web analytics

What a clueless bunch of spineless Twits

By Mike Cunningham On May 22nd, 2020

There was a discussion on the BBC looking at how many there are who believe in the’ conspiracy theory’ when it comes to the corona virus, and the part that Governments played in the virus. Well, folks, being blunt as I am usually am, to accuse this bloody Government of any conspiracy, apart that is by covering their  own arseholes, is, simply, ludicrous. Any bunch hatching a conspiracy would have, by very nature, to be ruthless, targeted and bold.

I would describe this shower as Clueless, Worthless and Useless.

Let us look at the latest Serial Cock-Up as brokered by this useless bunch in Whitehall and Westminster. The NHS surcharge  was introduced by the Cameron-Clegg Government. In one of the very few well-thought out ideas and apt items adopted by the Coalition Government, the charge was supposed to cover the costs of people from Outside the EU who used the NHS facilities if they came into this country. A more thorough explanation for those whose memories are slightly glazed, can be found at this link. The only arguments against the imposition of the surcharge were mainly from the Nurses’ Union; the Royal College, and those arguments were both expected, discussed, and ruled out

As has been known and accepted by many, a large proportion of NHS and Care staffers are from other countries outside of the EU, and as such, WHEN THEY GET THEIR VISAS, they must accept and sign up to pay the NHS surcharge. They know exactly what they are entitled to before they set foot on our shores! They might well be working within the NHS or Care Homes, but, they still had to pay. No one queried why these people came from all corners of the globe to work in Great Britain; no one supposed that their reasons  or motives for applying for the jobs they were doing were otherwise than getting a fair deal of money in comparison for doing a similar job in the country of their birth.

The surcharge, by its very nature, was suppose to stop scandals such as the maternity wards full of Nigerian women, as has been verified,  all expecting the British taxpayer to pay for their forthcoming babies. The Surcharge bedded down over the months, and was deemed to be working well, with contributions in the order of £250 millions in 2019.

Come the Pandemic, come the howls of despair. “How come these poor, semi-destitute NHS and Care workers have to pay this iniquitous Surcharge, so that they are only allowed to continue risking their very lives if they pay this Iniquitous Surcharge?” and of course so on, and so forth…..ad infinitum.

Thirty-odd of the very Tory MPs who voted this legislation into reality commenced bleating like a squad of scared rats, copying  Committee chairman William Wragg who called for an immediate change in policy, adding “now is the time for a generosity of spirit towards those who have done so much good”. Fat Pang himself, a.k.a. Lord Patten squeaked “it’s monstrous that people who come from oversees to help and risk their lives aren’t treated properly”.

Boris Johnson, who of course, because he couldn’t keep his big mouth shut, had already fouled his own front door by bleating, on national tv, “how his life had been saved by migrant workers’ watching over him in the St. Thomas’ Hospital ICU, bleated that the cash coming in was a necessary boost to the NHS. But the ever-caring Opposition Leader Keir Starmer had spotted a good line, and he wasn’t going to let the Government off the hook.

More and more pressure came from Social Media, the press and TV…..

Lo and behold, the charge, we are told, is scrapped.

 

It is true, they couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery!

52 Responses to “What a clueless bunch of spineless Twits”

  1. Yet more subsidies for immigrants.

    (Leftists always describe tax cuts as subsidies when the beneficiaries are people they don’t like.)

    The BBC was of course celebrating this spineless u-turn. That’s the BBC which continues to levy the telly tax on these same immigrants.

  2. That’s the BBC which continues to levy the telly tax on these same immigrants.

    The dishonesty of this comparison is rather well illustrated by the fact that the BBC levies the ‘telly tax’ on its own employees.

    One day Mike Cunningham may write an article which is not wishing for, or rejoicing in, somebody else’s misery. Here’s hoping.

  3. There is no telly tax.

    It’s a fee for a service.

  4. “Lo and behold, the charge, we are told, is scrapped.”

    It isn’t scrapped, it still exists, it just is no longer applied to NHS workers. The maternity ward “full of Nigerians” would still be paying the charge.

  5. The dishonesty of this comparison is rather well illustrated by the fact that the BBC levies the ‘telly tax’ on its own employees.

    What’s that got to do with it?! The government effectively did the same with this NHS levy on NHS employees. It’s exactly the same.

    Don’t come in here calling people dishonest without justification. If you cannot disagree civilly then sling your hook.

  6. I would describe this shower as Clueless, Worthless and Useless.

    I would describe the present incumbent oafs as Clueless, Worthless and Useless, exactly the same as the past lot of
    Clueless, Worthless and Useless oafs.

    If “voting” ever changed anything, they would simply ban it.

  7. Phantom, on May 22nd, 2020 at 6:20 PM Said:
    There is no telly tax.
    It’s a fee for a service.

    What if we don’t want that service?

    Can I still own a TV?

  8. Anyone who watches TV in the UK watches the BBC sometimes.

  9. Phantom, on May 22nd, 2020 at 6:32 PM Said:
    Anyone who watches TV in the UK watches the BBC sometimes.

    That was not the question.

    What if we don’t want that service?

    Can I still own a TV?

    Well?

  10. Don’t come in here calling people dishonest without justification

    It is not a meaningful comparison, because one is paid for out of universal taxation and the other isn’t. And healthcare is by internationally agreed definition a human right, whereas broadcast entertainment is not. You are well aware that the comparison you made is not meaningful, but you made it anyway. And that is why I called it dishonest.

    If you cannot disagree civilly then sling your hook.

    Pete, I have never told you, as you once told me, to ‘fuck off’. A week or two ago you told me repeatedly that I was ‘thick’ for continuing to insist that A&E was an acute service – a dispute that only arose because you literally didn’t know the meaning of ‘acute’ in a medical context. Having insulted me on a false premise you then signally failed to apologise or even to acknowledge your mistake.

    If you want others to ‘disagree civilly’, now might be the time for an apology, or at least a bit less of the stinking hypocrisy.

  11. Pete

    Don’t tell people to sling their hook because you don’t like what they have to say. You have this habit of getting easily rattled when you are challenged. Argue back all you like but its pathetic to try and push people away and falsely accuse them of being uncivil just because they have pierced your polemic. That’s what this site is for. Debate.

    As to the topic, yes well done to the government for seeing sense and ending this unfair tax. Normally Pete you would be delighted at any reduction in State mandated taxes (theft as you have called it) . Why should some employees already paying full taxes and N.I. be expected to pay any sort of surcharges to access public services. The surcharge is fine for visitors, tourists or foreign residents not working and paying tax and N.I, but it is unjustified for anyone who is here working regardless of where they come from.

  12. masterson

    You should take it as a compliment that your responses so annoy Pete even though you are not abusive or offensive in your language. It shows you are delivering bullseye rebuttals 🙂

  13. Colm –

    I welcome a challenge. I do not welcome being called “dishonest” by drive-by merchants like masterson.

    You can see that To pretend otherwise is typically dishonest of you.

  14. He wasn’t calling you dishonest. He said the comparison between the way the NHS is funded and the BBC was dishonest. He is entitled as much as anyone else to express that view. If he thinks part of your argument is incorrect why the hell shouldn’t he or anyone else who comments here say so regardless of whether they are a ‘drive by’ or fixed vehicle regular.

  15. A British worker can find a way not to pay the TV fee.

    He can’t avoid funding the NHS ( nor should he )

    I think that the TV fee is weird in this day and age. If harri swears that he has never watched the BBC, then he should not have to pay it.

  16. Phantom.

    I don’t pay the TV tax..my wife does.

    The question again..

    What if we don’t want that service?

    Can I still own a TV?

    Well?

  17. I don’t support the TV fee, nor do I oppose it. I think that it is an anachronism in this day and age, but this is your affair as a British taxpayer.

    Write a letter to your MP. Let me know how it goes.

  18. Look, if I don’t wish to watch Sky Altlantic, Sky Sports, National Geographic..or Pornhub.

    No problems, they simply cut the signal, no pay, no watch.

    Why do the BBC not work on the same principle?

    It’s a TV tax.

    Pure and simple.

  19. It’s a telly tax. It’s levied on owning a TV, not on whether or not you watch the BBC.

    It’s 21 years since I last stumped up. The idea of paying the state money to own a TV is too absurd to countenance.

  20. Write a letter to your MP. Let me know how it goes.

    It won’t go well.

    It never does.

    Do you realise how many petitions involving hundreds of thousands of people to the UK government over concerns over the leftist bias, pro-EU BBC politically correct organisation we are forced to pay for, have got absolutely….nowhere?

    So, why would you think that “writing a letter” would get anyone, anywhere?

    Phantom.

    Again..

    What if we don’t want that service?

    Can I still own a TV?

    Well?

    Could it, just possibly be, for just this once maybe…you were wrong?

    I know it’s a seriously outrageous long shot, but miracles do occasionally happen.

  21. Harri

    PornHub is free….I only know because a friend told me 🙂

  22. I’d think that anyone who watches TV there watches the BBC.

    It’s a type of service fee.

    Stop bothering people.

  23. Colm.

    I know, me mate told me that too.

    He also sad that the BBC is full to the rafters of more bollocks than Pornhub.

    From what I have seen on the BBC, that my wife pays for…he’s not far wrong.

  24. Phantom, on May 22nd, 2020 at 7:16 PM Said:
    I’d think that anyone who watches TV there watches the BBC.
    It’s a type of service fee.
    Stop bothering people.

    Poor Phantom.

    Again..

    What if we don’t want that service?

    Can I still own a TV?

    Well?

  25. Phantom, on May 22nd, 2020 at 7:16 PM Said:
    I’d think that anyone who watches TV there watches the BBC.

    Phantom.

    Do you “think” and let’s be honest, you don’t do that too often.. anyone who watches TV, watches Sky?

  26. https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+barking&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS777US777&oq=dog+barking&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.4719j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  27. Poor Phantom.

    Poor, poor Phantom.

    😏

    It takes balls to admit you might have made a mistake, and Phantom is obviously not yer man.

    Swoon…. Phantom, you are just soooooo…wonderful.

  28. Phantom.

    You are not off the hook.

    What if we don’t want that service?

    Can I still own a TV?

    Question too difficult is it?

  29. I do not welcome being called “dishonest” by drive-by merchants like masterson.

    As you well know, there is a difference between denigrating an argument and the person who made it.

    If you agree with me that incivility is uncalled for, perhaps you should have a word with this individual who called his interlocutor ‘thick’ and ‘ignorant’ and his assertions ‘bullshit’ even though they were 100% correct.

    So enough of the pearl-clutching horror. I will take no lectures from somebody who lets fly with the insults and then pretends that it never happened when he is proved wrong.

  30. Harri,

    What if we don’t want that service?

    Can I still own a TV?

    Yes.

  31. For what its worth. I think the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC funded fully by general taxation. That way everyone would pay and it would cost them less than the current licence fee.

    But to get back to the topic. How can anyone think that some working people paying full tax and insurance should have to pay an extra tax than others to access the same public service ?

  32. Harri does watch the BBC.

    Everyone with a TV in the UK watches it.

    Most here who don’t live the UK likely watch it also, sometimes.

    It’s the best service in the world, so quit the sniveling that never ends.

    Change the funding model if you wish. I don’t care what you do.

  33. Colm

    That makes sense. I think that would be how it works in Canada.

    Public broadcasters provide the breadth of quality service that no private service has ever offered.

  34. Phantom,

    Everyone with a TV in the UK watches it.

    That’s not true, I have a TV but I don’t watch any broadcast television.
    I do occasionally watch, (legally), BBC stuff on the internet though.

  35. Harri does the watch the BBC.

    Why not?

    My wife pays the TV tax?

    Phantom, in your never ending arrogant wisdom, could you please write a stern lettr(even though you don’t care) to..

    CAPTIA enforcements agency for the BBC..at..

    India Mill Business Centre, Bolton Rd, Darwen, BB3 1AE
    England.

    And let them know there is no TV tax.

    Many thanks.

    Let us know how you get on?

  36. Dave.

    You have made a fatal mistake.

    Phantom knows everything, about everything, at all times.

    The rest of us are just numpties.

    😉

  37. Dave

    I didn’t say that you watched it on the TV 😉

  38. Change the funding model if you wish. I don’t care what you do.

    But, you obviously do care, and know far better than any of us mere mortals who actually live in the U.K.

    And you still haven’t answered the question..

    What if we don’t want that service?

    Can I still own a TV?

    Phantom, is it really that much of a bummer, that much of a downer, to say..okay, okay I might have been incorrect here?

    Is your arrogance really that deeply ingrained?

  39. Phantom.

    Yes you did..

    Everyone with a TV in the UK watches it.

  40. A man a plan a canal Panama.

  41. Jesus H Christ..

    The arrogance is string in this one.

    Poor Phantom.

    Poor, poor Phantom.

    It’s all so terribly, terribly…sad.

    I blame Orange man.

    Orange man has sent him completely insane.

    😏

  42. *strong

  43. Colm –

    How can anyone think that some working people paying full tax and insurance should have to pay an extra tax than others to access the same public service ?

    What about those not paying tax?

  44. Yo, banana boy!

  45. Pete

    That’s an argument about people in different circumstances. I am talking about people in the same situation. 2 employees doing the same work for the same salary and one being specifically charged an extra tax than another for using the same services that are paid by those taxes. Its interesting though that you seem to approve of a government scheme for fleecing money twice from some workers for the same product.

  46. Colm.

    The BBC is obviously a lefty pro-EU organisation.

    Fine, let those who are lefty Pro-EU pay for it then.

    Would you be happy to pay for a Sir Nigel Farage right World TV station just to own a Television?

    Precisely

    No you wouldn’t.

    And rightly so.

  47. Harri

    The BBC is a government supporting organisation that is neutral on our membership of the EU. It is a great broadcasting organisation admired around the world. Long may it continue.

    PS – You missed the bit when I already said I do not support the ‘tax on owning a telly’

  48. Colm, on May 22nd, 2020 at 8:32 PM Said:
    Harri
    The BBC is a government supporting organisation that is neutral on our membership of the EU.

    Com.

    Whatever you are drinking or smoking…I want some.

    😉

  49. harri

    The UK isn’t in the EU any more.

    Don’t keep worrying so much about that one.

  50. PS – You missed the bit when I already said I do not support the ‘tax on owning a telly’

    Try explaining that to our intrepid reporter who knows about everything, at all times, on any subject, on any country, from our all knowing oracle in New York.

    😉

  51. If you want others to ‘disagree civilly’, now might be the time for an apology, or at least a bit less of the stinking hypocrisy.

    It’s the sheer chutzpah of this entity that astonishes those who are not them. The reason why I write this is because, in response to this:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

    John P. A. Ioannidis
    Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer
    John P. A. Ioannidis is in the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

    Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false

    our patrolling circumcised wrote this…….

    Allan, sorry to break this to you, but a 15 year old article in a minor open source medical journal written by a minor academic at a Greek university of decidedly minor significance does not do much for your argument.

    You are a liar, a fraud, a conspiracy theorist and probably insane to boot. Just fuck off.

    Now I responded not with insults, but with this……

    In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

    https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

    Oh dear – it’s true. The Editor of The Lancet did write what Global Research claims, and there’s more…….

    Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

    Oh no – surely that must be a fraudulent lie?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

    Journal editors have expended much time and effort in teasing out how to handle authors’ and reviewers’ competing interests. They need now to concentrate on their own and those of their employers, lest we reach the dismal scenario described by Marcia Angell: “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” [12].

    Looks like the the zio-fuckwit is lying again

  52. As the miracle vaccine against the deadly killer virus approaches, it’s worth looking at the record of vaccines:

    IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO THE ONTARIO BOARD OF HEALTH
    On April 8, 2019, the The Toronto Board of Health had an Agenda Item “Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy“.
    Joel Sussmann’s presentation to the Toronto Board of Health

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=_NZZ_hxcgPk&feature=emb_logo

    Duration – 5 mins

    From 2004 to 2014 zero people in the US died from contracting measles according to the CDC. Meanwhile, during the same time, a hundred people died from the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

    A 2011 study conducted by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute found that 1 in 168 babies had emergency room visits within 4 to 12 days after their 12-month MMR vaccination and that several children died during the study and that the number of deaths was not disclosed.

    1 in 168 is a lot higher than the 1 in a million vaccine injury risk that parents are told about. Isn’t it?

    Pharmaceutical drugs under the FDA are safety tested for an average of 4.5 years prior to licensing but vaccines are tested on average of 4.5 days prior to licensing.

    Harvard Pilgrim Hospital Study funded by Health and Human Services (HHS) in the US revealed that only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported. This means that more than 99% of vaccine adverse reactions are not reported or acknowledge.

    The US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out more than 4 billion dollars due to vaccine injury and death.

    And who is going to make this vaccine?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/05/18/why-moderna-is-clearly-pulling-ahead-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/

    Moderna has made significant progress with its Coronavirus vaccine candidate – mRNA-1273 – in recent weeks, as it gained FDA approval to begin phase 2 clinical trials while noting that it was finalizing the protocol for a phase 3 study, which is expected to begin early summer. This is ahead of the fall timeline previously anticipated for phase 3 trials. Separately the experimental vaccine has also received fast-track designation from the U.S. FDA, essentially helping to speed up the regulatory process. At this rate, the company could be on track to win full approval for the vaccine by next year. This puts Moderna well ahead of rivals in the clinical trial timeline – rival biotech Inovio’s candidate is in phase 1, while many other U.S. based players remain in the pre-clinical phase. Moderna has also announced a collaboration with Switzerland based Lonza Group for manufacturing its vaccine, producing as much as 1 billion doses each year.

    But what is Moderna’s record?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2020/05/08/fueled-by-500-million-in-federal-cash-moderna-races-to-make-1-billion-doses-of-an-unproven-cure/

    The US government has shelled out $500 million to this Massachusetts-based biotech firm for a COVID vaccine.

    Based on what?

    Forbes, May 8: “It’s a big bet for the ten-year-old company, which currently has 24 products in its pipeline—but nothing yet on the market. The biotech sports a huge market cap of $17.5 billion, but it posted a net loss of $514 million on revenues of just $60 million last year. And most of that incoming cash came from government grants and research collaborations with big pharmaceutical companies.”

    Moderna has never put a single product into the marketplace. Last year, it lost $514 million against $60 million income but it’s somehow worth $17.5 billion.

    The COVID vaccine it’s working on utilises brand new RNA technology yet no RNA drug or vaccine product has ever been certified for public use, and Fauci is waiving animal testing.

    Moderna is partnering with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the federal agency headed up by Tony Fauci, and Fauci is in the pocket of Bill Gates.