issue is why the BBC gives this organisation so much

political credence when its ‘supporters’ are faceless, impossible to identify and

its backers have a clear political agenda.

Decision of the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser

The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser carefully read the correspondence that had

passed between the complainant and the BBC, and she acknowledged the strength

of the complainant’s feelings. The correspondence was also reviewed by an

independent editorial adviser.

The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) decided the complainant’s

appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

She regretted that, regarding the complaints process, the complainant felt as if he

were “trapped inside a revolving door”. However she noted the Complaints

Framework made clear that the Executive should have the opportunity to respond to

complaints initially and that the Trust was only involved at the third and final stage

of the process. She noted that this had been explained to the complainant during

the correspondence and that the reasons for it were straightforward – the process

allowed the people nearest to the output to give any editorial explanation they

considered relevant; it was a point of fairness that those criticized should be able to

respond and it was more efficient – in the interests of all licence fee payers – for

complaints to be considered in this way.

The Adviser noted that the substantive point made by the complainant was that he

believed it was a breach of the Editorial Guidelines for the Tax Payers’ Alliance to

comment on matters of public policy on the BBC, because they were a campaigning


She noted the Editorial Guidelines could be found in full at this link:


however for ease of reference, the relevant sections regarding Impartiality are set

out below:


Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s

commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services –

television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial

magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and

ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to

ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news

and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial

controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all

subjects. However, its requirements will vary.

The term ‘due’ means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate

to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the

likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that



We seek to provide a broad range of subject matter and perspectives over an

appropriate timeframe across our output as a whole.


We are committed to reflecting a wide range of opinion across our output as

a whole and over an appropriate timeframe so that no significant strand of

thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented….


We should not automatically assume that contributors from other

organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives

of charities) are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience

when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not

apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their

contribution is made.

The Adviser noted that the Editorial Guidelines did not stipulate that individuals from

campaigning organisations should not comment on matters of public debate or

policy – but stated that it should be clear to the audience that contributors who

spoke from a particular perspective were not impartial. She noted that audiences

would either understand this through the way a participant was introduced or

labelled, or because it was evident from the context and content of what they said.

Therefore, she considered Trustees would not be likely to uphold the central part of

the complainant’s appeal, because agree that the BBC should include the views of a

variety of individuals and interested groups because it was committed to “reflecting

a wide range of opinion across our output as a whole” and there was no indication

that this had not happend.

She considered the complainant would be interested to note, however, that the BBC

Trust had upheld a complaint concerning how the Tax Payers’ Alliance was

introduced and described on air, further information could be found through the

following link:


.pdf (page 20).

She noted that this complaint had related to the point set out above – that is, there

was no dispute that the Tax Payers’ Alliance was an organisation that would have an

interest in being represented on this issue, but its stance had not been made

sufficiently clear to the audience in this instance.

The Adviser noted that the above complaint had referred to a specific item which the

Trustees found to be in breach of the impartiality guidelines, however the

complainant had requested that a large number of contributions from the Taxpayers’

Alliance should be studied to see whether they met the requirements of the Editorial

Guidelines. She considered it would be neither proportionate nor cost effective for

this to be done – and she noted a similar point had been made at stage two by the

Senior Editorial Adviser, BBC News.

The Adviser also noted that the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement

between the Secretary of State and the BBC drew a distinction between the role of

the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General.

“The direction of the BBC’s editorial and creative output” was specifically defined in

the Charter (paragraph 38, (1) (b)) as a duty that was the responsibility of the

Executive Board, and one in which the Trust did not get involved unless, for

example, it related to a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards which did not apply

in this case. Decisions relating to which contributors should be invited onto BBC

programmes fell within the “editorial and creative output” of the BBC and were the

responsibility of the BBC Executive.

The Adviser considered this was highly significant because it was intended to protect

the BBC’s editorial independence – which was of great importance to licence fee

payers. She therefore considered the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of

success and she did not propose to put it before Trustees.

New Terror Alert


New terror alert shock – intelligence agencies acting on behalf of oil grabbing multi-national corporations and their political pimps in Washington and London have uncovered a sinister new development by fanatical jihadists determined to eat your children and burn your nans. Yemeni islamists have undergone years of surgical procedures and have now disguised themselves as Boeing 747s.

It is thought that this new method of waging war on the peace loving west is being sponsored by President Assad, The White Widow, Citizen Khan, Professor Griff, Ranvir Singh and other fanatical followers of Osami Bin Laden. One Yemini ‘Boeing Bomber’ is thought to be in hiding disguised as a routine Qantas long haul plane at Heathrow. It is thought that the death crazed monster will pick up to 500 passengers expecting to fly to Sydney and then detonate himself over Pakistan, killing all those on board.

One ridiculous MOD spokesperson told us “it may seem far fetched and designed to scare millions of holiday makers just in time for their summer breaks, but this information has been passed to us by Mossad and Saudi sources desperate to divert world attention away from their own outrages and a desperate US president and British PM, determined to wage all out war on those anti-democratic forces who threaten the oil supply.

We know for a fact that a fleet of ‘Human 747s’ have now been strategically placed in airports across Europe and the United States. However, there is no reason to panic, this is just another ridiculous scare tactic designed to bolster support for all out war on ragheads, sorry I mean to make the world a safer place for oil barons.”
Photo: New terror alert shock – intelligence agencies acting on behalf of oil grabbing multi-national corporations and their political pimps in Washington and London have uncovered a sinister new development by fanatical jihadists determined to eat your children and burn your nans.

Yemeni islamists have undergone years of surgical procedures and have now disguised themselves as Boeing 747s. It is thought that this new method of waging war on the peace loving west is being sponsored by President Assad, The White Widow, Citizen Khan, Professor Griff, Ranvir Singh and other fanatical followers of Osami Bin Laden. One Yemini ‘Boeing Bomber’ is thought to be in hiding disguised as a routine Qantas long haul plane at Heathrow. It is thought that the death crazed monster will pick up to 500 passengers expecting to fly to Sydney and then detonate himself over Pakistan, killing all those on board.

One ridiculous MOD spokesperson told us “it may seem far fetched and designed to scare millions of holiday makers just in time for their summer breaks, but this information has been passed to us by Mossad and Saudi sources desperate to divert world attention away from their own outrages and a desperate US president and British PM, determined to wage all out war on those anti-democratic forces who threaten the oil supply. We know for a fact that a fleet of ‘Human 747s’ have now been strategically placed in airports across Europe and the United States. However, there is no reason to panic, this is just another ridiculous scare tactic designed to bolster support for all out war on ragheads, sorry I mean to make the world a safer place for oil barons.”

Target Practice



A ‘target’ should be something to aim at, something that requires skill to hit. Whether that’s an archer, a doctor or a teacher, the target itself only serves as a point in space. If the arrow misses, the archer practices harder, if the patient dies then the hospital scores low and if the kid fails the exam, the school loses funding.

Now having targets to hit isn’t a bad thing in itself, we all require some kind of goal, some aim and purpose to our lives but over the past thirty years, targets have become less of a motivating force than a malignant cancer, spreading throughout society and destroying institutions and people.

Literally in some cases. ‘Target culture’ is the reason why hospitals manipulate death rates, why the police fiddle crime stats, why schools fail millions of pupils unable to pass exams. Of course the people who set these targets are seldom those who have to achieve them. No, the politicians only target is getting re-elected or securing a juicy job for life in the Lords, or the EU or the UN or as a ‘consultant’ to one of the national assets they’ve flogged off to their pals in the city.

By linking targets to funding, corners are cut, lies are told, distortions are made, as long as the graphs show a positive curve, then who really cares about the young, the old, the sick, the lonely, the vulnerable, the scared, the poor, the uneducated, the unskilled, the dying?

Councils and government departments play the numbers games and blame each other for cuts to basic social care needs, they play the targets game to suit their own agendas, they use numbers and words and graphs and photos to obscure the truth. The victims unfortunately rarely get to see the retractions and apologies once the real story eventually comes to light.