Britannia Radio

Under this institutionally corrupt Newlabour regime it was realised 
from the earliest days that its policy of Control or Destroy must 
also apply to the flow of information. Never let reality trump 
rhetoric. Those who would tell the truth are deemed to be potential 
threats to Newlabour are immediately targeted for abuse, ruthlessly, 
relentlessly, and without limit.  Government leaks OK --- Opposition 
leaks anathema.

Jeff Randall is clearly as sick at heart at the state of our country 
ass anyone - including me!

xxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
==========================
TELEGRAPH   5.12.08
Telling the truth is lambasted in politically correct Britain
Jeff Randall criticises the "progressives" who would rather suppress 
inconvenient facts than confront reality.

By Jeff Randall

As Harriet Harman slithered on the thin ice of dissemblance, cracks 
in her conviction were palpable. Blinking furiously, she appeared as 
someone who would rather plunge into freezing waters of ridicule than 
succumb to truth.
Asked by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight to affirm her confidence in 
Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, Miss Harman skated round an 
honest reply numerous times until falling over her own feet with a 
sullen confession: "I am not saying I have got full confidence in 
anything or anybody."

It was the kind of encounter to which British viewers have become 
inured: in effect, a current affairs entertainment show, with a 
celebrity presenter posing questions and a slippery interviewee 
defying clarity through a fog of non-answers.

As a society, we have not just stopped expecting veracity from 
elected representatives, but we have also been brainwashed into 
believing that harsh realities are to be avoided lest they damage 
confidence, disturb sensibilities or upset the growing number of 
delicate flowers who protect themselves from legitimate criticism 
with the prophylactic of grievance.

It is as though there has been a conspiracy between disingenuous 
politicians, campaigners for political correctness and a malleable 
electorate to accept deliberate omissions and distortions as valid 
currencies of exchange for public discourse, while banning the gold 
standard of fact.
Ministers who either routinely lie or make unsustainable promises - 
Tony Blair (Iraq), Lord Mandelson (mortgage) and Gordon Brown (tax) - 
invariably keep their jobs and go on to better things. But woe betide 
anyone in high office who has the courage to speak openly on matters 
that discomfort either those deemed to be above scrutiny or their 
agents in the welfare lobby.

At many levels, we are being infantilised by a "progressive" agenda 
that would rather suppress inconvenient truths than confront reality. 
Worse still, both main parties are guilty of playing this cynical 
game: trying to steal advantage by burning integrity at the stake of 
expediency.

Back in August, Alistair Darling came clean on the sharp 
deterioration of the British economy, declaring that conditions were 
"arguably the worst they've been in 60 years" and that the downturn 
would be "profound and long-lasting". The Chancellor's admission was 
overdue. The Government had been in denial for at least 12 months, 
with the Prime Minister incanting that Britain was "well placed" to 
weather the storm.

Nevertheless, the reaction to Mr Darling's statement of the obvious 
was outrage. He was accused of sparking a further slide in the value 
of the pound and "talking the economy down" by David Cameron. The 
Opposition's attack was a cheap shot. Are we, the electorate, not 
entitled to an honest assessment from the man in charge of our 
finances? Did Mr Cameron not share Mr Darling's gloomy prognosis? We 
know the answers; it was all a pathetic ruse.

Ten weeks later, the wheel of torment spun the other way. George 
Osborne warned that Britain was heading for a "collapse of sterling" 
if the Government persisted with trying to borrow its way out of 
trouble. He said: "Sterling has devalued rapidly against the euro and 
the dollar. We are in danger, if the Government is not careful, of 
having a run on the pound."

All true, of course. But, like the pound, plain-speaking has been 
devalued. One day's traction in the opinion polls is all that counts. 
Labour aides said it was "unbelievable" that Mr Osborne would discuss 
sterling's weakness at such time and ripped into the shadow 
chancellor for "lacking judgment" by risking a self-fulfilling 
prophesy. What a joke.

Sterling is in the toilet because Britain's finances have been 
flushed away by a profligate administration whose Budget is in 
tatters. In America, when John McCain insisted on Meltdown Monday 
that the American economy was "fundamentally sound", markets laughed 
in his face. Were Mr Osborne to make bullish noises about the pound, 
he would suffer a similar fate.

In a serious comment on the misery caused by recessions and the 
worrying impact that they often have on mental wellbeing, shadow 
health secretary Andrew Lansley said that, perversely, there was an 
upside to tough times because studies show that "people tend to smoke 
less, drink less alcohol, eat less rich food and spend more time at 
home with their families".

Once again, all true. Even so, Downing Street's attack dogs [prop: 
Mandelson -cs] raced into action. Mr Lansley's comments were labelled 
"shameful" and "out of touch". David Cameron wobbled and Mr Lansley 
was forced to withdraw his comments and apologise "for any offence 
this has caused". What offence? Who are these people who are crossing 
the road to have their feelings wounded? How could anyone be hurt by 
the truth that enforced abstinence is not all bad?

On the subject of health, Tory peer Lord Mancroft complained that the 
nurses who had looked after him in a hospital in Bath, unlike those 
who had delivered "wonderful care" to him at the Chelsea & 
Westminster, were "grubby, drunken and promiscuous". He concluded 
that these nurses "were an accurate reflection of many young women in 
Britain today".

Fury erupted. The Royal College of Nursing said the peer's comments 
were "grossly unfair on nurses across the UK" and amounted to a 
"sexist insult about the behaviour of British women". It's possible, 
I suppose, that Lord Mancroft has a pathological hatred of NHS staff 
and made up the slurs. But, if his observations were true, are we 
saying that nurses are beyond rebuke?

As for his alleged sexist condemnation of "many British women", 
research published last month by Bradley University, Illinois, 
revealed that British women (and men) are the most promiscuous of 
those from big industrialised nations. And a survey by Company 
magazine, albeit five years ago, reported that two thirds of British 
women who responded had experienced "blackout drinking", ie, waking 
up the next day with no recollection of the night before.

But if it's destruction of debate you are looking for, there is 
nothing quite like the issues of immigration and race to bring out 
those who prefer to move the lens away from what is really happening.

Before the local elections of spring 2006, Barking Labour MP Margaret 
Hodge warned that many white families in her constituency were 
tempted to vote for the British National Party because "no one else 
is listening to them".
Her reward for pointing out this truth (the BNP won 11 of the 13 
council seats it contested) was to be savaged by a cross-section of 
Labour supporters and anti-BNP activists for "encouraging" racists. 
I'm no fan of Mrs Hodge, but did her critics really believe that 
democracy would be served by a pledge of silence about the BNP?

Pretending that a problem doesn't exist is not the same as addressing 
it. If you're in any doubt, have a look at Miss Harman's obfuscation 
on the BBC website.