With so much trouble in the world – war and poverty and disease and whatnot – Unicef UK has ever more work helping itself (sorry, I meant ‘helping poor children’). Silly me!
So I’m sure you will agree that our 400 employees having an average salary of a measly, miserly £47,000 a year is simply not acceptable. We should be paid much more because of all the wonderful work we do helping the world’s poorest children.
Moreover, there are only 14 big bosses at Unicef UK who are paid over £100,000 a year and, of these, only two get more than £130,000 a year.
Please help the world’s most disadvantaged children. If 26,000 of you give just £5 a month, that will pay the salaries of our 14 highest-paid executives. And if 420,000 of you give just £5 a month, that would pay all our salaries. Though, if enough of you give give give, we’ll probably just give ourselves massive pay rises to reward ourselves for the enormous sacrifices we all make to show how much more virtuous we are than all of you. After all, we gave ourselves a 4.4% pay rise last year when our average salaries increased from £45,000 to £47,000.
So, please give generously. You can see it makes sense. Unicef UK do-gooders deserve much more of your hard-earned money. You don’t want us to be trapped forever in soul-destroying poverty, do you?
Hopefully many of you saw the interview with the fragrant Nicola Sturgeon on ‘Red’ Laura Kuenssberg’s Sunday political Labour-loving show. I, of course, believe eveverything the Wee Jimmy Krankie said:
Obviously she wouldn’t have been surprised at the:
Jaguar car which appeared on her driveway
The massive mobile home parked at the side of her 80-year-old parents-in-law’s house
The pens and pepper pots and suchlike costing thousands of pounds
And all the other goodies bought by her husband with embezzled money
After all, she was just a working-class girl from the North of Scotland. So such items would be quite normal in a modest home like hers.
But, just like our world-respected BBC, I have to be impartial and thus must give both sides of every story just like the BBC does on subjects like ‘Global Boiling’ and ‘Safe end Effective Vaccines’ and how wonderful the EU is and what a disaster Brexit was etc etc etc
On 20 November 2014, Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister of Scotland, succeeding Alex Salmond, who had resigned after defeat in the Scottish Independence referenfum. She is the first woman to hold this position. In March 2023, Sturgeon resigned as First Minister and was succeeded by Humza Yousaf. According to Wikipedia, she said that her resignation was because of the emotional toll the role took on her and for the false internet rumours about her sexuality and personal life. But, if I remember correctly, there was a good deal of furore at the time of her resignation about a transgender (male!) Scottish rapist being incarcerated in a women’s prison.
So for balance and impartiality, here’s one of the most scurrilous rumours being spread by horrible people. Such people are suggesting that Scotland’s previous First Lady is a vagitarian who realised that a single woman could never reach the highest position in Scottish politics, especially given the rumours about her personal life. The story goes on to suggest that her 2010 marriage at the age of forty was a sham designed enable her to become First MInister. If this is the case (and I’m sure it’s not) this would have given her ‘husband’ an incredible lever to use against her should she ever find out about his tendency to so generously spend other people’s money on himself and his good lady wife.
According to the Scottish Daily Express, 75% of those who expressed an opinion believe that Sturgeon was lying when she claimed to know nothing about her husband’s theft of SNP money.
Anyway, there you have it, Mr Ofcom. Complete impartiality giving both sides of this story.
I have my own experience of what a corrupt nasty little country Scotland is. Many years ago, my uncle set up a small electronics manufacturing company in Inverness as he wanted to be near a brother who lived there. My uncle was promised generous grants from the HIDB (Highlands and Islands Development Board) which were keen to encourage manufacturing to move to the North of Scotland. But when the time came to pay out the HIDB grants my uncle was informed that quite a few bribes would have to be paid to the local ‘government mafia’ otherwise no money would be forthcoming.
Anyway, here’s Leo Kearse’s take on the whole sorry Sturgeon affair
Here they are. The two people who (IMHO) are doing the most to help the Manchester Messiah, Andrew ‘I-should-be-PM’ Burnham, win in the Makerfield by-election:
The current polling for the Makerfield by-election is:
LABOUR: 43%
REFORM: 40%
RESTORE: 7%
LIBDEMS: 4%
GREEN: 3%
CONSERVATIVE: 2%
So, the situation is clear. The by-election will be a fight between Labour’s Manchester Messiah, Andrew ‘make-me-pm’ Burnham, and Reform. None of the other parties have any chance of winning. But they can influence the result:
The Nigerian woman
Ms Badenoch – full name before marriage – Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke – should clearly not put up a candidate. The Tories have no chance of winning and may even lose their deposit. But to withdraw her candidate, Olukemi would be admitting that she has failed in her efforts to make the Conservatives electable. And she would also be admitting that Reform, and not the Tories, are the main proponents of conservative, pro-British policies. And that would damage her political career. So, Olukemi has a choice: does she put her own career or her concern for her country first?
It seems to an ignorant fool like myself that Olukemi has made her choice – me, me, me, me and to h*ll with what’s best for Britain!
Mr Rupert Loweand Restore
There seems (to an ignorant fool like myself) to be an awful lot of bad blood between Mr Lowe of ‘Restore’ and Mr Farage of ‘Reform’. I know that a lot of accusations were made about Mr Lowe’s behaviour which we are led to believe was the reason he left Reform. Personally I don’t believe the accusations. If my declining memory serves me correctly, I think the problem between Lowe and Reform arose over Lowe’s proposal that expelling tens of thousands of illegal migrants should form part of Reform’s policies. But other Reform figures – probably Farage, Tice and Yusuf – felt that this would be outside the Overton Window and thus would expose the party to accusations of racism, fascism, Naziism and worse by the UK-hating, Labour-adoring, diversity-worshipping BBC and the rest of the mainstream media. But, of course I may be wrong.
Whatever the reason for the rift between Lowe and Reform, it would seem (to an igniorant fool like myself) that Lowe is facing a similar conundrum to the fragrant Olukemi: does he put his own ego and personal grievances first and stand a candidate in the Makerfield by-election or does he put his concern for his country first and withdraw his candidate to give Reform a better chance of winning?
It seems to an ignorant fool like myself that Mr Lowe has made his choice – me, me, me, me and to h*ll with what’s best for Britain.
But hey, this is just my uninformed personal opinion (so please don’t sue me as I’ve only sold 4 copies of my books this month and so don’t have any money) that the two people doing the most to help the Manchester Messiah win in Makerfield aren’t even from the Labour Party. They are, in fact, the (IMHO) delightful Nigerian Olukemi and the (IMHO) rather angry Mr Lowe.
If I remember correctly, one of the pathetic excuses given by the learned judge for not jailing the enriching repeat rapists was that one of them or all of them or whatever were suffering from the dreaded ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). But it seems that supposed ‘disabilities’ like self-diagnosed ADHD and PSTD and other such ‘horrific’ and ‘debilitating’ mental conditions are being used nowadays as excuses for people – expecilally celebrities, the bone idle and criminals – to avoid the consequences of their actions. For example, don’t many of the BBC’s best-known kiddy-fiddlers claim to be suffering from some made-up mental illness?
Dr Google tells us: ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition that affects how the brain functions, particularly in areas regulating attention, focus, and impulse control. It generally involves persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that can significantly impact daily functioning, work, and relationships.
An ADHD support website tells us: Common signs of ADHD include:
feeling like you can’t sit still or are fidgety, especially in quiet spaces
talking a lot and interrupting people
finding it hard to focus for a long time
finding it tough to wait your turn
struggling to concentrate or getting distracted easily
people thinking you’re not listening
finding it hard to follow instructions
feeling like you have to always change what you’re doing
finding it tough to make or keep friends
struggling to organise things or forgetting and missing important appointments
I suspect most of us have experienced these supposed ‘symptoms’ of ADHD at some times in our lives.
I don’t watch something called ‘TikTok’. But apparently TikTok is full of videos on how to get an ADHD diagnosis.
Moreover, there are websites offering fast on-line ADHD diagnoses. Here’s one:
Adult ADHD Assessment From £550. NICE Approved, CQC registered. Skip The NHS Waiting List. Fast Online Appointment Within 48Hrs.
45-min diagnostic video evaluation (free extension if additional care is needed)
Comprehensive clinical diagnostic report of assessment findings
All delivered by GMC-registered medical doctors
After that you’re expected to pay a monthly fee of £99.
So, what are you waiting for? You too can get an ADHD or PTSD or whatever mental health diagnosis on-line and then, next time you get into trouble for anything you’ve said or done or if you can’t be arsed to get up in the morning to go to work or if you fancy a nice new car on the government’s motability scheme or you’d quite like a blue disability badge for your car to make parking in your local town centre or at the supermarket easier, you can just go onto TikTok or similar such sites, see how to be diagnosed with a ‘serious’ mental health condition, get your ‘everyone-can-have-one’ disability diagnosis and then wave your mental health ‘get out of jail free’ certificate.
So, don’t delay. It’s time for you to get a ‘mental health’ diagnosis. Everyone else seems to be doing it.
I guess we all knew this already. Gang rape is now legalised in Britain providing you’re a multi-cultural enricher. After all, the extremely enriching grooming (rape) gangs got away with raping orally, vaginally and anally tens of thousands of often under-age white girls while mainly Labour-run councils, Labour-adoring social workers and treacherous UK-hating police looked the other way (or even, in the case of several police officers, reportedly joined in the ‘fun’). And, of course, while in government Starmer’s Labour have tried every dirty trick they can think of to block any inquiry into the the mass rape of white British girls by gangs of enrichers.
But now a judge has confirmed that a hurty tweet can land you in the slammer for up to three years if you’re White British. But two brutal gang rapes by a multi-cultural-enriching gang should not, opined this learned judge, end up with the rapists getting a criminal conviction.
So, there you have it folks. In this case, this judge apparently believes that repeated gang rapes, one lasting about 90 minutes, should not be considered ‘criminal offences’. I can’t recall any incident of repeated gang rape by White British boys or men where the rapists were told they hadn’t committed a criminal act. But it would seem that repeated gang rapes are now legalised if you are an ‘enricher’.
Here’s the (IMHO) excellent, totally unwoke comedian Leo Kearse expressing his outrage at this apparent legalisation of gang rape providing you’re a multi-cultural enricher:
Andy Burnham (like most lefty politicians) has consistently argued that the UK’s current taxation system is unfair because it overtaxes labour while undertaxing wealth and assets, highlighting the lower tax rate on share dividends compared to standard income as a key inequality.
So, we all know what will happen if the ‘King of the North’ becomes our next prime minister.
The first illogical part of the Northern King’s claim is that he somehow forgets to consider the fact that many people who buy shares do so using income which has already been taxed. So, by having to pay tax on their share dividends, they are being taxed twice. And, of course, were they to eventually die while still owning those shares, they will be taxed a third time.
Moreover, if the Burnhamesque economic geniuses believe that taxes on labour (people who can ne bothered to work) are too high compared to other taxes, maybe they should lower income taxes for those who actually work by cutting over-generous benefits for those who can’t be arsed to work? But this idea never seems to occur to them.
Oh, and I just noticed after I wrote this blog that “if you receive social security benefits such as Personal Independence Payment, Carer’s Allowance, or New-Style ESA, your payments will rise by 3.8%”. However, the thresholds at which you pay tax on income or bank interest are still frozen. So, under Britain’s greatest ever female chancellor, those who work are falling further behind those who can’t be arsed to get a job. Is that ‘fair‘?
But there’s a deeper problem with the great economist Burnham’s claim, namely: what is ‘fair’.
Is it fair that those who can be bothered to go out to work have to pay extortionate rates of tax to subsidise the idle lifestyles of the ever-increasing millions who can’t be bothered to get off their fat arses and so prefer to sit at home watching Netflix and Homes Under The Hammer on their widescreen TVs?
Is it fair that around 6 million who do go out to work earn less than many millions of skivers and shirkers who live off our ludicrously over-generous benefits system?
Is it fair that often uneducated, often unemployable, often criminal, often rape-obsessed illegal migrants have a better lifestyle than many millions of British workers who pay taxes to support the invading, West-hating, parasitic Third-worlders?
Is it fair that British workers are suffocated by ever-increasing taxes so that our useless governments can squander billions pouring our money into the offshore bank accounts of utterly corrupt Third-world kleptocrats?
The victim mentality?
When (IMHO) economically-illiterate fools and liars like Andrew ‘f**k-the-bond-markets’ Burnham make these ridiculous statements about what is fair, our journalists never ask any of the above questions. We have become a society in which anyone who tries hard to better themselves and provide a good life for their families is assumed to be an ‘oppressor’ who should be taxed and taxed and taxed in order to pay for the useless, the lazy, the skivers, the shirkers, the parasitic, the worthless, the corrupt, the criminal and all other similar the burdens on society.
Such a society is destined to collapse into despair and bankruptcy.
By the way, have you seen Andrew ‘I’m just a northern working class lad‘ Burnham’s house?
It looks pretty impressive with nice high gates to keep out the working-class riff-raff who paid for the Burnham mansion with their taxes. Is it ‘fair’ that a lifelong public-sector grifter like the Manchester Messiah can afford to live in a mansion at our expense while millions of young people can’t afford to buy their homes? What do you say, Mr Burnham?
Amelia is angry
Having made a few satirical political videos myself, I’m amazed at how quickly British Patriots can make their videos:
I’m afraid it’s a bit of a long one today. But I have a feeling that her dodgy-dossier CV isn’t the only troubling issue around the past of Britain’s greatest ever female Chancellor.
Reeves’s place at New College Oxford University – was Reeves admitted at New College due to her academic achievements or was she helped by her Labour activism, in particular her friendship with Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown? In an interview Rachel Reeves recounted: ‘In my first year at university my college friends bought me a framed picture of Gordon Brown and put it on my desk’. Rachel Reeves’s tutor at Oxford University was Chris Allsopp. Possibly her tutor would have been involved in the initial decision to offer Reeves a place at Oxford. Gordon Brown seems to have had some form of relationship with Chris Allsopp as in 2000 Gordon Brown appointed Chris Allsopp to the BoE Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). At the time this appointment was criticised by the press, the Treasury Select Committee and even fellow Labour MPs. Labour MP Brian Sedgemore for example, remarked: ‘Replacing Charles Goodhart with Mr Allsopp was like substituting a player from Arsenal or Manchester United with one from the Vauxhall league, maybe Kidderminster’. The Treasury Select Committee called for Brown to ‘;think again about his appointment of Mr Christopher Allsopp’. Brown’s response, via the Treasury, was: ‘The appointments to the MPC are a matter for the Chancellor’.
Reeves’s BoE job – did Rachel Reeves get her very hard-to-achieve graduate job at the BoE on her own merit? Or did her political connections, in particular her links with Chancellor Gordon Brown help her land the highly sought-after BoE job? The BoE employs students from a wide variety of disciplines. But to follow the economist track at the BoE usually requires a degree in intellectually-challenging subjects like pure economics or mathematics rather than the much less academically-rigorous PPE which Reeves (and so many other aspiring politicians) took. Though after her Oxford PPE, Reeves did a Masters in Economics at the LSE (London School of Economics). The LSE is well-known for being rabidly left-wing/socialist. The LSE was founded in 1895 by members of the Fabian Society—specifically Sidney and Beatrice Webb—who advocated for advancing socialist causes and social reform. So, a cynic might wonder if Reeves actually learnt anything about real economics there or was it all about mouth-frothing, Marxist, Lenin-adoring, Stalin-glorifying, tax-the-rich anti-capitalist politics?
Reeves campaigning in 2005 – Rachel Reeves seems to have had a bit of a charmed life at the BoE. About 16 months after returning from Washington, she was apparently given time off to campaign to become the Labour MP for Bromley in the 2005 general election. An important backer who campaigned with her was the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Rachel Reeves may have been quite close to the Straw family as Jack Straw’s son, Will Straw, studied PPE at New College Oxford at the same time as Reeves even though he was caught trying to deal cannabis just a year before going up to Oxford. Despite Straw’s support, Reeves lost in this strongly Conservative constituency:
Reasons for leaving the BoE – when interviewed about Reeves’s progression to becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, her former tutor at Oxford described her as ‘a good student; in a good year, probably the best’. But if Reeves was such an economics superstar, why would the BoE have allowed such a valuable employee to leave? And why would such a talented economist want to leave the BoE to take up an administrative position at a retail bank’s regional office, rather far from the centre of the economics action? Very curious?
Reeves’s HBOS job – How did Rachel Reeves get her job at HBOS? Was it because HBOS felt that an economist from the BoE was the perfect person to fill an administrative position at their Leeds office? Or was it because a prominent figure in the Labour movement, who had previously been Chair of Labour Party Students which Reeves had joined around 1995, was a director at HBOS and got Reeves her job? Did Reeves later return the favour by appointing this person as a Director at the Treasury in July 2014?
Leaving HBOS – a person who has put a post on Twitter, which (I believe) has since been removed, wrote that they had been a manager at HBOS several levels above Reeves. This person claimed that there had been several problems with Reeves’s contribution to the bank. One was the claim that a few managers including Reeves had been caught signing off each others’ expenses inappropriately. Another claim was that Reeves took an unusual amount of time off for supposed dentist and doctors’ appointments, that she was followed to one of these and it was found that she was actually engaged in Labour Party activities. Are these claims true? Or are they just spiteful inventions? Why did Reeves leave her job at HBOS? Was it to pursue opportunities elsewhere? Was it because she was asked to resign due to her unprofessional behaviour? Or was it because she was one of the many thousands of staff made redundant following the HBOS collapse as her employers felt that her particular talents would not be necessary for the bank’s future?
Economic illiteracy – Reeves declined to serve in the cabinet when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader, bravely declaring that his and shadow chancellor John McDonnell’s policies were ‘economically illiterate’. In January 2025 Chancellor Rachel Reeves was given a stern warning by ex Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell not to impose big welfare cuts to head off the economic crisis. Leading Left wing MP Mr McDonnell said such a move would be ‘politically suicidal’ and would result in a backlash from hard-up voters and trigger a recession, Is McDonnell ‘economically illiterate’ as Reeves claimed? Or is it Reeves who is ‘economically illiterate’? Or, as Britain collapses into a recessionary doom loop due to Reeves’s tax-tax-tax budget from h*ll, could it be both of them?
I suspect Makerfiled is going be a stitch-up by a ‘progressive’ alliance
Much huffing and puffing by commentators, ‘experts’ (real or self-styled), psephologists, journalists and others of their ilk about whether the King of the North – Andrew ‘f***-the-bond-markets’ Burnham – can win the by-election in some dump most people have never heard of. I suspect we’re going to see in Makerfield what we’ll see in the next General Election – a ‘stop Farage’, ‘stop Reform’ coalition of the ludicrously-misnamed ‘progressives’ – the UK-hating, open-borders-loving, EU-adoring, tax-tax-tax, Net-Zero-obsessed, free-speech-crushing Labour/LibDem/Green/Islamo-fascist parties.
As for the useless Tories, they’re so arrogant and so anti-British that they’ll probably try to sabotage Reform’s chances in Makerfield by putting up a Tory candidate.
Meanwhile Britain continues (as I explain below using simple arithmetic) to sink into depression and recession.
Rachel Reeves is (IMHO) a liar
I saw the economically-illiterate Reeves being interviewed a day or two ago. The BBC’s in-house rag, The Guardian, tells us:
“Over the first three months of 2026, GDP rose 0.6%, up sharply from growth of 0.1% in the final three months of last year and making the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. Reeves said the figures demonstrated the government was on the right track in its attempts to significantly grow the economy. “We shouldn’t put that at risk by plunging the country into chaos at a time when there is conflict in the world, but also at a time when our plan to grow the economy is starting to bear fruit,” she told the BBC”.
Let me bore you with a little simple arithmetic:
In the financial year March 2025-2026, the British Labour government borrowed £132 billion
In the same financial year, the UK Labour government paid £111.2 billion in interest on government borrowing
This meant that around 84% of the money borrowed in 2025-2026 went on paying the interest on our national debt
As the government borrowed £132 billion and used £111.2 billion to pay off interest on government debt, this left a rather modest £20.8 billion to be spent on stuff in the UK
The UK’s GDP in 2025-2026 was about £3.03 trillion. That’s £3,030 billion
So the extra £20.8 billion the government had left from its borrowing after paying off the £111.2 billion in interest was equivalent to about 0.67% of GDP.
I imagine you can all see where this is going. Reeves claims that GDP growth of 0.6% represents a healthy booming economy. This is nonsense. Just the little bit of borrowing the government had left (£20.8 billion) from its £132 billion borrowing after paying off interest of £111.2 billion was worth 0.67% of GDP. So, all the supposed ‘economic growth’ was actually just money the government borrowed and spaffed away on the public sector and benefits scroungers. There was no economic growth. In fact the economy has declined over the last few quarters. In fact, if it wasn’t for government borrowing it would be clear that we are in a recession caused by Downing Street.
I believe this makes the (IMHO) waste-of-skin Reeves either monumentally stupid or a monumental liar.
You’ll all have seen the story about three girls/women drowning off Brighton Beach.
Britain’s beaches seem to have become a favourite place for our multi-cultural-enriching friends to find willing and unwilling ladies to give them sexual release. Here, from the BBC (so I don’t get accused of being a far-right, racist, bigoted, fascist, Hitler-loving extremist) is just a recent Brighton Beach ‘incident:
The Brighton Beach Rape
“Three men have been found guilty of raping a woman on Brighton beach in a “cynical, predatory and callous attack”.
“Iranian national Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptian national Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, had denied repeatedly raping the woman in the early hours of 4 October. Karin Al-Danasurt, 20 and also from Egypt, had denied filming her ordeal. He was also found guilty of rape as a secondary party. The three men – who are asylum seekers – were convicted at Hove Crown Court on Thursday. Jurors heard during the trial the victim was left “too scared to go out” following the rape.”
“The men were living at a Home Office hotel near Horsham at the time of the offence. Prosecutors have claimed that Al-Danasurt was convicted of murder in Egypt before he crossed the Channel into the UK on a small boat, although his defence barrister has disputed this. He had also been given a caution in the UK for criminal damage in April last year, prosecutors said. The court heard they targeted the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, after she became separated from her friends on a night out.”
“She was “highly intoxicated” to the extent that she was on her hands and knees vomiting into a toilet and could not stand unaided. The woman said to police the men laughed as they kicked her and grabbed her throat during the rape – leaving her with bruises. Al-Danasurt was accused of spitting in the woman’s face while recording the attack.”
The Brighton Beach drownings
What we know so far is:
Police have said they are exploring a “number of hypotheses” after three women’s bodies were found in the sea at Brighton beach. Local reports suggested the women, aged between 18 and their early 20s, were fully clothed when they were discovered shortly after sunrise on Wednesday. Emergency services attended after being alerted to someone in the water near Madeira Drive at around 5.45am, when the sea temperature was 12C. On Thursday, Sussex Police said its officers believed they had identified all three women and had informed their next of kin pending formal identification.
Chief Superintendent Adam Hays said the investigation “includes a number of hypotheses” and emphasised that it was “not appropriate to speculate” while evidence was still being gathered.
Some people might find the warning that it was “not appropriate to speculate” about the cause of the drownings slightly troubling. Some might even suspect that the police have evidence or even suspicions that some of our recently-arrived multi-culturally-enriching friends may be involved in the incident. We’re frequently told not to speculate when this is the case.
I am not for a moment suggesting that any wrongdoing was the cause of the drownings. Nor am I suggesting that any enrichers were involved. Moreover, we have been ‘reliably’ informed by the plods that the three women were “fully clothed“. I think we can all guess why the police have emphasised this fact.
But the whole event could be seen to throw up a rather thorny question: If the three girls/women had been gang raped and then drowned by our multi-culturally enriching friends, this would be a complete disaster for the ruling political, academic, bureaucratic. police and media elites who keep telling us that “diversity is our strength” and that only narrow-minded bigots, racists, Nazis, fascists etc etc oppose open-borders Third-world invasion of our country. There would be uncontrollable public fury and probably riots much worse than those which broke out after the adorable Welsh choir-boy’s slaughter of innocents in Southport. The public rage would be such that our useless, UK-hating, race-replacement-pushing politicians, bureaucrats, Border Farce and police would be finally forced kicking and screaming against public pressure to stop the boats.
So, let me be clear (as the useless Starmer repeatedly says) I am not suggesting for a moment that the three drowned girls/women were gang-raped and drowned. In fact, the evidence so far indicates that this is absolutely not the case. All I’m trying to do here is wonder aloud:
‘had the three women been gang-raped and drowned by some recently-arrived enrichers, would the plods and our ruling elites ever tell us the truth?’
I think we can guess the answer to that question.
Keir is listening:
To cheer us up in these grim times, here’s another (IMHO) brilliant satirical YouTube video
Nothing could beat the entertainment we’re all getting from Labour’s current Muppet puppet show. So here’s a (IMHO) brilliant YouTube video which seems to sum it all up:
David Craig, on June 2nd, 2026
