I have absolutely no interest in football. But I was rather surprised to see that World Cup hosts Qatar lost the opening game against Ecuador. I had rather assumed that, having paid millions in bribes to corrupt FIFA bosses to get the tournament held in Qatar and hundreds of billions (and killed about 6,500 foreign workers/slaves) to build some totally superfluous stadiums which will be left to rot in the desert once the World Cup farce is over, the Qataris would have paid millions more to referees and their footballing opponents to ensure that the Qatari team (only one of which, I believe, was actually born in Qatar) ‘won’ a few games.
An article from the website “Conservative Woman”
I’m recommending this article as it express better than I could an explanation as to what’s happening across the world. I don’t believe that there’s some evil conspiracy run by cat-stroking Klaus ‘Blofeld’ Schwab at Spectre (sorry, I meant ‘The World Economic Forum’) to build a one-world government. But I do believe most western countries are run by a group of globalist elites who despise ordinary people, feel the concept of countries and borders are outdated and are obsessed with using technology to control us for what they believe is our own good.
There was a book a few years ago which proposed a simple way of classifying people into two groups – the ‘Somewheres’ and the ‘Anywheres’:
Somewheres are people who feel a belonging to their country, take pride in their history, value community cohesion, want to protect free speech and are suspicious of huge, bureaucratic, power-grabbing international organisations
Anywheres see concepts such as country and borders and patriotism as outdated. They believe we would be better off passing power to organisations like the UN, the World Health Organisation and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Anywheres think they occupy the moral high ground as they are supposedly acting in our interests to ‘save the planet’ or promote diversity, equity and inclusion or fight the next pandemic (remember monkeypox anyone?) or whatever and cannot see why anyone would oppose their policies. So Anywheres will use things like lockdowns, abolition of free speech, restrictions on our freedoms, vaccine passports, individual carbon allowances and a social credit system to ensure compliance as these are all supposedly for our own good.
Probably most British or French or German or Italian or Spanish people over the age of 40 are likely to be Somewheres. But the corrupt, gravy-train-riding ruling political elites, top civil servants and police bosses, academics and teachers, our mainstream media and our brainwashed youth are most certainly Anywheres.
Here’s a section from the Conservative Woman article:
Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, in mysterious lock-step with other governments who echo the globalist agenda, will quickly accelerate the work of building-back-better. You know the routine – Net Zero, more tax, more state control, cultural Marxism and so on.
Make no mistake, they are sincere. Sunak, Hunt and party grandees weren’t bribed, blackmailed or ordered to act by Klaus Schwab. That is not how it works. They believe in what they are doing. Ambition, entitlement (they know best), conformity, peer pressure and the lucrative jobs or appointments that await team players keep the rest in line.
Hunt and Sunak don’t see globalism as the scorched-earth policy that it is. They see it as the answer to the everything-crisis. They are surrounded by indoctrinated civil servants, academics, advisers, think tanks who drown them in a never-ending flow of (modelled) doomsday research and technocratic people-management and processing solutions to these spurious crises. It’s all part of the Westminster/global echo chamber. The PM and Chancellor are group thinkers by nature and don’t want to go down in history as the team who destroyed the planet. So a central bank cryptocurrency, universal basic income and technocratic eco-tyranny makes perfect sense.
Sunak and Hunt are in effect half-competent useful idiots for Davos. That’s what makes them so dangerous.
As Christmas approaches, it’s the ‘giving’ time of year when we get bombarded with TV ads for some of Britain’s more than 200,000 registered charities. Hopefully, you’ll have noticed that many charity TV ads ask you to text a word like ‘care’ or ‘heart’ or ‘child’ or whatever to give just £2 or £3 or £5 a month. And I guess many people do pick up their phones to make these small donations.
We’re told that this £2 or £3 or £5 a month can provide lifesaving medicine for a child or provide food for a week or whatever. Some of these ads may be genuine in that the charity will be satisfied with your small monthly donation and will not harass you for more money. But in many cases this £2 or £3 or £5 a month will hardly pay for the charity’s expensively-produced TV ad. The real aim of the £2 or £3 or £5 texted donations is NOT to raise money. It’s to harvest donors’ phone numbers to add to the charities’ “suckers list”. These phone numbers will then be passed on to a telephone fundraising agency who will call up the texter.
The telefundraiser staff will have a sales script which is designed to get the texter to set up a bank direct debit to the charity. The telefundraiser will use the fact that a person is already donating £2 or £3 or whatever a month from their phone and is therefore interested in supporting the charity’s work. As one recruitment ad for telefundraisers explained: “The role involves calling individuals, who have already expressed an interest in the campaign you are working on, and securing additional funds in a warm, friendly and persuasive manner”.
Fundraising fun
Some telefundraisers may actually work for the charity they claim to represent. But often they will work for profit-making telefundraising companies. Charities pay somewhere between £80 to £120 to the telefundraising companies for each direct debit recruited. So, depending on how much you agree to give through the direct debit, little to none of your first year’s donations will ever get anywhere near the charity you have chosen to donate to.
Setting up a telefundraising company can be quite a profitable business. One company, set up by two former in-house charity fundraisers made gross profits of £10.1m on a turnover of £26.2m and paid its founders £2.5m in dividends over a period of seven years in addition to their generous annual salaries.
Just one telefundraising company made over 1,250,000 calls a year to potential donors. That’s an almost incredible 24,000 calls a week. In all, it has been estimated that these telefundraisers make more than 10 million such calls a year.
Losing my charity virginity
Until a few years ago, I knew nothing about Britain’s massive charity industry. In fact, I even made regular donations to several charities. But I noticed how my elderly, dementia-affected mother was being harassed by charities and so did a little research. This resulted in my book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL in which I question why Britain needs over 200,000 registered charities and in which I show that only around half the money we donate ever gets used for real charitable work. I even found one supposed ‘charity’ which in one year paid consultancy companies owned by the charity’s three founders around £90,000 each while using just over £130,000 for charitable activities. There are many small charities like that which could appear to be just get-rich-quick schemes for their lucky founders.
As for our larger charities, many claim that around £9 out of every £10 donated goes to charitable activities. But when you actually do the boring work of looking at their financial accounts, you find that they include all kinds of stuff like administration and fundraising and rent for their offices and running membership schemes so on as ‘charitable activities’. So the amounts which really go to charitable activities is often only a fraction of what the charity claims.
In my previous blog, I mentioned a homelessness charity whose TV ads strongly suggest to me that the homelessness charity provides accommodation for the homeless. But actually, only £6.1m of the £64M raised by this charity last year was spent on ‘housing’. A much larger amount – £19.9m – was spent on raising funds. The remaining £38m, I’m sure, was used on other no doubt useful and relevant stuff.
Britain’s massive charity industry has, I believe, become an out-of-control, self-serving, money-grabbing, greedy monster. So please be careful who you give your money to. You may need it a lot more than the more than one million often well-paid employees of Britain’s supposed ‘voluntary sector’.
It’s Christmas and, as usual, we’re being blitzed with ads from homelessness charities. I understand that there can be few things as depressing as being alone and homeless at Christmas. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little look at these homelessness charities demanding so much of our money.
Moreover, having written the book – THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL – in which I questioned why a small country like the UK apparently needs over 200,000 registered charities, I tend to be slightly wary when charities come asking for my money.
Doing the same thing?
From what I can see, there are three main charities claiming to be helping the homeless – Crisis, Shelter and Centrepoint.
Here’s how each of these three charities describes their work:
Crisis – Crisis is the national charity for single homeless people. We are dedicated to ending homelessness by delivering life-changing services and campaigning for change. Our innovative education, employment, housing and well-being services address individual needs and help people to transform their lives
Shelter – Shelter helps millions of people every year struggling with bad housing and homelessness through our advice, support and legal services. And we campaign to make sure that, one day, no one will have to turn to use for help. We’re here so no one has to fight bad housing or homelessness on their own
Centrepoint – Centrepoint is the UK’s leading charity for homeless young people. It supports more than 15,000 homeless 16-25 year olds into a home and a job every year.
They’re all slightly different, but still seem fairly similar
Hundreds of millions a year
Now for the money. In 2021 Crisis raised £64m; Shelter got £73m and Centrepoint £44m. That’s £181m we’ve paid to charities to help the homeless. That’s quite a lot of money.
However, we’re paying around £2.5bn from our taxes to house over 150,000 illegal migrants in 4- and 5-star hotels. So clearly mostly uneducated, unemployable and often criminal Third-worlders are rather more important to our government than homeless British citizens.
How they spend our money
The Charity Commission claims something like about £9 out of every £10 (90%) we donate is spent on what the Commission calls ‘charitable activities’. So, let’s quickly test that with our homelessness charities
Crisis spent around £19.9m (31%) of their £64m raising funds. Shelter spent £13.4m (18%) of their £73m raising funds and Centrepoint spent £10.4m (24%) of their £44m raising funds. So our homelessness charities spent an astonishing (to me) £43.7m just raising funds. That’s about 25% of their income. So much for the Charity Commission’s claim that around 90% of donations are used for ‘charitable activities’.
Other fun facts
I noticed that Crisis, who claim to be the national charity for single homeless people, spends just £6.1m of its £64m on housing and a more impressive £22.7m on what the charity calls ‘Education, employment, health and well-being’. Make of that what you will.
But perhaps the most surprising feature of these three wonderful, selfless homelessness charities is the amount they spend on their own staff. Crisis spends £30.2m (47%) of its £64m income on its own staff, Shelter spends £47m (64%) of its £73m income on its own staff and Centrepoint spends £20.9m (47%) of its £44m income on its own staff. That’s £98.1m (54%) of these charities’ £181m income spent on their own staff. A cynic might wonder who benefits most from the £181m we give to homelessness charities – the homeless or the homelessness charities’ lucky employees.
Nice work if you can get it?
And that brings us to the salaries paid to these three charities’ big bosses. Charities don’t have to disclose the exact salaries of their bosses, they can just give a range.
The Crisis boss is paid (I won’t use the word ‘earns’) between £130,000 and £139,999 a year. So does the boss at Shelter. For some reason, the boss at the smaller Centrepoint gets a bit more – between £140,000 and £149,999 a year.
How much will you give?
So, when the homelessness charities come demanding your money, you might be forgiven for being slightly reluctant to hand over your cash as there might be better uses for your money than these three (IMHO) bloated, self-serving, money-grabbing supposed homelessness charities.
I hope you watched the Mark Steyn Show on GB News yesterday evening. If you did, you’ll have seen a short clip in which (IMHO) blabbing big-mouth Stanley Johnson, father of our former PM, rather gives the game away about our rulers’ plans for imposing CO2 allowances on us.
In our rulers’ plans, each country and each individual within each country will have a carbon allowance which will restrict how much they can buy, travel and how much energy they can use. This will all be for our own good as it will help ‘save the planet’. And we will no doubt submit to these new restrictions on our freedoms to ‘save the planet’ just as we submitted to the Chinese lab-leaked plague lockdowns to supposedly ‘save the NHS’ and ‘save granny’.
The mainstream media will, as they did with the disastrous Covid lockdowns, cheer on the restrictions and bully and harass us into complying. Meanwhile, anyone daring question the new restrictions on our lives will be attacked as ‘climate deniers’ and ‘planet-haters’ and ‘destroyers of mankind’ and ‘mass murderers’ and being ‘worse than Hitler’ etc etc etc
The political and media elites won’t need to worry about their carbon usage as they’ll be allowed unlimited travel as it’s important for them to attend important conferences enjoying the weather and eating the most luxurious food in the world’s best holiday resorts so they can lecture us proles on the need to cut our carbon footprints. As for the rich, they’ll be able to buy carbon credits from carbon-trading companies (often in which they have invested) so they won’t suffer the carbon restrictions which will be imposed on the rest of us.
Journalist Ross Clark describes our carbon-limited future in his satirical novel THE DENIAL:
Here’s a short (2-3 minutes) video from Paul Joseph Watson in which he explains how Stanley Johnson seems to have inadvertently spilled the beans about the future our leaders have planned for us:
NHS bosses and medics are bleating and howling about how this winter’s NHS crisis will be the worst ever. And, of course, they’re demanding many billions more of our money. But I’d like to humbly suggest that many of the NHS’s problems are either caused by our worse-than-useless politicians or sometimes self-inflicted by the NHS itself.
Here are just a few:
Sacking 40,000 care workers – the government and NHS forced care homes to sack around 40,000 care workers who refused to take the ‘miracle’ vaccines which the politicians and NHS bosses claimed were ‘safe’ and ‘effective’ when they were actually dangerous and largely ineffective for most of the population. This has caused a lack of capacity to look after around 13,000 ‘bed blockers’ who are sufficiently healthy to be discharged from hospital were there carers available. This bottleneck has led to huge delays admitting new patients to hospitals, ambulances queuing up for hours at A&E and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of unnecessary deaths
Making nursing a uni degree subject – from the little I understand, the RCN (Royal College of Nursing) had been pushing for years to make nursing a 3-year university-based degree course rather than a much shorter (40 weeks?) in a teaching hospital partly on-the-job diploma. The RCN did this to make nursing a ‘profession’ and thus ensure higher status and pay for nurses. This has had at least two negative results. Firstly, many people, who would make excellent nurses but who are not necessarily academically-inclined or excited about the thought of incurring debts of up to £50,000, have been put off becoming nurses. And secondly, now that so many nurses are university graduates, they feel that some of the jobs traditionally done by nurses are beneath their status and so spend part of their time discussing their social/love lives and the latest “I’m a celebrity” while lowly healthcare assistants do some of the jobs nurses used to do
The army of managers – about 20 years ago there were around 25,000 managers in the NHS and around 8 hospital beds per manager. Now we have about 38,000 managers and fewer hospital beds so there are about 3.4 hospital beds per manager. Just a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation suggests that the extra 13,000 managers (who were not necessary 20 years ago) are costing us close to £2bn a year. For many years I was married to a cancer surgeon in one of the Scandinavian countries. There they had a hospital administration department to handle stuff like salaries, HR and purchasing. But the medics ran their own departments with no need for a bunch of expensive, time-wasting managers in every department. Moreover, while bleating about lacking money, the NHS is still busy hiring ever more Diversity, Inclusion and Equity managers at up to £70,000 per manager per year
Pensions for senior medics – taxation on pensions is such that it doesn’t pay senior medics to take on extra shifts. Moreover, thousands have been forced to take early retirement to avoid massive tax liabilities on their defined benefit pensions. When the NHS is claiming it lacks experienced medics, it’s not a great idea to force out the most experienced
British lives don’t matter – then we have the invasion of our country by millions of Third-worlders all demanding and getting priority medical care and many of whom have exotic diseases which had long since disappeared from our country. Plus, of course, some Third-worlders enrich us with their much-admired tradition of consanguineous marriage which hugely increases the likelihood of children having lifelong disabilities whose treatment and care we have to pay for
I couldn’t have said it better
I wanted to write a blog today. But the brilliant Neil Oliver said everything I would have liked to say much more incisively than I ever could:
The BBC and most of the mainstream media tell us that our ‘angelic’ nurses are so badly paid that some are having to rely on food banks to survive. So, let’s test this latest nonsense from the worthless, UK-hating, biased, woke, progressive, transgender-hugging, migrant-adoring, climate-catastrophist, Tory-loathing national broadcaster and other mainstream media.
There are two issues we need to look at
are nurses actually poorly-paid?
has their pay really fallen behind inflation
Are nurses underpaid?
From the figures I’ve found it looks like a newly-qualified nurse earns a minimum of £27,055. I guess I may be out of touch, but a starting salary of over £27,000 for someone newly-qualified with no work experience seems pretty generous to me. Moreover, the average pay for a nurse stands at £33,384, according to the NHS and estimates by the RCN (Royal College of Nursing).
I’m sorry, but I have difficulty believing that someone being paid £27,055 in their first job needs to use a food bank to survive. Similarly, I really struggle to accept that the average nurse on £33,384 really is on the brink of starvation.
But the salaries I quote here are just for the lowest level of nurses. A senior nurse can expect to earn anywhere between £33,706 and £40,588. Specialist nurses can start off earning £41,659 but can command up to £47,672 as a maximum:
A chief nurse can earn as much as £91,787. I doubt many of them are queuing up at their local food bank.
Has nurses’ pay fallen behind inflation?
One issue the BBC and all our other media ‘experts’ forget to mention is that nurses have several pay bands from Band 5 for a newly-qualified nurse to Band 8 for a chief nurse. But within each band, a nurse’s salary will increase each year until they reach the top of their pay band. This means that many nurses are receiving automatic salary increases for each year they work. Though, once nurses reach the top of their banding, they will only receive annual government increases unless they move into a higher band.
The NHS pay review body has recommended a £1,400 pay rise for nurses. This would represent a 4% pay rise for the average Band 5 nurse. Yes, this is below inflation. But remember, many nurses are also getting an automatic pay rise for each year they work in their band up to the maximum of that band. So, while it is true that the current 4% offer is considerably below this years’ exceptionally high inflation of over 10%, it’s not clear that most nurses’ salaries have actually fallen behind inflation over the last few years of exceptionally low inflation.
Yet our nurses seem to be claiming they are on starvation wages and need 15% or 17% or whatever to survive.
Heating vs eating?
Given the above figures, I am lightyears away from being convinced that our angelic nurses are underpaid. Moreover, I suspect that during the last few years of unusually low inflation, nurses’ salaries have comfortably exceeded average price inflation. Though this is something the media choose not to mention.
As for the claim that many nurses are forced to choose between heating and eating because they are so poorly paid. If nurses really are having to make this choice (something I doubt is true), from the gravitationally-challenged nurses I’ve seen waddling around the last time I was in a hospital, I imagine most have chosen the latter.
First just a minor comment. I didn’t blog yesterday as a fault with the electricity cable to my house meant I didn’t have any power for over 14 hours. Our stupid, brainwashed, snowflake, woke Generation Z are going to get a big shock when the fossil fuels they hate so much are replaced by unreliable, frighteningly expensive, supposedly climate-friendly renewables and they have to put up with power cuts several times a week.
Interviewing vs brown-nosing
As the 30,000-attendee climate jamboree in Sharm El-Shakedown drags on, I hope readers have noticed the difference in how politicians are interviewed by the media compared to how climate catastrophists are interviewed. With politicians, the interviewer usually has a series of questions which aggressively challenge what the politicians claim. But with climate catastrophists, there is no attempt to challenge their claims. Whatever nonsense the climate catastrophist spouts is taken as divine truth. Instead of being challenged, climate catastrophists are asked questions like ‘how bad will this be?’ and ‘do we have time to save the world?’ and ‘how many years do we have left to change the way we live?‘ etc etc.
These questions encourage the climate catastrophists to paint as dark a picture of our future as they can. What we have is brown-nosing, not interviewing.
Here are some of the most ludicrous claims I have heard so far this Cop27
The Arctic ice cap is the world’s fridge
One climate-catastrophist claimed that ‘the Arctic ice cap is the world’s fridge’ and if it were to melt, global warming would spiral out of control. For a start, the demise of the Arctic ice cap has been predicted for years, but has never happened:
In March 1959 (months before the main summer melt) the Arctic ice was so thin that that a US submarine (the USS Skate) managed to surface at the North Pole:
Moreover, the Arctic ice cap at 19,200 km³ represents only about 0.06% of the world’s ice volume. The main ice accumulations are the Antarctic with about 26 million km³ (85%) of the planet’s ice and Greenland with about 4 million km³ (13%).
There is no clear downward trend in Arctic sea ice cover:
Yet the interviewer made no attempt to challenge the climate catastrophist’s claim that the Arctic would soon be ice-free.
The world’s coral reefs could all be gone by the end of this century
I think it was the BBC’s ‘climate correspondent’ – Justin Rowlatt – who made this claim.
Here’s the official Australian Government chart for coral cover on the Central Great Barrier Reef:
I guess Justin Rowlatt’s university course in PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) didn’t include an option on learning how to read a simple line chart. Otherwise he might have noticed that coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef is actually increasing.
The Pakistan floods are a result of climate change
This year’s main weather event used by the climate catastrophists to justify their manufactured climate panic is the flooding in Pakistan. From what I understand, it is true that there was exceptionally high rainfall in Pakistan this monsoon season due to La Nina and two tropical storms happening at the same time. But if we want to understand why the flooding was so bad, there’s an important issue the media never mention.
I can’t remember the exact figure, but I believe that when Pakistan was founded in 1947, tree cover in the country was around 43%. Trees are rather important in countries with periods of high rainfall as they help the land absorb much of the water.
Tree cover in Pakistan is now below 4.8%:
In the unlikely event that there are any pig-ignorant climate catastrophists reading this, 4.8% is a lot lower than 43%.
This drop to 4.8% is particularly interesting as in 2019, the Pakistan government launched the ’10 billion tree’ project – a plan to plant 10 billion trees to help control monsoon flooding. The Pakistan government claimed that since 2019 one billion trees had been planted.
Yet Pakistan’s tree cover actually fell between 2019 to 2020 from 4.9% to 4.8%. A cynic might be tempted to conclude that hardly any trees had actually been planted, that the ‘one billion trees planted’ claim was nonsense and that most of the money for the ’10 billion tree’ project had been stolen by corrupt Pakistani politicians and bureaucrats.
I believe that much of the money for the ’10 billion trees’ project was donated through foreign aid.
This situation could be seen as somewhat similar to what happened in India when hundreds of millions of foreign aid given to pay for the education of poor children was found to have been stolen as many of the children didn’t exist. Similarly several million dollars for a project to buy school books in South Africa disappeared without a single book being bought. Similarly, much of $26bn in Covid-19 relief funds sent to South Africa magically disappeared. Similarly, billions went missing in Afghanistan as the soldiers the money was used to pay didn’t exist either. The Afghani military bosses pocketed most of the cash and are now living in luxury at our expense in places like Dubai and Qatar.
Please remember Pakistan’s tree-planting ‘success’ and these other stories of how our foreign aid is used/abused when you’re lectured that it’s your moral duty to hand over your money in so-called ‘climate reparations’ to the world’s most corrupt countries to help them ‘fight climate change’.
Europe’s 2022 hot summer
The other main event used by the jet-setting catastrophists to justify impoverishing us to supposedly ‘save the planet’ was the exceptionally hot and dry summer this year in Europe. This is, they claim, proof that global warming is happening. But the catastrophists don’t seem so keen to mention that much of the southern hemisphere has had its coldest winter for over 80 years. For example, the start of the Australian 2021/2022 ski season was a disaster as there was too much snow:
So, I’m confused. Does Europe’s hot summer prove global warming is happening or does Australia’s exceptionally cold winter prove the Earth is cooling?
Oh, I remember now – both are proof that climate change is happening and is a threat to us all.
Last week I wrote a blog exposing how the Blair/Brown government had lied and lied and lied to us when it was put under pressure over the number of ‘asylum seekers’ coming to the UK in the back of lorries. The Blair/Brown government had two options:
take action to reduce the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK
lying to us by fiddling to figures to make it look like they were reducing the number of asylum seekers
In my blog, I used the following chart:
This shows how the liars in the Blair/Brown government showered illegal arrivals with UK passports so they wouldn’t need to claim asylum. This allowed the liars in the Blair/Brown government to claim they had reduced the number of asylum applications (the dotted line on the above chart). Meanwhile the number of illegal migrants being given British citizenship rocketed.
Now that the Sunak/Braverman government is under pressure over the massive rise in illegal migrants being ferried into 4- and 5-star hotels by the useless Border Farce and the idiots at the RNLI, I ended my blog by wondering whether the Sunak/Braverman government would:
genuinely try to reduce the numbers crossing the channel
or would resort to the kind of deception and lies previously used by the scum in the Blair/Brown administration
Lies and lies and lies from Sunak and Braverman?
Let’s just look at what’s happening with Albanians. Here’s a quote from the official government report on small boat crossings:
However, since May 2022, there has been a significant increase in the number of Albanians crossing the channel on small boats. From May to September 2022 Albanian nationals alone comprised 42% of small boat crossings, with 11,102 Albanians arriving by small boat in those five months. In contrast, over the whole of 2021 there were a total of 815 Albanian nationals who arrived by this method. In some weeks over the summer, more than half of small boat arrivals claimed to be Albanian.
I should also mention that according to government figures: ‘from 2018 to June 2022, 95% of Albanian small boat arrivals were male.’.
The government also tells us that Albania is a safe country and therefore Albanians should not be granted asylum in the UK :
‘Albania is considered a safe country and the country is listed as a designated state under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This means that, ‘there is, in general in that state or part of it no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that state or part of it.’
So, you might have expected that the Sunak/Braverman government would be deporting all these Albanian men who have absolutely no right to remain in Britain. But deporting people is difficult. Just as it was difficult for the Blair/Brown government to cut the numbers arriving in the back of lorries. It would be much easier for Sunak and Braverman to find spurious excuses to allow all these Albanian mostly (95%) men to stay in the UK. And this is what Sunak and Braverman have done. The current rate of granting asylum to the mostly male Albanians who have absolutely no right to claim asylum in the UK, is an extraordinary 53%.
So, while talking tough and telling us that the Albanians being ferried to our shores have no right to claim asylum, our useless, lying Sunak/Braverman excuse for a government is handing out ‘right to remain’ to more than half the Albanians who shouldn’t be here.
As for the other 47%, I suspect most of them are living a life of idle luxury in our £150- to £200-a-night hotels or else are busy supplying cannabis, cocaine and heroin to their British customers.
Have you seen the Shirley Serban videos?
As our country goes down the drain of history, here’s something to cheer us all up. I have just come across a person called Shirley Serban who makes parody videos based on well-known songs. She’s amazingly talented. Here are just a couple of the many videos she has uploaded:
First I’d like to recommend that readers subscribe to Toby Young’s the Daily Sceptic daily emails. They do some good pieces on vaccine damage, climate nonsense, suppression of free speech and other similar stuff. You can subscribe free here: https://dailysceptic.org/
Tom Harwood – do you really believe the climate-catastrophist nonsense?
I got a shock yesterday morning while watching GB News. The presenter, Tom Harwood, started gushing about how the UK had managed to reduce its CO2 emissions. What he said was accurate as this chart showing UK CO2 emissions since 1990 indicates:
But Mr Harwood didn’t seem to be interested in speculating how the UK managed to reduce CO2.
Here’s a chart which might be relevant to the UK’s supposed ‘success’ in reducing CO2 emissions. This chart shows the UK’s share of global manufacturing since 1990:
This has almost halved from over 16% to around 8.7% in the last 30 years.
And here’s another chart. This one shows the number of people employed in manufacturing in the UK falling from over 6 million in 1978 to around 5 million by 1990 to just over a pathetically-small 2 million now:
Dear Mr Harwood, I would humbly suggest that the UK has not reduced its CO2 emissions. The UK has merely transferred its CO2 emissions to other countries (mainly cheap-energy, coal-addicted China) by closing down UK manufacturing, throwing three to four million productive UK manufacturing workers out of their jobs and making us ever more dependent on foreign imports.
Dear Mr Harwood, I would humbly suggest that this is not something we should celebrate as a ‘success’.
The UK’s climate minister
By the way, Tom Harwood’s (apparent to me) delight at the UK’s reduction of its CO2 emissions came during an interview with some MP called Graham Stuart. Graham Stuart was appointed the Minister of State (Minister for Climate) on 6 September 2022. Until I saw Mr Harwood’s interview with Graham Stuart yesterday, I hadn’t realised that the UK had (or even needed) a ‘Minister for Climate’.
If we have a ‘Minister for Climate’ why don’t we also have a ‘Minister for Tides’? As King Canute once tried to show, a ‘Minister for Tides’ would be just as useful as a ‘Minister for Climate’:
Our country has truly gone mad. And now even the once sensible GB News seems to have been infected by the mass madness.
This is how I feel about our future:
No wonder the Chinese can’t stop laughing at our stupidity:
It looks like the fight over the invasion of our country by uneducated, unemployable, mostly criminal Third-world garbage is going to get nasty. UK mainstream media (BBC, C4 News, ITV News) enthusiastically aided by overpaid, over-pensioned senior Home Office pen-pushers are desperately trying to get Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, sacked as she seems to be serious about stopping the invasion.
Moreover, several Tory MPs appear to be joining the lynch mob with even the immigration minister, a (IMHO) worthless nonentity called Robert Jenrick, trying to stab Braverman in the back. Apparently friends of former Home Secretary Priti/Totally Useless Patel have also been enthusiastically trying to destroy Braverman. As for our (IMHO) cowardly, spineless PM, he also appears to be getting cold feet about supporting his Home Secretary and has started bleating about how ‘Britain is a compassionate country’. This suggests he’s planning to cave in to media pressure to block or sack her. No doubt he will then cave in to media pressure again by jetting off to the pointless climate-catastrophist talking shop in Sharm El-Sheikh.
The Blair/Brown immigration trick
This is not the first time a British government has been under pressure to act to curb illegal migration. The last time was during the Blair/Brown government when thousands were flooding into Britain in the backs of lorries. Here’s a simple chart showing how Blair/Brown ‘dealt with the problem’:
There are two lines on the chart: the dotted line shows the number of asylum applications and the solid line the number of UK citizenships granted to migrants. You’ll see that the number of asylum applications (the dotted line) shot up from the Blair/Brown election win in 1997 till about the year 2000, then levelled off till about 2002 before dropping dramatically. This extraordinary (almost magical) fall in asylum applications allowed Blair to claim his government had been hugely successful in controlling illegal migration.
But, if you look at the other line on the chart (citizenships granted), you’ll see this rocketing up. Basically, immigration officers were instructed to tell illegal migrants that, if they didn’t apply for asylum (making the asylum figures look bad), they’d be given UK citizenship much more easily. The Blair/Brown government managed to appear to hugely cut the number of asylum applications by handing out UK passports like confetti.
I wonder what lies and tricks the Sunak government will come up with to try to convince us that they have the latest migration disaster under control?
Incompetents govern through deceit
This is just one small example of how for decades our useless self-serving rulers have found that government by deceit is much easier than government by competence. Though this example is rather minor compared to the catastrophic destruction our rulers are now wreaking on our lives:
an economic meltdown caused by the pointless lockdowns to save us from a lab-produced and lab-leaked virus with a 99.9% survival rate
a health crisis caused partly by the lockdowns and partly by forcing us to take untested potentially harmful fake vaccines which caused widespread heart problems and actually lowered people’s natural resistance to viruses rather than protecting us
an energy crisis caused by the ludicrous fantasy that we can somehow control the Earth’s climate by using less fossil fuel and by the laughable idea that you can power a modern economy with unreliable wind and solar when the wind often doesn’t blow and the sun seldom shines. As the head of one of Germany’s largest power companies said, relying on solar power in Germany was as sensible as trying to grow pineapples in Alaska
a jobs crisis caused by our high energy costs forcing most of our manufacturing to move to low-energy-cost countries like China
a food price crisis caused by our rulers’ new war against farming to save us from a non-existent supposed ‘nitrogen crisis’
a food, fuel and nuclear war crisis caused by Western rulers’ refusal to agree to make Ukraine a neutral country to allay Russian fears of having NATO troops on Russia’s borders
None of these crises were inevitable. All these crises were manufactured by our rulers’ stupidity and incompetence. And the worse each crisis becomes, the more our worse-than-garbage rulers, enthusiastically aided and abetted by the mainstream media and various prostitute experts-for-sale, have to lie to us to cover up their own culpability for creating these crises in the first place.
We live in a strange new world in which government by lies has replaced government by competence.
David Craig, on November 21st, 2022
