A selection of The Daily E*****s articles
The following examples from TDE articles from 01.09.06 are really good scare stories. May be they are based on fact, but it is the selection as a group that is revealing:
a) Green Tories to tax drivers
Motorists and short-haul air travellers will be hammered by higher taxes under a Tory government. Inflation busting rises on petrol duty... Higher prices within UQ for flights - to encourage use of train.
No doubt just prior to rail ticket price hike. Squeezed between that rock and the hard place. Even before any election, the picture of hopelessness continues to be filled in. This 'paper' attempts to create scenes of despair.
Shadow Chancellor, George Osbourne:
"Instead of a tax system that penalises hard work and enterprise, I want to move towards more effective and fair taxes on pollution. I want the proportion of tax revenue raised by green taxes to rise."
Watch out for the mind game here: fair taxes, tax revenue raised, green taxes to rise.
When has a tax been anything but unfair? We are so conditioned to the term being repeated 'tax', 'tax', 'tax', that it can pass you by almost unnoticed. Be aware: a tax is still a tax. Government getting its grubby hands on your money. For what?
Make no mistake Cameron's Crowd is the party that stands for the continuation in tax rises, but only associates itself with the colour green. Nothing else. Osbourne has said that's what "I want".
And fuck you? You decide.
A high-speed rail system (MagLev). Have you heard of this before? Or has it been waiting in the wings to be rolled out... soon? But you are being conditioned to its name, whatever this technical achievement might be. No doubt it will require several £billions to develop it. Just like the 'magic' cure around the corner for some new disease. Needs £billions spent on it though.
Do you ever see the accounts? No. Neither do I. Never will either. Just be told it will cost £billions and £billions.
Yeah. Sure.
If they say so. Would lie to me, eh?
Consider this: the money you have is really only that proportion that you're allowed to keep. As time goes on this amount gets less and less, justified as tax rises. As the wealth continues to be redistributed (yes it is, taken from you and ending up with the wealthy making them even richer).
The Midas society is coming where all the rich will have to eat is gold. And that's a limited supply, like oil. Black gold. Well, drink that you fuckers. So blinded by riches that they don't see the inevitable. Pathetic. It really is. And very sad for all the rest of us. Those that are considered the lowly slaves by the deluded rich. Just like the plebeians in Roman times. Nero fiddled as Rome burned, but today 'leaders' plunder as Earth burns. Money and riches stay on Earth along with bones and all their rotted stinking flesh. And they think they are special. Strange logic there. Somewhere.
b) Is your street the fattest in the country?
(Shortish headline, but how can a street be fat?)
As a pioneering new survey reveals Britain's obesity explosion...
Pioneering? Revelation?
'Scientists' have pinpointed for the first time which is the fattest street in Britain.
Survey conducted by research group Dr Foster Intelligence. Individual mentioned: Marc Farr, but no salutation. Later a health consultant at research group Experian, Emily Sparks, again no salutation.
And it goes on with alleged statistics. The residents of Oak Road, in Easington, County Durham, are apparently 22% more than the national average at risk of obesity.
But well-heeled inhabitants of St. Mary's Gate in the Kensington and Chelsea boroughs of west London have been identified as the slimmest at 11.5% below the average for obesity.
Data was extracted from 33,000 people. For a national average, the UQ population must be considered, currently around 60 millions. So, as population sample this represents 33,000/60,000,000 * 100 = 0.055%. Not very convincing to start with and then to extrapolate to the whole of Britain.
It's clear that less wealthy communities can more likely afford low quality food stuffs - low protein, high fat. The crap food. It's not food really, just a filler. Fast foods packed with chemicals churned out to make high profit. Lifestyles that do not allow attention to be made to self. It's existing.
What actually does this 'reveal'? It shows that poorer communities are fed with crap food and the rich are fed well. Rocket science stuff. Nothing else really, except it seems that affluent Londoners for some reason are 'on average' slimmer. Any average always means many above and many below the median. I'm sure that if you look just a little harder, like open your eyes for example, you will find a number of thin northerners and many 'fat' Londoners. An affluent society often has members that over indulge in all things 'good' and so it is not realistic to believe that fat Londoners do not exist. This article is trying to suggest that they don't. But they do in the north. This type of reporting sets out to find a particular conclusion and then find the 'facts' to support it. It distorts and is reporting of the worst kind.
Maybe it's what I have just done! Perhaps I should write for TDE.
c) Car Insurance Up 40%
Millions of honest motorists face a sharp rise in the cost of car insurance to pay for selfish drivers who flout the law.
[Incidentally, this 'paper' supports a campaign against the existence of speed cameras that enable motorists to flout the law. An inconsistent and hypocritical stance. So what? It's only a newspaper!]
Increases of up to 40% have been announced by Norwich Union, apparently.
This is to pay the costs incurred by 2 million uninsured drivers (£500m = £250 on average/driver). If the figure is definitely known then the identities of these drivers is known. If not known, how can this estimate be made? It also suggests that Norwich Union is making all its customers pay for this problem. Actually it insures 1 in 7 drivers.
Is this simply preparing the way for increases that outstrip the actual costs? Another example of what is wanted? To make everything more expensive with knock-on effects? Always start at the top of the tree and allow to percolate downwards and infect everything on the way.
Becoming cloudy already?
This is a national problem that government does nothing about. Allows the citizens of Bliar UQ to sort out the mess by paying its way out.
But who created the problem in the first place?
But it's NOT sorting it out. The problem won't go away because it's not being dealt with. According to this article, of course.
The article also tries to link the 'compensation culture' with this national problem. An argument can be made that ever increasing insurance costs will create more uninsured drivers. This makes for less administration for these insurance companies as there are less customers and they are each paying more their insurance. Effectively, this is paying the insurers to downsize their company, yet make bigger profits. Overheads are less. The ever growing number of cars creates a healthy future for the insurance industry.
This has nothing to do with money, money and more money. It has everything to do with protecting their customers interests. Of course.
How much more COULD you pay? This has changed from WILL pay. Notice that?
Blantant scaremongering.
Examples given:
1: £280 -> £297 (£17, 2.8%)
2: £391 -> £465 (£74, 18.9%)
3: £5,200 -> £8000 (£2,800, 53.8%)
The last one is somewhat over the 40% increase claimed in the headline. This is for an 18 year old with a modified Peugeot 206 (modified exhaust system?) and parks on the road in central Nottingam. And has less that one year's driving experience. Probably, where the car is parked has more to do with this that anything else. I cannot see how a modified exhaust system has anything to do with this, unless it makes it more attractive to steal? From a road in central Nottingham. The insurance before is more than likely a hypothetical one 'on the books'. Who would or could afford to pay this, except the very wealthy and I doubt then it would be a Peugeot 206. Or parked on the road in central Nottingham. What would be the cost to a 45 year old man (second example) who drives the same car and lives in central Nottingham, parking on the raod? It wouldn't be costed in a few £hundreds! That's for sure.
A very mixed up article, designed to create confusion? I would say so. To create worry and fear. The problem of the uninsured is more of a concern. The cost is a symptom of the disease. And the disease is left untouched to get worse. And worse.
Shadow Transport Secretary Chris Grayling:
"It is hugely frustrating to see law-abiding motorists paying more because of those who flout the law."
Frustrating? Sure. Do anything about it? You are joking, aren't you?
But keep on speeding and using car phones while driving, though.
[Note: isn't it odd that a large insurer didn't know whether a speeding conviction should be reported to them. Almost as though speeding never happens. Makes we wonder is speeding such a real problem or simply exploited?
The illusion being created.
Then, of course what do these cameras really record? Gets more sinister, doesn't it.
Especially when TDE campaigns against them.
d) The battle of Drax (my blog heading)
Eco warriors held as they storm power plant (TDE headline)
[Remember: The Daily E*****s supports nuclear power, it being environmentally friendly with zero emission of carbon dioxide.]
Hundreds of eco-warriors failed [were not successful] in a bid to shut down Europe's largest coal-fired power station yesterday (31.08.06). Taking part in a 10-day protest against CO2 emissions and demanding cleaner power.
'Eco-warriors' are clearly the enemy. Caring for the planet is a bad thing, it seems, but sometimes requires desperate measures, especially when up against overwhelming opposition. Right or wrong doesn't matter. What is important is that actions are opposed to government plans.
I understood that 'cleaner' power has been forced through - nuclear power. Clean: no CO2. Environmentally friendly according to TDE and simply ignores radioactive waste. It is not a problem.
What about radioactive waste at the moment. The waste that already exists, not that which will be produced in the future.
Protesters claimed that Drax is obsolete and should be shut down. Drax provides 7% (according to TDE) of UQ's daily electricity (aka UK. Perhaps it ought to be UB = United Bliardom? But then even FB = Federal Bliardom?). Apparently, many of the estimated 600 protesters from the Camp for Climate Change had allegedly (TDE again) been given "civil disobedience training". Arrests were for possession of offensive weapons. I wonder how many of the 28 arrests involved offensive weapons?
Notice many is undefined: could be 500 or more or 10 or less? Unknown.
Deputy Chief Constable of North Yorkshire (no doubt very PC!): "This is a sad contrast to the sincere and law abiding intentions [spare me, please] of the majority."
The majority will always be right, even if they're wrong. They are a majority. Of right-thinking people. Government-think. Law abiding citizens.
The "hardcore" who see themselves rising above the law are also sincere and care about the planet and NOT today's share prices. Quite a courageous stance really when viewed as challenging state dogma. And when the government-controlled civil army (aka police) lays into them, arresting 28 out of 600 or so.
Why do you imagine we have police and army? It is to control US, of course. All States behave the same. Crush the people.
Many are prepared to break the law. This is only because the law makes reasonable challenge illegal.
According to management, the plant was an "important national asset", pointing out (thank you) that shutting all coal generation [of power] in the UK would be bad for the economy as there would be a chronic energy shortage. By the way, it isn't just the economy that would suffer, we all would. That's how global energy systems have been developed. Again, money is more important than human survival.
Too much money has blinded some people (those making the money) to the future.
One day, money will be worthless. Think Midas syndrome: eat that you rich bastard.
Anyway, Drax isn't all such power generation, but it is the largest.
e) '£100,000-a-minute scandal'
Do you notice how TDE "states" some things as fact and allows others to be "claimed".
f) Work permits for new EU migrants 'are just a sham'
The TSE (Sunday...) is at it too:
g) BROWN TO TAX EATING OUT
"... could soon be hit with a new tax"
h) And yet another burden on Middle England ...
Law-abiding motorists to pay more for rogue drivers
"LAW-ABIDING motorists may be left to foot rogue drivers' bills as plans to tackle road tax evasion are axed."
i) Our children top allergy league table
Allergy 'expert' quote:
"We cannot identify what is causing the problem but one is the main theories is that we live in too clean an environment."
No mention again of chemicals in food or the very chemicals used to clean our domestic environment.
"We need to stop focusing on cures and looks at ways to eradicate the causes. Advances in technology are already making this possible."
"... Many areas have no allergy specialists and patients may not be treated properly."
Alan Jones, the 'expert', runs a company which manufactures products to reduce allergens in the air.
a) Green Tories to tax drivers
Motorists and short-haul air travellers will be hammered by higher taxes under a Tory government. Inflation busting rises on petrol duty... Higher prices within UQ for flights - to encourage use of train.
No doubt just prior to rail ticket price hike. Squeezed between that rock and the hard place. Even before any election, the picture of hopelessness continues to be filled in. This 'paper' attempts to create scenes of despair.
Shadow Chancellor, George Osbourne:
"Instead of a tax system that penalises hard work and enterprise, I want to move towards more effective and fair taxes on pollution. I want the proportion of tax revenue raised by green taxes to rise."
Watch out for the mind game here: fair taxes, tax revenue raised, green taxes to rise.
When has a tax been anything but unfair? We are so conditioned to the term being repeated 'tax', 'tax', 'tax', that it can pass you by almost unnoticed. Be aware: a tax is still a tax. Government getting its grubby hands on your money. For what?
Make no mistake Cameron's Crowd is the party that stands for the continuation in tax rises, but only associates itself with the colour green. Nothing else. Osbourne has said that's what "I want".
And fuck you? You decide.
A high-speed rail system (MagLev). Have you heard of this before? Or has it been waiting in the wings to be rolled out... soon? But you are being conditioned to its name, whatever this technical achievement might be. No doubt it will require several £billions to develop it. Just like the 'magic' cure around the corner for some new disease. Needs £billions spent on it though.
Do you ever see the accounts? No. Neither do I. Never will either. Just be told it will cost £billions and £billions.
Yeah. Sure.
If they say so. Would lie to me, eh?
Consider this: the money you have is really only that proportion that you're allowed to keep. As time goes on this amount gets less and less, justified as tax rises. As the wealth continues to be redistributed (yes it is, taken from you and ending up with the wealthy making them even richer).
The Midas society is coming where all the rich will have to eat is gold. And that's a limited supply, like oil. Black gold. Well, drink that you fuckers. So blinded by riches that they don't see the inevitable. Pathetic. It really is. And very sad for all the rest of us. Those that are considered the lowly slaves by the deluded rich. Just like the plebeians in Roman times. Nero fiddled as Rome burned, but today 'leaders' plunder as Earth burns. Money and riches stay on Earth along with bones and all their rotted stinking flesh. And they think they are special. Strange logic there. Somewhere.
b) Is your street the fattest in the country?
(Shortish headline, but how can a street be fat?)
As a pioneering new survey reveals Britain's obesity explosion...
Pioneering? Revelation?
'Scientists' have pinpointed for the first time which is the fattest street in Britain.
Survey conducted by research group Dr Foster Intelligence. Individual mentioned: Marc Farr, but no salutation. Later a health consultant at research group Experian, Emily Sparks, again no salutation.
And it goes on with alleged statistics. The residents of Oak Road, in Easington, County Durham, are apparently 22% more than the national average at risk of obesity.
But well-heeled inhabitants of St. Mary's Gate in the Kensington and Chelsea boroughs of west London have been identified as the slimmest at 11.5% below the average for obesity.
Data was extracted from 33,000 people. For a national average, the UQ population must be considered, currently around 60 millions. So, as population sample this represents 33,000/60,000,000 * 100 = 0.055%. Not very convincing to start with and then to extrapolate to the whole of Britain.
It's clear that less wealthy communities can more likely afford low quality food stuffs - low protein, high fat. The crap food. It's not food really, just a filler. Fast foods packed with chemicals churned out to make high profit. Lifestyles that do not allow attention to be made to self. It's existing.
What actually does this 'reveal'? It shows that poorer communities are fed with crap food and the rich are fed well. Rocket science stuff. Nothing else really, except it seems that affluent Londoners for some reason are 'on average' slimmer. Any average always means many above and many below the median. I'm sure that if you look just a little harder, like open your eyes for example, you will find a number of thin northerners and many 'fat' Londoners. An affluent society often has members that over indulge in all things 'good' and so it is not realistic to believe that fat Londoners do not exist. This article is trying to suggest that they don't. But they do in the north. This type of reporting sets out to find a particular conclusion and then find the 'facts' to support it. It distorts and is reporting of the worst kind.
Maybe it's what I have just done! Perhaps I should write for TDE.
c) Car Insurance Up 40%
Millions of honest motorists face a sharp rise in the cost of car insurance to pay for selfish drivers who flout the law.
[Incidentally, this 'paper' supports a campaign against the existence of speed cameras that enable motorists to flout the law. An inconsistent and hypocritical stance. So what? It's only a newspaper!]
Increases of up to 40% have been announced by Norwich Union, apparently.
This is to pay the costs incurred by 2 million uninsured drivers (£500m = £250 on average/driver). If the figure is definitely known then the identities of these drivers is known. If not known, how can this estimate be made? It also suggests that Norwich Union is making all its customers pay for this problem. Actually it insures 1 in 7 drivers.
Is this simply preparing the way for increases that outstrip the actual costs? Another example of what is wanted? To make everything more expensive with knock-on effects? Always start at the top of the tree and allow to percolate downwards and infect everything on the way.
Becoming cloudy already?
This is a national problem that government does nothing about. Allows the citizens of Bliar UQ to sort out the mess by paying its way out.
But who created the problem in the first place?
But it's NOT sorting it out. The problem won't go away because it's not being dealt with. According to this article, of course.
The article also tries to link the 'compensation culture' with this national problem. An argument can be made that ever increasing insurance costs will create more uninsured drivers. This makes for less administration for these insurance companies as there are less customers and they are each paying more their insurance. Effectively, this is paying the insurers to downsize their company, yet make bigger profits. Overheads are less. The ever growing number of cars creates a healthy future for the insurance industry.
This has nothing to do with money, money and more money. It has everything to do with protecting their customers interests. Of course.
How much more COULD you pay? This has changed from WILL pay. Notice that?
Blantant scaremongering.
Examples given:
1: £280 -> £297 (£17, 2.8%)
2: £391 -> £465 (£74, 18.9%)
3: £5,200 -> £8000 (£2,800, 53.8%)
The last one is somewhat over the 40% increase claimed in the headline. This is for an 18 year old with a modified Peugeot 206 (modified exhaust system?) and parks on the road in central Nottingam. And has less that one year's driving experience. Probably, where the car is parked has more to do with this that anything else. I cannot see how a modified exhaust system has anything to do with this, unless it makes it more attractive to steal? From a road in central Nottingham. The insurance before is more than likely a hypothetical one 'on the books'. Who would or could afford to pay this, except the very wealthy and I doubt then it would be a Peugeot 206. Or parked on the road in central Nottingham. What would be the cost to a 45 year old man (second example) who drives the same car and lives in central Nottingham, parking on the raod? It wouldn't be costed in a few £hundreds! That's for sure.
A very mixed up article, designed to create confusion? I would say so. To create worry and fear. The problem of the uninsured is more of a concern. The cost is a symptom of the disease. And the disease is left untouched to get worse. And worse.
Shadow Transport Secretary Chris Grayling:
"It is hugely frustrating to see law-abiding motorists paying more because of those who flout the law."
Frustrating? Sure. Do anything about it? You are joking, aren't you?
But keep on speeding and using car phones while driving, though.
[Note: isn't it odd that a large insurer didn't know whether a speeding conviction should be reported to them. Almost as though speeding never happens. Makes we wonder is speeding such a real problem or simply exploited?
The illusion being created.
Then, of course what do these cameras really record? Gets more sinister, doesn't it.
Especially when TDE campaigns against them.
d) The battle of Drax (my blog heading)
Eco warriors held as they storm power plant (TDE headline)
[Remember: The Daily E*****s supports nuclear power, it being environmentally friendly with zero emission of carbon dioxide.]
Hundreds of eco-warriors failed [were not successful] in a bid to shut down Europe's largest coal-fired power station yesterday (31.08.06). Taking part in a 10-day protest against CO2 emissions and demanding cleaner power.
'Eco-warriors' are clearly the enemy. Caring for the planet is a bad thing, it seems, but sometimes requires desperate measures, especially when up against overwhelming opposition. Right or wrong doesn't matter. What is important is that actions are opposed to government plans.
I understood that 'cleaner' power has been forced through - nuclear power. Clean: no CO2. Environmentally friendly according to TDE and simply ignores radioactive waste. It is not a problem.
What about radioactive waste at the moment. The waste that already exists, not that which will be produced in the future.
Protesters claimed that Drax is obsolete and should be shut down. Drax provides 7% (according to TDE) of UQ's daily electricity (aka UK. Perhaps it ought to be UB = United Bliardom? But then even FB = Federal Bliardom?). Apparently, many of the estimated 600 protesters from the Camp for Climate Change had allegedly (TDE again) been given "civil disobedience training". Arrests were for possession of offensive weapons. I wonder how many of the 28 arrests involved offensive weapons?
Notice many is undefined: could be 500 or more or 10 or less? Unknown.
Deputy Chief Constable of North Yorkshire (no doubt very PC!): "This is a sad contrast to the sincere and law abiding intentions [spare me, please] of the majority."
The majority will always be right, even if they're wrong. They are a majority. Of right-thinking people. Government-think. Law abiding citizens.
The "hardcore" who see themselves rising above the law are also sincere and care about the planet and NOT today's share prices. Quite a courageous stance really when viewed as challenging state dogma. And when the government-controlled civil army (aka police) lays into them, arresting 28 out of 600 or so.
Why do you imagine we have police and army? It is to control US, of course. All States behave the same. Crush the people.
Many are prepared to break the law. This is only because the law makes reasonable challenge illegal.
According to management, the plant was an "important national asset", pointing out (thank you) that shutting all coal generation [of power] in the UK would be bad for the economy as there would be a chronic energy shortage. By the way, it isn't just the economy that would suffer, we all would. That's how global energy systems have been developed. Again, money is more important than human survival.
Too much money has blinded some people (those making the money) to the future.
One day, money will be worthless. Think Midas syndrome: eat that you rich bastard.
Anyway, Drax isn't all such power generation, but it is the largest.
e) '£100,000-a-minute scandal'
Do you notice how TDE "states" some things as fact and allows others to be "claimed".
f) Work permits for new EU migrants 'are just a sham'
The TSE (Sunday...) is at it too:
g) BROWN TO TAX EATING OUT
"... could soon be hit with a new tax"
h) And yet another burden on Middle England ...
Law-abiding motorists to pay more for rogue drivers
"LAW-ABIDING motorists may be left to foot rogue drivers' bills as plans to tackle road tax evasion are axed."
i) Our children top allergy league table
Allergy 'expert' quote:
"We cannot identify what is causing the problem but one is the main theories is that we live in too clean an environment."
No mention again of chemicals in food or the very chemicals used to clean our domestic environment.
"We need to stop focusing on cures and looks at ways to eradicate the causes. Advances in technology are already making this possible."
"... Many areas have no allergy specialists and patients may not be treated properly."
Alan Jones, the 'expert', runs a company which manufactures products to reduce allergens in the air.
posted by Louis Brothnias at 1:06 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home