Attention – there’s a new elephant around, in addition to the one we already don’t mention. I’m sure you can spot it! For starters, there’s the main subject which dominates the online and print MSM today: ‘Sex and the BBC’: “Newspaper headlines: ‘BBC suspends star’ and ‘calls in police’.” (link). 

We’re not told who this ‘star’ is – for privacy reasons. We’re told that yon ‘star’ paid a teenager for ‘explicit’ photos. It is all very murky: 

“The family of the alleged victim first contacted the BBC on May 19, alleging that the presenter had paid their child £35,000 in exchange for sexually explicit images.” (paywalled link)

We next learn that the teenie’s mum went to The Sun because the BBC hadn’t done anything:

“The mother said she approached the newspaper after becoming disheartened at the time it was taking for the BBC to investigate the claims. She said her child had developed a crack cocaine habit that had been funded by the payments for the sexually explicit images and had simply wanted the presenter to stop sending the money. She was also upset that the presenter had remained on television.” (paywalled link)

Murky it is indeed and our ever so clever investigative hacks seem to be a bit confused as to why this scandal has now surfaced. For example, the DM reports:

“The family of the teenager, who is now 20, were reportedly upset with the wording of the statement from the broadcaster and claimed they had not been properly contacted.” (link)

Oh, so it’s about words? Or is it about ‘privacy’? Why are our wonderful Westminster news editors are trying to be as obscure in their reporting as possible and prefer publishing statements from ‘the family? Here’s The Times again:

“The family told the newspaper they wanted no payment for the story. “We just wanted the BBC to tell him to stop,” the mother said. “I’ve had three years of hell. The impact of this has been terrifying. My child was always a great student but there’s been a radical change of behaviour. It’s heartbreaking. In my mind that man was supplying the crack. My child wouldn’t have access to this money if it wasn’t for him. If it goes on then my child is going to wind up dead. Putting this out to the public is the only way to stop it.” (link, paywalled)

Three years … hm, what happened three years ago … I seem to recall there was something … Still, we mustn’t judge, must we, nor must we ask how yon teenager came to have contact with yon BBC presenter in the first place, nor why mum hasn’t put a stop to this when it started three years ago. 

Next, there’s Mr Biden visiting Mr Sunak today, before the NATO meeting which starts tomorrow in Vilnius. The following quotes demonstrate that our governing classes have lost even the vestiges of a moral yardstick. First, there’s this:

“Ukraine not ready for Nato membership, says Joe Biden – US president says Russia’s war needs to end before alliance can consider adding Kyiv to its ranks” (paywalled link)

Interesting … especially in combination with this:  “Biden flies to Britain insisting: Kyiv needs our cluster bombs” (link, paywalled). That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it! Note the crocodile tears flowing here:

“The Ukrainians are running out of ammunition,” Biden said in an interview that was broadcast early yesterday as Air Force One took off for Europe, where the decision to supply bombs banned under an international convention has prompted a backlash.” (link, paywalled)

Why should the mighty USA care about a backlash and international conventions which they don’t have signed. What will be next – US tactical nukes for the Ukraine? 

It’s only Monday and I’m already feeling utterly nauseated – not by the news as such but by the way the MSM report them. There’s another news item, about the tragic death of a young actress who saw what turned out to be an ‘associate doctor’, not a real GP. For their paywalled report The Times has disabled comments, but you can read all about it in the DM:

“Parents of actress, 30, who died after her blood clot symptoms were dismissed as ‘anxiety’ say spread of ‘associate doctors’ will lead to more tragedies – Emily Chesterton, 30, was seen by a physician associate on October 31, 2022” (link)

Correct me if I’m wrong – but wasn’t this scheme to be introduced from September this year? And now we read (my emphasis):

The role of physician associates is to support doctors in the diagnosis and management of patients. They have been brought in as an attempt to tackle staff shortages in the NHS as part of the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. On the NHS careers website to describe the role, it states ‘you’ll work under the supervision of a doctor’.” (link)

Doesn’t the government scheme, introduced with such fanfare earlier this year, look to be a hasty attempt to legalise what the NHS has already been doing. And then there’s this:

“The PA who saw Emily in October last year had not properly introduced herself and her role, leading Emily to believe she had received informed advice from a GP.” (link)

So now it’s because a lack of proper introduction, about ‘words’, in effect? The strange thing is that neither the reporters nor the parents say a word about the vaxx ‘history’ of this beautiful young woman. We do read in The Times’ report that yon ‘associate doctor’ did mention ‘long covid’ at one stage. Better not point to this new elephant in the room, made up of covid, lockdowns and vaxx!

However, I have to warn you of going down that way: there’s a scientific investigation reported in The Times which found out that:

“Those with a susceptibility to conspiracy theories and a preference for authoritarianism are most likely to be antisemites, regardless of their place on the political spectrum.” (link, paywalled)

You don’t want to be labelled ‘anti-semitic’, do you, because mentioning this and the other huge elephant clearly makes you ‘susceptible to conspiracy theories’. Who knows when such facile labels will end up depriving you of your bank account …

That’s all I have for today. ‘Tis a gloomy start to the week, and the outlook is dire. Still, do try to have a good day!