I see all sorts of messing about where bbc shows saving lives at sea, which
seems to be made by a commercial company, but the other channels
increasingly show bbc things, some mainly repeats.
So surely we have a kind of right to say to bbc, make your own stuff even
if it does not fill all your schedules up? Don't sell off cheap your things
to the commercial channels.
It just seems that nobody would notice now if bbc started to carry adverts.

Sigh.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

On 06/08/2022 09:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I see all sorts of messing about where bbc shows saving lives at sea, which
> seems to be made by a commercial company, but the other channels
> increasingly show bbc things, some mainly repeats.
> So surely we have a kind of right to say to bbc, make your own stuff even
> if it does not fill all your schedules up? Don't sell off cheap your things
> to the commercial channels.
> It just seems that nobody would notice now if bbc started to carry adverts.

A previous government instructed the BBC to contract out much programme
production, it is perhaps debatable whether this resulted in an
improvement in programme quality or any savings in costs but many people
seem to have got wealthy through it including at one time retired staff
who were paid to carry on making the same programmes that they did as
BBC employees.

Brian

The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".

In article <tcl87m$3nt0m$1@dont-email.me>,
Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see all sorts of messing about where bbc shows saving lives at sea,
> which seems to be made by a commercial company, but the other channels
> increasingly show bbc things, some mainly repeats. So surely we have a
> kind of right to say to bbc, make your own stuff even if it does not fill
> all your schedules up? Don't sell off cheap your things to the commercial
> channels. It just seems that nobody would notice now if bbc started to
> carry adverts.

> Sigh.
> Brian

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
> Brian
>
> The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
> firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
>
More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.

Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do a
better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower. When someone
challenged him in this view (Question: "What happens if the figures
show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public tenders?")
he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that you have got
your arithmetic wrong".

Jim

On 06/08/2022 14:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
>>
>> The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
>> firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
>
> More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
>
> Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do a
> better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower.  When someone
> challenged him in this view (Question:  "What happens if the figures
> show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public tenders?")
> he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that you have got
> your arithmetic wrong".

Typical quasi-religious political dogma, ignoring relevant facts - as
we see splashed across the news every day while a small subset of the
nation chooses on behalf of us all which liar is going to be our next
leader, unfortunately not a thing of the past, but still wrecking the
country today.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <tclqc8$3sfh6$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
> > Brian
> >
> > The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
> > firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
> >
> More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.

Heseltine was never PM.

> Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do a
> better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower. When someone
> challenged him in this view (Question: "What happens if the figures
> show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public tenders?")
> he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that you have got
> your arithmetic wrong".

A few years ago, I attended a talk abut Surrey CC's finances. The newly
appointed accountant told us she'd realised that contracting out was not
the best way to use Council Tax; it should brought in-house again.
Strangely, she was replaced quite shortly afterwards.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <tclqc8$3sfh6$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.

> Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always
> do a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower.
> When someone challenged him in this view (Question: "What happens
> if the figures show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of
> the public tenders?") he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can
> only assume that you have got your arithmetic wrong".

Surely the big factor isn't if it's in house or not, it's if there's
competition. Where you have two (or more) groups of people competing
for a contract then you are likely to get a competitive price
agreement. On the other hand if there is a monopoly why struggle with
keeping down costs you're not going to become unemployed.

There is no reason why an in-house group couldn't decide to compete
with an external quote and they would have the advantage that a
company wouldn't also take a slice.

More usually, in-house groups feel safe and that means wasteful
especially if public funded.

NHS in the middle of a massive health crisis decides to waste
millions on diversity managers and training. Same sort of thing at
the BBC. Neither have direct competition working on the same terms.

Bob.

On 06/08/2022 16:07, Bob Latham wrote:
> Surely the big factor isn't if it's in house or not, it's if there's
> competition. Where you have two (or more) groups of people competing
> for a contract then you are likely to get a competitive price
> agreement. On the other hand if there is a monopoly why struggle with
> keeping down costs you're not going to become unemployed.
>
> There is no reason why an in-house group couldn't decide to compete
> with an external quote and they would have the advantage that a
> company wouldn't also take a slice.
>
> More usually, in-house groups feel safe and that means wasteful
> especially if public funded.
>
> NHS in the middle of a massive health crisis decides to waste
> millions on diversity managers and training. Same sort of thing at
> the BBC. Neither have direct competition working on the same terms.

The BBC has probably had more commissions, committees, MPs and other
"experts" investigating them for as long as I can remember.

When there was just BBC and ITV in direct competition, it was often said
ITV feared BBC having to take adverts because had regularly getting
larger audiences on more strictly controlled budgets than ITV who
famously had the "licence to print money". In those days it was easy to
compare running costs and see that ITV cost more to run than the BBC
even though the BBC had radio etc as well.

After we were privatised, I did not see any more efficient operation but
there was a better PR machine to claim things were better.

In article <tcm6nm$3vkla$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 06/08/2022 16:07, Bob Latham wrote:

> > Surely the big factor isn't if it's in house or not, it's if
> > there's competition. Where you have two (or more) groups of
> > people competing for a contract then you are likely to get a
> > competitive price agreement. On the other hand if there is a
> > monopoly why struggle with keeping down costs you're not going to
> > become unemployed.
> >
> > There is no reason why an in-house group couldn't decide to
> > compete with an external quote and they would have the advantage
> > that a company wouldn't also take a slice.
> >
> > More usually, in-house groups feel safe and that means wasteful
> > especially if public funded.
> >
> > NHS in the middle of a massive health crisis decides to waste
> > millions on diversity managers and training. Same sort of thing
> > at the BBC. Neither have direct competition working on the same
> > terms.

> The BBC has probably had more commissions, committees, MPs and
> other "experts" investigating them for as long as I can remember.

> When there was just BBC and ITV in direct competition, it was often
> said ITV feared BBC having to take adverts because had regularly
> getting larger audiences on more strictly controlled budgets than
> ITV who famously had the "licence to print money". In those days
> it was easy to compare running costs and see that ITV cost more to
> run than the BBC even though the BBC had radio etc as well.

That maybe competition for ratings but not directly to supply a
service. Itv are never going to win the contract to replace the BBC.
> After we were privatised, I did not see any more efficient
> operation but there was a better PR machine to claim things were
> better.

Indeed, competition is what leads to better value and performance not
privatisation as such. But it has to be real competition ie. If you
don't perform we'll get people in who will.

The HMRC has 16 full time diversity tsars on the payroll, at a cost
of £1,019,534 a year. Since 2019, the total bill comes to over
£3million. The right person for job depends on their skills,
experience and qualifications. If instead, appointments are made on
the grounds of race and colour then the wrong people get the jobs
and that's £3million wasted doing damage for the sake of absurd
ideologies.

Bob.

On 06/08/2022 20:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> The HMRC has 16 full time diversity tsars on the payroll, at a cost
> of £1,019,534 a year. Since 2019, the total bill comes to over
> £3million. The right person for job depends on their skills,
> experience and qualifications. If instead, appointments are made on
> the grounds of race and colour then the wrong people get the jobs
> and that's £3million wasted doing damage for the sake of absurd
> ideologies.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for these allegations?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

That seems a little stupid. I thought Maggie was all bout market forces, as
such the BBC should have been quids in pocket. and as forproducers setting
themselves up as companies and making the same stuff, yes, Indeed its not
just TV. As I recall certain BBC radio folk who were making country and
easy listening programs became Smooth operations and then started a
commercial station then flogged it to a large company and took the money and
ran.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a13a5ad1dcharles@candehope.me.uk...
> Brian
>
> The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
> firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
>
>
>
> In article <tcl87m$3nt0m$1@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I see all sorts of messing about where bbc shows saving lives at sea,
>> which seems to be made by a commercial company, but the other channels
>> increasingly show bbc things, some mainly repeats. So surely we have a
>> kind of right to say to bbc, make your own stuff even if it does not fill
>> all your schedules up? Don't sell off cheap your things to the commercial
>> channels. It just seems that nobody would notice now if bbc started to
>> carry adverts.
>
>> Sigh.
>> Brian
>
> --
> from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t�
> "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In a way he was right for the short term, but eventually you end up with
after all the investment put in, the shareholders expect a return, ie
profit, like more than was put in. So if Government had put in the
investment themselves, surely they could have done the same instead of
selling the silver.
Its like the way they tried to make everyone a shareholder in order that we
all had a vested interest in utility companies. OK good idea but just like
most people, when shares rose, people sold them and now we have a few huge
corporations running the show, and nobody owns shares.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:tclqc8$3sfh6$1@dont-email.me...
> On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
>> Brian
>>
>> The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
>> firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
>>
> More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
>
> Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do a
> better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower. When someone
> challenged him in this view (Question: "What happens if the figures show
> that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public tenders?") he
> gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that you have got your
> arithmetic wrong".
>
> Jim
>

Yes well, regardless of race or religion. One thing is certain, Bullshit
abounds in all walks of life, and a lot of jobs that could be done by the
movers and shakers, end up going to those who talk the talk, but seemingly
cannot walk the walk. Its all over the NHS Councils, Charities and indeed
probably everywhere else.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:tcmhq6$2en4$1@dont-email.me...
> On 06/08/2022 20:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> The HMRC has 16 full time diversity tsars on the payroll, at a cost
>> of �1,019,534 a year. Since 2019, the total bill comes to over
>> �3million. The right person for job depends on their skills,
>> experience and qualifications. If instead, appointments are made on
>> the grounds of race and colour then the wrong people get the jobs
>> and that's �3million wasted doing damage for the sake of absurd
>> ideologies.
>
> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for these allegations?
>
> --
>
> Fake news kills!
>
> I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
> www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/08/2022 09:09, Brian Gaff wrote:
> That seems a little stupid. I thought Maggie was all bout market forces, as
> such the BBC should have been quids in pocket. and as forproducers setting
> themselves up as companies and making the same stuff, yes, Indeed its not
> just TV. As I recall certain BBC radio folk who were making country and
> easy listening programs became Smooth operations and then started a
> commercial station then<<flogged it to a large company and took the money and ran.>>
> Brian
>
Forget the BBC, that is just small change.
You have just described virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.

In article <5a13c4d6abbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Surely the big factor isn't if it's in house or not, it's if there's
> competition. Where you have two (or more) groups of people competing for
> a contract then you are likely to get a competitive price agreement.

The snag is exampled by what they happens. Competition on 'price' leads to
a poorly run service a corner-cutting and "what we can get away with" gnaws
the system away from within. Add in it giving ways for Councillors (or the
equivalent) to get back-handers, brown-envelopes, party donations, etc. And
you get - over, and over, and over again - the problems that PE document ad
naus.

The findamental problem is the obsession with bottom-line cost rather than
effective and reliable service.

> There is no reason why an in-house group couldn't decide to compete with
> an external quote and they would have the advantage that a company
> wouldn't also take a slice.

Problem then as above. Doing the job properly may cost more. So they get
tempted to cut corners, etc, rather than see the money go to someone else
who cuts corners.

> NHS in the middle of a massive health crisis decides to waste millions
> on diversity managers and training.

Generally, NHS gets driven by what semiprivatised arrangements decide. It
is riddled with outsourcings, enforced business consultancy, and generally
being made by UK Gov to act like a 'business' because of the obsession that
it can all be done "more cheaply". Hence, for example the changes to
training of nurses, pushing more of the costs onto the *student* rather
than paying them as in the past as they learned. And Gov holding down NHS
wages to "save cost" - causing many to quit as NHS employees and then come
back as 'hired in' staff from outsourcing companies.

The Nurses get better pay and condition, the Trust has to pay more than it
would if it was able to pay them the extra as NHS staff, and the companies
(often non-UK ones) take an added profit. ... As Government whines that the
NHS costs too much and the politicians take the donations and jobs from the
companies.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tcnt8a$fqpk$1@dont-email.me>, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
> On 07/08/2022 09:09, Brian Gaff wrote:
> > That seems a little stupid. I thought Maggie was all bout market
> > forces, as such the BBC should have been quids in pocket. and as
> > forproducers setting themselves up as companies and making the same
> > stuff, yes, Indeed its not just TV. As I recall certain BBC radio folk
> > who were making country and easy listening programs became Smooth
> > operations and then started a commercial station then<<flogged it to a
> > large company and took the money and ran.>> Brian
> >
> Forget the BBC, that is just small change. You have just described
> virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.

....leading to examples like "water companies" in England that simply shove
sewage into rivers because they haven't invested in treatment plants as
they were required (initially) to do... then had this covered by
politicians who were got to "look away" and not do checks or inforcement.
Similarly, lack of investment in finding new reosurces, conservation of
water, etc. Instead, the money goes overseas to the real owners as they
cream off money from the public.

Basically, the last couple of decades has become a re-run of pre-Victorian
to Victorian times with 'public services' run for profit extraction,
dodging every possible 'cost'.

Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the company
that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different company" to
the one that sells you gas or petrol. This means they charge is the "world
price" and the big profits are for what they can make an "offshore" company
in legal terms, rather more literally than usual. This then means the 'UK'
company you buy gas from "doesn't make the profit". This then limits the
effect of any "windfall tax" because it get used to pay for the gas at its
high price. Smoke and mirrors.

It would make more sense for UK Gov to issue a National Emergency
regulation that tells all the companies extracting from UK National
Territory (as defined in International Law) that they must sell their
output to the UK at a set markup. Their related on-shore company then can
sell that at the lower price here and the 'surplus' they can sell abroad at
the world price, so still make nice profits from others.

In effect, they still make a nice profit, but we also get the profits.

They will, of course say we can't do this. But in times of National
Emergency Government is Soverign over UK Territory.

IIUC Norway did all thius better by keeping genuine National control ovee
their North Sea fields. But 'we' (i.e. Governments of various Tory or
Tory-lite hew) did it as bonanza for the companies and assume it would
always mean 'cheaper'. Oh, dear...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 06/08/2022 15:12, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/08/2022 14:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
>>>
>>> The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
>>> firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
>>
>> More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
>>
>> Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do
>> a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower.  When
>> someone challenged him in this view (Question:  "What happens if the
>> figures show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public
>> tenders?") he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that
>> you have got your arithmetic wrong".
>
> Typical quasi-religious political dogma, ignoring relevant facts  -  as
> we see splashed across the news every day while a small subset of the
> nation chooses on behalf of us all which liar is going to be our next
> leader, unfortunately not a thing of the past, but still wrecking the
> country today.
>
I WAS THERE though not the one who asked the question.

On 07/08/2022 09:13, Brian Gaff wrote:

> Its like the way they tried to make everyone a shareholder in order that we
> all had a vested interest in utility companies. OK good idea but just like
> most people, when shares rose, people sold them and now we have a few huge
> corporations running the show, and nobody owns shares.

I have still got my gas shares. They are doing rather well at the moment.

Jim

On 07/08/2022 09:13, Brian Gaff wrote:
> In a way he was right for the short term, but eventually you end up with
> after all the investment put in, the shareholders expect a return, ie
> profit, like more than was put in. So if Government had put in the
> investment themselves, surely they could have done the same instead of
> selling the silver.
> Its like the way they tried to make everyone a shareholder in order that we
> all had a vested interest in utility companies. OK good idea but just like
> most people, when shares rose, people sold them and now we have a few huge
> corporations running the show, and nobody owns shares.

There were (and probably still are) restrictions on investment for
future income.

I know that in Transmission, if there was a good site that they knew
would be attractive to other users then they could speculatively invest
in improvements. They had to wait for someone to come along and want to
use the site.

They were always at a disadvantage because many contracts are long term
and bring in a steady income for years but beancounters don't like that.

On 07/08/2022 09:31, MikeS wrote:
> Forget the BBC, that is just small change.
> You have just described virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.

Some were effective, under the GPO you might have had to wait for years
to get a phone. But then when they get one big company doing it all,
they decide to split up so a simple project that used to done with just
a few phone calls, now needs lots of different people, departments and
companies involved.

On 07/08/2022 14:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2022 15:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 06/08/2022 14:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
>>>
>>> Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always
>>> do a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower.  When
>>> someone challenged him in this view (Question:  "What happens if the
>>> figures show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public
>>> tenders?") he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that
>>> you have got your arithmetic wrong".
>>
>> Typical quasi-religious political dogma, ignoring relevant facts  -
>> as we see splashed across the news every day while a small subset of
>> the nation chooses on behalf of us all which liar is going to be our
>> next leader, unfortunately not a thing of the past, but still wrecking
>> the country today.
>>
> I WAS THERE though not the one who asked the question.

I think that you must think I was doubting what you said, I wasn't, I
was merely pointing out Heseltine's stupidity. The world is a complex
place, every situation is somewhat different from the last, and one size
certainly doesn't fit all in the way that so many politicians, managers,
and others of limited intelligence seem to think it should.
Unfortunately, their collective stupidity is still with us.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/08/2022 09:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> As Government whines that the
> NHS costs too much and the politicians take the donations and jobs from the
> companies.

Don't just blame the government. There is the well known case of
"nurse" who was a union official (paid by the NHS) but who spent all her
time politically campaigning against the government and "privatisation"
but had a company that did consultancy work for the NHS.

On 07/08/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Basically, the last couple of decades has become a re-run of pre-Victorian
> to Victorian times with 'public services' run for profit extraction,
> dodging every possible 'cost'.

Sure I had read that the investment in infrastructure was the highest
ever but was still catching up on modernising the infastructure from the
days when it was effectiveky nationalised.

On 07/08/2022 17:07, MB wrote:
>
> Don't just blame the government.  There is the well known case of
> "nurse" who was a union official (paid by the NHS) but who spent all her
> time politically campaigning against the government and "privatisation"
> but had a company that did consultancy work for the NHS.

If it's "well known" you should be able to provide some sort of
provenance for it, but yet again you fail to do so. Surely you must be
at least *beginning* to realise by now that your habit of spouting
baseless bigotry is so well known here, that the likelihood of anyone
believing anything you say without some sort of provenance, even if, for
a change, it happens to be true, is almost negligible?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/08/2022 17:09, MB wrote:
>
> Sure I had read that the investment in infrastructure was the highest
> ever but was still catching up on modernising the infastructure from the
> days when it was effectiveky nationalised.

Denationalisation occurred so long ago now that such an argument cannot
possibly be applied. Take, for example, broadband, this is a more
recent development that post-dates denationalisation, so nationalisation
cannot possibly be blamed for our shit rural broadband speeds. In the
last election, Johnson promised us all "gigabit-capable" broadband ...

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/11/2019-conservative-manifesto-reiterates-5bn-gigabit-broadband-plan.html

.... but, as seemed likely at the time, it was never more than just
another election promise made solely to help win the election, and to be
to be broken quietly later ...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-dumps-broadband-pledge-bury-bad-news_uk_5fc1232cc5b66bb88c66813e

"The prime minister came under fire from business and telecoms chiefs as
the small print of the chancellor’s spending review revealed that
planned spending on the roll-out of the technology had also been slashed
from £5bn to £1.2bn."

This is what happens when the electorate are dumb enough to keep
electing liars into positions of power.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk