Google didn’t pay a lot of tax last year, according to Mashable.
The truly awful Pam Geller, friend of the English Defence League, was on Russell Brand’s TV show and surprise, surprise she lied:
Russell: “Do you believe President Obama supports jihad against America?”
Pamela: “Only in Libya. . . . [He’s] not pro-jihad.”
FACT CHECK. On her blog, Pamela has written that “one thing is for sure: [Barack] Hussein [Obama] is a muhammadan. He’s not insane ………..he wants jihad to win.”
The Daily Mail and Home County types are having a fit about the latest British census, whilst one family of scroungers are planning a slap up Christmas.
Ripped-Off Britons shows how UK national debt isn’t as big as the Tories make out.
Open democracy had a good report from Oliver Huitson, How the BBC betrayed the NHS: an exclusive report on two years of censorship and distortion.
Rob Marchant has an astute piece up at the New Statesman on Ken Livingstone’s mayoral defeat.
How politicians have to realise that modern technology allows their every action and word to be scrutinised and verified. So, if politicians try to play it fast and loose, saying one thing here and another there then they will soon be caught out.
In fact, it holds true for all those in the public eye. Be more careful what you say and to whom.
“The free-and-easy availability of information makes it easier to catch politicians out: and if you speak as carelessly as the Labour candidate always has, you will be caught out not once but repeatedly; which is what has happened. Trust, or the lack of it, is what stopped the Livingstone bandwagon in its tracks. That’s the beauty of twenty-first century politics: it requires politicians who say the same to everyone.
In short, it is perhaps Livingstone’s failure to adapt to this new world that has most contributed to his astonishing achievement: of gifting a campaign, which should really have been won, to his enemies, on a very good night for Labour. “