Reblogged – Don’t buy newspapers EVER #edl #uaf #dontbuynewspapers

10 08 2012

The British media are state controlled and exist to try and control how we think and even how we vote. They are brainwashing tools. Many  of the British people are so gullible they believe every word they read. The BBC is no different either. You can get a better picture of what is happening in Britain by watching Russia Today or Iranian TV. The Guardian and Observer are in financial trouble and report losses of millions. The South Wales Echo is in such shite they are thinking of going from a daily to a weekly paper. All of them are laying off “Journalists” (if you can call them that) and this is great. The cover price of the paper is peanuts and their real money comes from advertising. They tout advertising space based on the number of readers they have. The less readers the less likely companies will buy advertising from them. Don’t buy newspapers ever. Read your news online. Some papers have started charging a pound to read their online content. This is excellent as it restricts the number of people who get to read their propaganda. Dont pay the pound, dont buy papers and dont fund the corrupt Marxist BBC. Please forward this article to all and sundry.



Dont fund our lying media by Mark #edl #casualsunited

16 06 2012

When the Government and MI5 chiefs were discussing the threat of a terror attack on London, they talked about how TV coverage of such an event would be “stage managed”. Its quite clear to everyone, and even the left agree on this, the media is a tool of the Government, and is used to feed us lies and propoganda. Its an absolute disgrace that the British public is expected to fund our corrupt BBC by paying tv license backed up by threats and court action. Many MPs have called for the Government to scrap the tv license over the years, but they wont. If they want a media outlet which lies, feeds us horrific stories to make us feel justified in invading countries and covers up the really important issues that are happening thats fine, but why should we pay for it? You can get a better picture of what is happening in Britain from Russia today or Iranian news than you can from the BBC, yet they expect us to pay for it.

The newspapers are the same, feeding the sheep lies and boasting that the people are so gullible that they can determine the result of an election just be printing the right stories, to make us think a certain way and vote accordingly. I, and most people I know stopped buying papers a long time ago. Cameron has laughed off the accusation that there was a deal between his party and certain media tycoons to push lucrative deals through for them in return for favourable coverage. Who does he think hes kidding? The people are onto the medias lies. Dont buy papers. Read your news online. I stopped my TV licence direct debit over a year ago and theyve pestered me ever since, but theyll never get another penny out of me. End of rant.

Mark P


Article from the Telegraph (below)

If the sack-loads of mail arriving at The Daily Telegraph are anything to go by, TV Licensing has made a resounding success of enraging the general public.

Law-abiding citizens have been inundating us with stories of how they’ve been threatened with investigations and prosecution, either because TV Licensing’s database is clapped out, rather like my must-replace-soon television at home, or because they don’t have a television.

No one likes bullies, so I decided it was time to turn the tables on TV Licensing – which is contracted to private companies by the BBC – and go and investigate them. First stop was to ring their brand reputation consultants, Fishburn Hedges, and ask to spend a morning riding on a detector van. I wanted to discover why some readers without televisions had received unpleasant “official warning” letters year after year, when TV Licensing could have just used its vans which it says are “capable of detecting the use of TV receiving equipment within 20 seconds”.

But TV Licensing rejected my request citing the confidentiality of evaders. Confidentially doesn’t usually seem to be a concern: they happily print “notice of impending action” on the outside of their threatening letters, but I could see their point. So I suggested that I could just be shown inside a detector van, or even just see the outside; these requests were also denied. They really didn’t want me anywhere near their “fleet” of vans, as the lady from Fishburn insisted on calling it.

The BBC refuses to disclose how the vans work. Barrister Michael Shrimpton reckons that the evidence, therefore, is likely to have “little weight in court”, and I couldn’t find any examples in which a prosecution had used such evidence. “There’s a view that the vans are empty,” says Sean Gabb, director of the Libertarian Alliance, “and I believe it. The BBC just looks at a database of addresses to see if people have a licence or not.” He reckons that detector vans are simply used “to frighten people”.

The procurement documentation I’ve seen from the BBC suggests that they don’t have much faith in these vans’ effectiveness, either: when refreshing their “fleet” this year, they only put in a procurement request for five vans for the whole country. The BBC has refused to answer a Freedom of Information Act request about them, arguing that if the number of vans was known, public perception of their usefulness would be undermined.

Finding evaders actually relies on TV Licensing sending visiting officers to knock on the doors, without the aid of vans. Some officers are self-employed and are paid £20 if the resident signs up to a direct debit, or £18 if they pay in full there and then. Others are paid a mix of salary and commission, including that paid if a prosecution occurs.

This made me feel a little queasy. Is a commission scheme, the norm for annoying door-to-door salesmen, at all appropriate when the self-employed staff can threaten prosecution? There have certainly been cases in which severe pressure has been put on residents, compelling them to tell an officer numerous times to leave a property.

In 2005, a visiting officer was convicted of assault against an Ormskirk resident who claimed he did not need a licence and started filming the officer. Two months ago an officer was convicted in Maidstone CrownCourt of perverting the course of justice and four charges of false accounting after he fabricated confessions by four members of the public whom he hadn’t even visited, echoing an almost identical earlier case in Wales.

The quest for commission payments can prove a great irritation to innocent citizens who don’t see why they should have to let visiting officers into their homes, and it can cause particularly high levels of anxiety among the very old or those with mental health problems. Officers receive a payment if they verify that the resident has an existing television licence, but they get nothing if they are only able to get the resident’s say-so that they are licensed, or that they don’t use a television. Their staff has no special legal powers, but TV Licensing’s stream of letters implies that its officers – none of whom is a public servant – have a right to enter people’s homes.

Perhaps something can be done about this, though. Until November 28, the BBC Trust is running a public consultation on TV Licensing. Given that the operation eats up around five per cent of the BBC’s budget while causing worrying levels of irritation to lawful citizens, isn’t it time we made it clear to the Beeb that TV Licensing’s bullying tactics should no longer be tolerated?

NHS spends £60,000 a day on translation services for foreigners who cant be bothered to learn the lingo

10 02 2012

The NHS spends £60,000 a day on translation and interpretation services, according to a report.

Research by think-tank 2020Health showed NHS trusts spent £23.3 million on written translation and interpreters last year, an increase of 17% since 2007.

The organisation, which obtained the figures through Freedom of Information requests, claimed money could be saved by creating a central pool of pre-translated materials which all hospitals and GP surgeries could access.

Julia Manning, chief executive of 2020Health, said: “Our research shows that the NHS spends an incredible £60,000 every single day on translation services. That is over £20,000,000 a year.

“The most glaring problem is that NHS trusts translate their own material, rather than have access to a central pool of translated documents.

“The costs involved are truly staggering in an age of austerity, and incredible when taken in the context of the ‘Nicholson Challenge’ of saving £20 billion across the Health Service.

“Urgent action must be taken by trusts to stem the flow of translation costs and our report sets out a number of recommendations that would do exactly that without altering the level of care given.”

As well as a central library of information, the think-tank recommended translating materials into simple English rather than other languages.

It also suggested providing more written translations through free web-based services, such as Google Translate.

Ms Manning went on: “The NHS has been told by its own patient feedback that documents in simple English – instead of medical jargon – would be acceptable to most people currently using the translation services.

“It wouldn’t take much effort to drastically cut the £23 million of taxpayers’ money that is spent each year on bureaucratic and often duplicated translation fees, and free the money up for treating patients.”

The report revealed that trusts across Birmingham spent £4.9 million between 2008/09 and 2010/11 on translation services, the highest spend outside London.

Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust spent £3.7 million over the same period.

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust spent £2.4 million, while Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust was the biggest spender in London, with £2 million.

London trusts comprised 15% of the trusts surveyed, but were responsible for 31% of the total spend, the research showed.

According to the report, the cost of translating documents has fallen but there has been a rise in the cost of interpretation services within the NHS.

Not all trusts could provide details of how much such services cost them, the think-tank said.

The report also questions whether catering to non-native English speakers is helpful or “perpetuates a system in which they are ostracised from the majority of the English-speaking public”, 2020Health said.

Emma Boon, campaign director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers will be shocked that so much is being spent on translation and interpretation in the NHS.

“They expect their money to be going towards treatment for sick people, not on language services.

“It is even more worrying that some trusts cannot provide a breakdown of what this is costing them; this shows a worrying lack of control over finances.

“There will always be a need for some interpretation, for example if people visiting the UK get sick and need emergency treatment.

“But those who live in Britain should make an effort to learn to speak English so that they are not burdening services like the NHS with ongoing costs for translation.”

A Department of Health spokesman said: “NHS trusts have a duty to follow equalities legislation. This includes making sure their communities can understand information about the trust’s services and that patients and clinicians can communicate with each other. However, we would encourage trusts to save money where possible by working together and sharing resources.”

And they moan about the cost of us demonstrating?



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,119 other followers

%d bloggers like this: