Bubble Wars


Bubble Folk are the creation of a lack of reliable informative information the cause of which is mass media and political spin. It also has to do with peoples need to be a part of something. Television and newspapers promote the views of those who own them or who run them (BBC). Thus the predominant opinions we are given are those of the elite.

It’s increasingly difficult to find an objective opinion out there. Without a truly independent analysis of events that uses ‘why’ at the beginning of each question we never get to the crux of the matter. Basically we are treated as cannon fodder by the elite. We the public don’t need to know the ins and outs of an issue; it is their job to look after our interests. They ain’t doing a good job!

A Case in Point:

Recently after the Brexit vote in the UK and the general rise of people power across Europe I’ve heard Jean-Claude Juncker the EU commissioner state on three different occasions that they, the political elite, should not be held back by the rise in populism. Such statements suggest a number of things to me:

  • He does not accept democratic accountability.
  • There is by association the view that people have no idea what they need or want.
  • The political class see themselves as an elite.
  • That he and his ilk are Bubble Folk!!!
  • They have no desire to listen and no intention to act on the public vote.




Notwithstanding, we can only make decisions on the bases of the information we receive. Being bombarded by one view or by two strongly opposing views makes it all the more difficult to reach a rational, objective conclusion.

The other problem is that time on TV isth1zoq2kiv restricted and so much of what we get comes down to political sound bites. We have become the peoples of puerile language: texting, twitter and Facebook and all the rest. Billions of text messages are sent every day, much of the content of little relevance. I know I’m one of the culprits! E.g. what’s for dinner? Put the kettle on etc.etc.. I fancy a pint?

Moreover, politicians are their own worst enemy when it comes to presenting a point of view. Invariably they do not answer the question put to them but chose to state the message they want to get across. In so doing promote their own belief and their political party. They are cheap car salesmen! However, people have started to doubt whether politicians know what the truth looks like.

th13r6b7kgEventually political spin wears thin and the electorate switch off when the politicians start to speak. This acquired deafness is now a worldwide phenomenon as people realise that the political elite represent themselves. Reality of their living situations has forced ordinary Joes to recognise this simple truth.


Case in Point:

EU – Canada trade deal due to be signed this month, October 2016. The package was worked out in secret its conditions to be imposed on the populace. Business gets what it wants and the people, well, there might be some jobs created. But others will be lost! There will be some scraps left on the table.

Bubble Orgasm:

The political class were stunned by the recent referendum decision to ‘Leave’ the EU, June 2016. The ‘Remainers’ were apoplectic, overcome with convulsions of disbelief, some wanted to storm the barricades of working class areas and beat the …. out of them. It seems democracy is only permitted when the electorate vote according to diktat.

Those who voted to Remain cannot accept the vote and cannot give up on the issue, so convinced are they that the people have made a mistake. Little or no thought is given to why 17 million voted to Leave. Here in lies the crux of Bubble Folk – only they can be right.

  • Why did so many people vote to leave?
  • Why did they feel so disillusioned?
  • Why had this disillusionment not been addressed before?
  • Why have the ‘elite’ not shared more of the nation’s wealth?
  • Why were the ‘Leavers’ lambasted as racist etc.?

I‘ll go back to a point made earlier that the reality of their living situationthII1V3PKP forced the electorate to think of their needs and not those of the elite. There is a lesson in this situation for the elite to comprehend: – when you treat people like …. they will react.


Abortion: the Bubble War

There are few other issues that raise blood pressure more than abortion. This is trench warfare in the modern age. No middle ground, no room for compromise, not even a smattering of space for dialogue. No game of Christmas football here. The antagonists are trapped in their respective bubbles.

While there is logic in both arguments it is absent in the antagonistic approach each side has towards the other. There concrete stance has become the home of intolerance. It has become a war of attrition.

In political terms support in the Houses of power is determined by the numbers in each district. Whichever group has the largest number gets the politician’s backing. In these circumstances democracy is pushed along not by what is best for all of society but who has the loudest gob.

New Picture (1)Shout loud and shout long seems to be the best route to get your way. One more reason why ordinary Joes are fed up with the political system is that they are not heard but any minority with a loud gob is.



We Trust in God:

All religions are made up of bubble folk. Many use their belief system to promote their political aspirations but cannot identify the hypocrisy in so doing.

It’s a Long Way to Tipperary:

So the old song goes. It may well be a long way but it’s even longer to get to true democracy. It’s a steeplechase with so many ditches and a host of hurdles. We are transient folk, all of us, but politicians take it to a different level by their pre-election pledges that quickly become obscure and the newly elected abstruse when in power.

Our failure to make progress comes from the sheer lack of information that the people receive as to what is best for the whole of society as opposed to the demands of the elite. We have tranche after tranche of interest groups intransigent in their defence of their patch. There is much talk about the need of interest groups in a pluralist society.

Of course very few would like to live in a Stalinist environment or any fascist state. However, when groups become adamant in their approach and almost puritanical in outlook they become a hindrance to progress as they develop Stalinist tendencies.

Numerous environmental groups of various hues claim to have the best interest of society as their prime concern yet never stand together. Their interest seems parochial and in this sense serves the interest of the establishment and not that of society as a whole. They are the bubblers! thm83e71td

Child Sexual Abuse: It’s a Man Thing!



The recent explosion of interest in child sexual exploitation generated by Professor Alexis Jay’s report on the issue in Rotherham, South Yorkshire UK, is in a strange way, healthy. This is a topic that needs to be aired on a regular basis to keep it ablaze in peoples’ mind. It is hard to conceive that sixteen (16) years of exploitation went uncontested by the authorities. It really doesn’t matter who committed the crime, the punishment should be severe. The length of time a child lives with the trauma that was forced upon them, should be the length of sentence.

In many films horror lurks in the darkness and this has proven to be a reality for thousands of little kids. The gratification of the male has superseded the innocence of childhood. What is revealed here is the barbaric side of mans’ nature, and exposes the extent of his lust, how his libido dominates his thinking. It also exposes the jungle nature of poverty, the part played by culture, the gullibility of political correctness, multiculturalism and the emptiness of human rights.

Abuse of children through grooming and gang mentality was exposed in Rochdale in 2012. On this occasion nine men were arrested and sentenced for the sexual exploitation of some 47 girls over several years. However, it is countrywide: in Shropshire, the local newspaper reports that in the year April 2013 – March 2014, 39 cases had been reported to the Council’s child panel, a 44% increase. The Thames Valley police report that 120 officers searched addresses in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. Eight arrests were made concerning the sexual abuse of girls in the period 2005 – 2012. In Greater Manchester, 180 suspects have been questioned as part of an operation codenamed Doublet.

The case of Rotherham leaves one staggered by the complicity of the agencies involved. The same agencies set up to protect the children had left them to wither on the vine. The extent of the cover-up, it is a cover-up, is beyond reprehensible. The Labour Party in power throughout the period has much to answer. Their reaction was to call for the resignation of the Police Commissioner, Shaun Wright. They later suspended four (4) Councillors because, ‘they failed to act when in positions of authority’. Suspended!

th6YBLAMWKInterestingly, the previous Chief Constable, Meredydd Hughes in post 2004 – 2011 told the Parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee on 9th September he was ‘unaware’ of the situation. A similar claim to that made by the Police Commissioner. No body knew nothing!

A BBC Panorama programme brought clarity to the cover-up when a Home Office official, seconded to Rotherham Council was interviewed. The official itemised the data of a large number of girls in 2002 in her report. When the official indicated that most of the perpetrators were of Pakistani origin, she was told not to repeat that information, and was advised to take a two-day course on ‘diversity awareness’. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from that exchange is that the exploited children were worth less than the political agenda being imposed. And children suffered for another twelve (12) years. Unfortunately the data collected was stolen from the official’s office. How deep does this cover-up go? It makes a person shiver with disgust.

Little wonder that Theresa May, the Conservative Home Secretary, speaking in Parliament could state plainly that the actions of the Rotherham officials were a, “complete dereliction of duty”. Furthermore, she was able with absolute authority to condemn the, “institutionalized political correctness” a policy embraced by the Council. (Guardian 2 September 2014)

I nearly laughed when reading the Independent newspaper account of a briefing given by the South Yorkshire Chief Constable, David Crompton, who stated, “A fully independent and impartial investigation is required”. Of course he is right, but then informed those present that he had asked another police authority to carry out the investigation.

“A National Report published in 2013 found 16,500 children and young people were at risk of child sexual exploitation, though it claimed the figure was much higher”.


Needless to say I have many concerns with the Chief Constable’s plan.

  • The sexual exploitation is countrywide.
  • How many other police forces have turned a blind eye?
  • How can the public be assured that the findings arrived at are impartial?
  • Because it is a question of trust, any investigation must not be carried out by any ‘Body’ that is tinged with the case.
  • Parliament is tainted by a similar scandal.

It is very difficult to resolve because trust is such a fragile concept and especially so with the characters and institutions implicated. The only real outcome, to show that we as a society put children high on our priority list, is a Royal Commission. Australia is in the midst of one and we should follow their lead. Any Commission must include Professor Alexis Jay as she has been truthful to the point of bluntness. There should be no hiding place for the perpetrators of child sexual exploitation.

The horror is not restricted to Britain, it is worldwide. I watched a TV documentary on Channel 4 on September 1st. The programme dealt with the sexual exploitation of boys in Peshawar, Pakistan. In Pakistan there are reputedly 4 million kids at work and, 1.5 million of these live on the streets. It is these street urchins that are most at risk, some 5000 of whom live in Peshawar, where they are subject to being sold, trafficked and used extensively as prostitutes. An astonishing 95% of truck drivers admitted that sex, often forced on these boys, was their entertainment.

No one seems to care, the government take no interest, the local authority likewise, and, a police spokesman recognised the problem but said the police had no time to deal with it. A few, a very few took it upon themselves to try and help these lost boys.

A female social worker shed light on a possible cultural explanation by suggesting that the role of women in Pakistan may be a cause. Women in the country are second class but are coveted because they are expected to be virgins when married; after which they are the slave of the man in every aspect of married life. Thus young men and men in general have no outlet for their libido and street urchins are easy prey.

Even if we gave any credence to the cultural cause, it does not excuse the heinous crime of those men and the depravity of a nation that turns a blind eye to it happening. These children are already victims of acute poverty with little hope of securing a decent existence. To force further degradation on them is inhumane. These kids must laugh at the mention of human rights. Moreover, to unshackle the women would merely open many of them to a similar fate.

The USA is also a horror picture with one of the worst records in the industrialized world for child abuse. Three million reports of abuse amounting to 6 million kids have been logged. The most recently documented 500,000 cases reveal a 10% sexual exploitation level, that’s 50,000 kids tarnished for life. How can the world grow better when we corrupt the seed?


According to the, www.examiner.com/article the commercial exploitation of children is the fastest growing underworld crime. Where you find big bucks in crime you’ll find politicians on the take!

In Australia they are attempting to highlight and deal with the issue by the setting up of a Royal Commission to examine every aspect of child sexual abuse. The Commission is due to end in December 2015 but has asked for an extension until 2017 in order to follow up on research projects. In the interim the report found that over 90% of perpetrators were male. Well, no surprise there! However, the Catholic Church came in for severe criticism as did the Salvation Army (SA). The SA witnessed a slump in donations after it was revealed that children suffered terrible sexual abuse while in their care. It appears there is no sanctuary anywhere for our vulnerable children.


Heads should roll in Rotherham from every department. Personally, I would be quite draconian with the use of the guillotine because those involved have put their job andthA5BQ5U5Y well-being; their pension, mortgage, promotion, school fees and car size before that of thousands of abused children. Over the 16 year period they have shown no empathy, no sense of justice, no rectitude, therefore I have no sympathy for any of them. Their mindset would allow Nazism!

Nonetheless, we need to examine the underlying causes of this barbarism which afflicts our society. The prime cause is mans’ libido (sex drive). We cannot shy away from this and must approach it in a pragmatic manner. Over millennia this cause has been identified from the earliest religious writings to modern day understanding.

“Freud pointed out that these libidinal drives can conflict with conventions of civilized behaviour.”

Moreover, “The surge in testosterone hits the male at puberty resulting in a sudden and extreme sex drive which reaches its peak in early adolescence and then drops slowly over his lifetime”.

Is it the chemical build up, specifically testosterone that creates the psychological lust that galvanises men’s behaviour? All the major religions condemn lust: Christian, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism.

  • Buddhism – second of Four Noble Truths – ‘suffering is caused by lust’.
  • Hinduism – lust is one of the gates to Naraka or hell.
  • Sikhism – lust is one of five cardinal sins.

Observation over centuries in many ancient societies reached a similar conclusion. All of us know that in any social gathering that ‘man thinks with his dick’. We are also aware that the occasional inappropriate ‘bonk’ can cause an emotional wildfire leading to separation, divorce and anguish for our off spring.

“Lust is a powerful psychological force producing intense wanting for an object, or circumstance fulfilling the emotion”. Lazarus & Lazarus cited


See also:              www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust

Life for many of our vulnerable children is a struggle at the best of times but becomes a virtual constant darkness when faced by the worst of predators, man. Perhaps we need to add bromide into the water supply or is that just an army myth. To know something is terribly wrong and stand idly by is giving your blessing to this depraved criminality.

Once again, I ask where are the voices of the churches and the charities, the politically correct, the multiculturalists, the advocates of human rights, the Liberal elite and the Left in politics. It is they who have brought us to this juncture. Silence is acceptance, whereas action has an impact on raising awareness and bringing a route to justice. A route to justice is a path to a more thoughtful caring society. Choice!

We need a Royal Commission and on the world stage we need at least 15 of the world’s top universities to carry out extensive studies. We need to understand so that we may put an end to this, the horror movie of all horror movies.

thHA4BEXT5To the afflicted children I am obliged to say – don’t bother waiting; the cavalry will not be coming over the hill to save the day. This is the world we live in!

BBC: Did they cover-up Child Abuse?

Or disapproved

Or disapproved

Unbelievable!                          Incredulous!                                             Unfathonable!

It is very difficult to describe the debacle at the BBC. It’s akin to finding Aliens in your back garden or Elvis, landing at Heathrow Airport. However, this is not a trivial matter; the BBC appears to have covered-up child abuse. According to the Pollard Report there was “real knowledge, not just rumour – about the unsavoury side of Saville’s character.” In plain English, they knew he was committing acts of abuse and did nothing. Nothing! It is equally clear that the BBC was aware in May 2010 from an e-mail in circulation. (Mail)
The Pollard Report concludes:
“Chaos and confusion,” at management level
“Complete inability,” to deal with the crisis.
“Critical lack of leadership and co-ordination.”
“One of the worst management crises in the BBC’s history.”
Reading that catalogue of criticism you have to marvel at the fact that no one was sacked. In any other line of business, the shareholders would not tolerate such poor management and, neither should the British public who are in effect shareholders of the BBC.
I had expected a passenger liner to dock on the River Thames in order to ship all the sacked managers away and out of sight of the waiting world’s press. To give them time to rehash their CV’s etc:.
To say I am astonished, would be an understatement. There has to be another cover-up somewhere in the bowels of the Corporation.The fact that no one has been sacked gives real credence to the charge of’ “Chaos and confusion” at management level. Someone at the BBC must be holding onto a very dark secret; or at least holding a gun to the temporary management’s head. There can be no other logical explanation for the decision to sack no one. What else can lie beneath that decision? Whatever the truth maybe, the decision making, post Pollard, completely undermines the credibility of the institution.
Can the BBC redeem itself? Not without a root & branch change to management and ethos. The Corporation must show that ‘transparency’ means exactly as defined in the dictionary, that it can be viewed from all sides. As a public institution it must rid itself of any hint of bias if it is to win back the trust of the people and the respect of the world as a top class broadcaster.
See earlier posts: Shut Down the BBC.    Bias – Management at BBC

Shut Down the B.B.C.

Shut Down the BBC

Me? Yes

It is a biased organisation
It actively promotes a political philosophy
It is morally corrupt.
It censors by deed or inaction.

The BBC was once a force for integrity, for objectivity, for the highest of standards in broadcasting. Not any more!!

We anticipate, no expect that the BBC will present us with an objectivity that helps we, the public to analyse any given situation for ourselves. For many people the BBC is the only source of direct information and therefore feeds into their belief system. The objectivity and integrity of reporting is thus critical to allow an unbiased opinion to be formed.

In recent months the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, has accepted that it is ‘massively’ biased. It really doesn’t matter if the bias is to the left or right in the political spectrum, by accepting the charge of bias the BBC is acknowledging that propaganda was being disseminated by the Beeb. That surely amounts to endorsing a political philosophy, as well as implementing direct/indirect censorship.

This is not the house that Reith built.
‘The impartial voice of news’

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party- political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”.

Andrew Marr, Oct: 2006

In 2004, in his book: My Trade: A short history of British Journalism. He speaks of remaining impartial and “studiously neutral” in news reporting, and goes on to say that reports should “convey fact, and nothing more”.

I would agree with the sentiments above to convey fact and nothing more; that is the essence of good reporting. However, I would take issue with his analysis of BBC bias, to attempt to whitewash the bias as a cultural thing, and in a sense not that important is a big disservice to himself and to everyone else. If people have a bias then that bias informs most of their thinking, and therefore has a powerful impact on their reporting, or programme making. It’s a pity he skipped “convey fact, and nothing more”, on this occasion.

I would also like explained the term ‘urban organisation’. Is Marr, implying that because the BBC is ‘urban’ there is a built in demographic bias? That the BBC is London centric? That outside of that central area there exists a different political outlook, and that that outlook is not being catered for? Is, Marr, inferring that there are several biases at play in the BBC?

As a public body the BBC has to uphold the most stringent code of certitude. If not, the broadcaster becomes a lackey for the state or a propaganda machine for a political elite; or for both.

It is well known that the BBC operates a policy of ‘positive action’ or as the Americans call it, ‘affirmative action’, in that it promotes the standing of black and ethnic actors. There is no relevance as to how you wish to view such a policy; that would be a political stance. A government, if it passes a law can pursue such a course but an independent broadcaster should not. Was the BBC forced to implement positive action or did the corporation make a conscious political decision? Social engineering should not be the prerogative of a public communications network to distil. This is the U.K. not the N.K. – North Korea.

Moreover, there have been a number of stories whereby the BBC has instructed writers to include a black or ethnic character in their script. Does this not go beyond positive action in to the realm of ‘placement’? In such circumstances ‘placement’ becomes direct discrimination and that would be illegal. Furthermore, ‘placement’ is akin to subliminal advertising and that would be illegal. Certainly, ‘placement’ breaches the Equality Act of 2010.

Who gets an actors part is inconsequential, unless, of course that decision is by diktat. That opens up a whole new kettle of fish. Even if a government approves of positive action or affirmative action that still constitutes discrimination by decree. To pass such a law or to abide by that law is disingenuous on several grounds.

• It’s discrimination as a conscious act (direct discrimination)
• The inherent suggestion within the law is that a black or ethnic actor cannot get employment any other way. It requires big brother assistance e.g. a leg up.
• That hitherto the industry was essentially racist or backward in thinking. Thus a senior decision had to be taken to override that view point.

No matter from which angle you view positive action 1, 2, or 3 it is discriminatory on all counts. A number of other points can be garnered from the latter, point 3:

• That management had a political agenda which they were keen to implement
• They considered their viewpoint as superior and thus had to be introduced top-down
• Management held contempt for its workforce. That the workforce needed to be chivvied along.

A third area of concern regarding the BBC is the tax scandal that burst on to the headlines during 2012. Whereby, prominent personalities at the BBC were ‘encouraged’ to set up personal service companies (PSC) and thus pay less tax. There is a disclaimer on both sides of this argument; the BBC say they never forced anyone to take that route, while some of those presenters argue that they were instructed too or they could find themselves out of a job. The stink requires an army of cleaners to mop up the puke.

Below the surface of the tax scandal lays another, perhaps more intriguing one. As leading presenters were ‘encouraged’ to go independent, the BBC would not have to pay the National Insurance contribution of said presenters and others. The BBC thus saved a considerable chunk of money. How much we don’t know but it was loads of money.

What did the BBC do with this (manufactured) windfall?

1. Cut the licence fee?
2. Inform the public?
3. Use the money to promote young, up and coming broadcasters with a grant?
4. Allow the public to make suggestions?
5. Provide grants for specialist shows produced by students at media or art colleges?


What the BBC did was to squirrel the monies away into their already vast coffers to be used on expenses and other such things.

To force people to accept a diet of biased reporting and a set political agenda is nothing short of a scandal for a public corporation. Those who tune in to the BBC for its reliability and its impeccable source of information have been treated little better than imbeciles.

To fail to treat the dissemination of information with objectivity or by omission is by conscience, censorship. Objectivity can to some extent be subjective when the bias is ingrained; all the more reason then, for a procedure of clarity to be uppermost in the thinking and presentation of material.

In that the BBC cannot be trusted to be objective it should shut down. The BBC should no longer be paid from the public purse.

A contrite corporation should at the very least clean house. That would entail the whole of the top management being pushed out. The present management cannot be left in situ because their actions in office have overseen all that has gone wrong at Broadcasting House. Their bias cannot change colour overnight. The management team, over a considerable period, have perpetuated a fundamental breach of contract with the viewing public. The viewers have been little other than number fodder.

Allowing the management team to remain in place would be analogous to giving Sweeney Todd, a new set of razors and telling him to get on with the proper job.

(Over to you – what can you come up with?)

A ditty:-

Probity, O probity,
You have left and gone to sea.
We need you to come back home,
And be captain at the B.B.C.