Charlie Walsham, a pseudonym of a BBC News employee who has worked at the Corporation for several years, has written an inside scoop on the BBC’s reporting of excess deaths. The Spectator has the story.
I recall the newsroom conversations during the dark days of the pandemic only too well. They were upsetting at the time. Now, as we see a disturbing rise in excess deaths across the country, the thought of them fills me with horror and outrage.
”You do realise these lockdowns and restrictions will end up killing people too, don’t you?” I would say to senior editorial colleagues with something approaching desperation in my voice. ”Sure, the virus is a serious threat to a small proportion of the population but the longer-term consequences of shutting the economy down and closing off the NHS will be deadly for huge numbers who were never at serious risk from the virus, people with years of life ahead of them. Shouldn’t we be reflecting that in our coverage? Shouldn’t we be considering the possibility that the government is going down the wrong path on this?”
The response of these colleagues would vary in tone, from patient but patronising good humour to open mockery. Many were influenced, I believe, by social media echo chambers (curated by pernicious algorithms). My colleagues had swallowed the myopic belief, adopted by people largely on the liberal Left, that only lockdowns could ‘save lives’ and ‘protect the NHS’ from the devastation threatened by COVID-19. Anyone who demurred was, as far as they were concerned, clearly a Right-wing lunatic.Now we can all see how well that is working out. Provisional figures released this week reveal that more than 650,000 deaths were registered in the U.K. in 2022 – 9 per cent more than 2019. This is one of the largest excess death levels outside the pandemic in 50 years. But despite many of the causes of this being obvious, the BBC is pretending the development has come as something of a shock.
He goes on to explain how the BBC used a series of euphemisms like ”pandemic hangover” to avoid mentioning lockdowns. And it gets worse:
The BBC’s analysis didn’t just fall short because it failed to mention the L-word. In broad terms, it connected the excess deaths to a combination of missed treatments and an NHS already in crisis. Yet anyone working for BBC News knows full well that the NHS is in crisis every single winter. This knowledge didn’t stop BBC editors ignoring warnings that lockdowns would only exacerbate health service bottlenecks once restrictions were totally lifted.
An incredibly damning piece that is worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Now here’s an on point monologue you’ll like;
https://rumble.com/v25iy44-neil-oliver-excess-deaths-are-causing-palpable-panic.html
Neil Oliver is a bloody superstar
100% with you tof.
He needs to be careful, or Matt Hancock will accuse him of being a holocaust denier or maybe even Hitler.
You can’t be a holocaust denier if you not allowed to say the word!
“He said it again, did you hear him?
” I was having a lovely supper with my wife, and all I said was, this piece of halibut was good enough for holocaust survivors, I don’t think you should be cancelled just for saying humans have to eat food”
So did the holocaust happen or not?
“Ho ,please, tell me what to say so I don’t get it wrong “!
“Are there any Trans here?”
The double, double, double entendres get deeper! My head is spinning!
The Spectator piece looks like a way of trying to kill the Malhotra story.
Will Aseem Malhotra’s Appearance Be the BBC’s Most Viewed Programme of 2023? BY NICK RENDELL 15 JANUARY 2023
It looks like it is trying palm-off the blame from the vaccines causing heart problems to merely being an effect of lock-downs and nothing to do with vaccines at all.
There is no substance to the article.
Malhotra on the other hand is an expert with specifics and he hit the BBC news whereas reading the Spectator is a minority sport.
I also cannot put my finger on exactly why – in a sentence – this looks very wrong for a journalist to fail to put his name to a story:
“Charlie Walsham is the pseudonym of a BBC News employee who has worked at the Corporation for several years.”
Why here a pseudonym? It looks like “Charlie Walsham” is planning to write more in breach of his BBC contract? Or is this just another part of the Beeb’s (un)Trusted News Initiative?
What can we do? Well, stop paying for left wing propaganda for a start. If you’re still funding this operation you are part of the problem. A drip creates a puddle, the puddle can become a lake. Please do your bit.
I cancelled my TV licence during the pandemic. As long as you don’t watch or record live TV from a channel that has a broadcast TV licence (aerial, satellite, internet) or use iPlayer you don’t need a TV licence. So catch-up all you like on ITV, C4, etc. and be careful what you stream live from YouTube, etc.
I pay the license fee mainly so that I can watch GB News live and/or recorded, but the money all goes to the BBC, and none of it goes to GB News. That’s clearly not right.
You could always stop paying the licence fee but continue watching GB News live.
But not legally, not without having to worry about a knock at the door, which is not how I want to live.
You can always listen to GB News Radio live without a TV licence, I do.
What to do? Do what Andrew Bridgen MP says.
Write to your MP.
And if you have a useless MP keep writing. And get all your friends and relatives to write too.
Everyone should give it a shot.
Here is something found online to use and make sure you confirm your constituency address or else you will not get a response.
Dear [Your MP]
BBC Founded News Cartel Sued in Major US Free Speech Lawsuit For Suppressing Accurate Reporting by Non-mainstream Publishers
Will you issue a statement condemning this illegal behaviour by the BBC?
The BBC is being sued in the USA as the founder of its international news cartel, The Trusted News Initiative. This is under competition and free speech laws for illegally colluding to “choke off” and “stamp out” competing online news reporting.
This includes reporting of Covid issues and political matters like the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. What on earth is the BBC doing interfering in US politics and in support of the left against the right in foreign elections? Clearly they are doing much the same in the UK and no doubt elsewhere in the world.
There are potentially dramatic effects for online health and science reporting from this first-of-its-kind law suit started in the past week. And this law suit shows the BBC is using TV Licence fees to interfere surreptitiously in US elections to help Democrats get elected.
This is barely any different from espionage using the licence fee to do it.
Completely accurate online reporting by non-mainstream news publishers has been targeted and suppressed by TNI and its members peremptorily deemed to be “misinformation.”
Such agreements are called “group boycotts”. The TNI is a massive group boycott and they are per se illegal. So once it is shown what TNI is and does, prospects for success seem reasonable with treble damages if proven.
TNI’s members are international news organisations including the BBC, AP, Reuters and US “Big Tech” including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft.
CHD has filed a first-in-the-country antitrust lawsuit against members of the “Trusted News Initiative” (“TNI”) for collusively censoring online news.
The TNI is a self-proclaimed “industry partnership” formed around 2020, joining together some of the world’s largest legacy news organizations, such as The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, and its founder, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) with all the biggest Big Tech platforms including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft.
They have suppressed news concerning COVID-19 (on matters including treatments, immunity, lab leak, vax injury, and lockdowns/mandates) and U.S. elections (such as the Hunter Biden laptop story).
Federal antitrust law prohibits firms from colluding to deny critical facilities or market access to rivals.
Since 2020, it has successfully denied critical market facilities—i.e., the world’s dominant social media platforms—to rival news publishers whose reporting competes with and challenges TNI orthodoxy. Under antitrust law, the victims of a group boycott—like the Plaintiffs in our case—are entitled to treble damages.
Moreover, Robert F Kennedy Jnr’s Child Health Defense organisation with this lawsuit aims to vindicate freedom of speech and of the press. The Defendants are the BBC, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and Reuters.
‘ “The BBC’s analysis didn’t just fall short because it failed to mention the L-word.” ‘
The words that the BBC have failed to mention in the context of excess deaths are myocarditis, strokes, blood clots, heart attacks in young fit healthy adults. All the rest is a red herring.
There must be a fault with the page or my browser or laptop – the only mention of the word “vaccination” on this page is a link to a different article.
Worth reading in full until the part where the author smears Dr Malhotra and Mr Bridgen. I welcome the linkage of some of the excess deaths to the effects of lockdown. However, the article also feels like an attempt to deflect attention from the contribution of the injections to excess deaths.
Seems to be a recurring theme
Did he smear them? He refers to the embarrassing nature of the Malhotra interview and Bridgen’s statements but only from the perspective of the BBC’s internal Leftwaffe.
Perhaps I’m not reading it correctly.
Yes, definitely. The writer compared inviting Dr Malhotra onto the programme to talk about statins as a blunder equivalent to inviting Epstein’s ex-lawyer to talk about Ghislaine Maxwell without identifying him as such. Then, if you accept that as a smear, it was extended to Bridgen by association.
Yes, that’s a smear.
Thanks for the information
Perhaps he needs to go on a clarity of expression course, or was it just good old-fashioned obfuscation.
I don’t think so. The exact statement is
In a vetting lapse (comparable to the occasion when Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, was interviewed, following the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell in December 2021), Dr Aseem Malhotra was invited onto the News Channel to talk about statins
This is publically embarrasing for the BBC, because they shouldn’t have invited someone with controversial views on Covid-19 mRNA jabs to a live talk who thus got an opportunity to say something the BBC absolutely wouldn’t want to broadcast and as embarrasment to the BBC, both situations are perfectly comparable.
I follow Carl Heneghan and Tom Jeffers and they I dicated that they are starting an i depth analysis of the excess deaths as nit all can be attributed to peoole not receiving medication (thee have been no change in statin prescriptions) or missed hospital referrals, although he sites, this will account for some but not all.
I’m looking forward to there update on this.
Don’t be so sure about statins. If you look at all cause risk of death against both LDL and HDL cholesterol higher is better until you get to seriously raised levels, the risk falls with an increase well above the levels the NHS views as dangerous.
Surely they can’t be trying to get everyone onto an unnecessary medication that puts money in big pharma’s pockets?
My GP offered me the opportunity to have my cholesterol checked, I politely declined.
I was alarmed by the recent news regarding the change in prescribing guidance for stating – they don’t come without side effects.
“have my cholesterol checked, I politely declined.”
I don’t know how I managed to post as above. Apologies all.
Sausage fingers perhaps HP? :> )
A couple of years ago, before the panic ensued, I did have a cholesterol measurement as part of a general “health check” for certain age groups via the GP surgery I use. When the results came back, they just showed an overall value – no specific numbers for LDL or HDL. They didn’t try to dish out statins, though, just a leaflet about dietary guidelines etc. Anyway, the balance between HDL & LDL would have been interesting, rather than just adding it all together, if you look it up.
How about the “V-word”?
Multiple Young Athletes And Former Athletes Died Suddenly This Past Month“Excess deaths have jumped dramatically in the US (excess deaths being fatalities beyond the yearly average). The majority of excess deaths in the past two years involving people under the age of 65 were not caused by Covid infection. At least 32,000 excess deaths in 2021 have been directly attributed to heart failure and circulation related failures. Circulatory deaths were a major contributor to additional deaths among ages 18 to 44.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/multiple-young-athletes-and-former-athletes-died-suddenly-past-month
Those flies are dropping dead like athletes these days….
I’ve often found myself frustrated and angry about how the public seem to behave like sheep, but I suppose it’s hardly surprising when those they rely on to communicate important information – those employed by the legacy media – themselves behave like sheep, incapable of – or too cowardly to express – independent thought.
The BBC reporter is hardly updating the wealth of knowledge held by DS subscribers is he? His article barely touches on the so-called “vaccines.”
No mention of Billy’s connection via his ‘philanthropic gifts.’
The Speccie might be of the opinion they have a scoop, I think this is very much a damp squib.
I remember the World Bank, Oxfam and the TBC society warnings and projections about this early on (April 2020).
I remember the QALY calculations and discussions at the same time too (e.g. Raffelhueschen).
When I posted them at the Graun or Zeit at the time, just before being banned, and asked whether the chance of prolonging an 80year old white man’s life for a year by sacrificing many brown 20 year old peoples, the response of those ‘progressives’ was in unison: “That’s easy: f*ck these brown people then.”
Obviously, those ‘progressives’ were also the very same who fully embraced the BLM psy-op just a bit later, without blinking an eye-lid.
The biggest indictment of the government comes within the Isabel Oakeshott article linked within the ‘Charlie Walsham’ piece:
‘Operating in classic Whitehall-style silos, key individuals and agencies – the JCVI, Sage, the MHRA – did their particular jobs, advising on narrow and very specific safety and regulatory issues. At no point did they all come together, along with ministers and, crucially, medical and scientific experts with differing views on the merits of whole-population vaccination, for a serious debate about whether such an approach was desirable or wise.
The apparent absence of any such discussion at the top of government is quite remarkable. The Treasury raised the occasional eyebrow at costs, but if a single cabinet minister challenged the policy on any other grounds, I’ve seen no evidence of it.’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-matt-hancock/
That indicates a total (and should be indictable) absence of leadership.
Bunter failed to lead and the execrable health secretary clearly felt that his task was to take orders from the Gumby Brothers.
The labour party still have a chance to nail these no-hopers by jumping on the growing vaccination jeopardy lobby…..but, being ‘led’ by a total no-hoper themselves, they will not…….
Ms Oakeshott sums up my feelings better than I ever could:
‘The passage of time has not left me any less angry about lockdowns. My blood still boils when I think of the unnecessary suffering: the broken homes and broken businesses; the lost last moments with loved ones; the missed cancers and operations; a generation of children scarred forever.
This country paid a catastrophic price for what I see as a reckless overreaction to a disease that was only life-threatening to a small number of people who could have been protected without imprisoning the entire population. As each day passes, more evidence emerges that shutting down society for prolonged periods to ‘stop the spread’ and ‘protect the NHS’ was a monumental disaster.’
So many of us are living with the consequences, and we must be heard…….
That, at the very least, is why the Conservative party is doomed to a catastrophic defeat at the next election…..
Labour? Seriously? Cheerleaders for more and harder lockdowns, masks, vaxxing?
Catastrophically bad as this government was, and as the Tories have been for decades, Labour would have been worse, and what the Tories did and are doing here is in lockstep with most other rich world regimes.
Collectivism, safeyism, big state got us into this mess.
We’re stuck with terminally dim elected representatives until people take charge and start making their feelings very plain.
Correct.
Indeed. Nevertheless incompetence in government must have consequences….and it will.
And, yes, the next ‘democratic’ socialist fascist government will be as bad or worse and they must then be destroyed electorally themselves.
The disruption to politicians lives, self esteem, caused by electoral defeat is considerable….and it is the only weapon that we have, so we must use it.
Only that way, finally, will these, in the main, hopeless nincompoops get the message.
Party politics?
Give it a rest man. Those days are over.
Dream on……
It is all about corruption in Whitehall. Unelected unaccountable senior civil servants who have held much the same posts and who over the last 40 years have been allowed to establish relationships with commercial and industrial interests.
It was predicted it would cause an increase in corruption. Whitehall may be full of civil servants but who they serve is another matter entirely.
Yes, but what to do……
The only option available is to make each successive government pay dearly at the ballot box. Rock their world until they get the message.
That was, eventually, what gave us Thatcher in 1979……
Hi Monro,
The problem is most people do not realise this is a major problem and cause of corruption in government.
So the first thing to do is start talking about it so that people have the chance to think and realise it is true.
Then there needs to be some metaphorical beating politicians over the head to get them to admit the problem.
Until then nothing will happen.
The bad guys have all the money which is why they have been able to play the system for so long.
Sorry off topic possibly.
Are 77th brigade active on social media abusing British people or are the accounts profiles misleading ? Scandalous if they are.
Think they hacked into the DS site to remove the A Bridgen Too Far article. It’s vanished into thin air. Curiouser and curiouser….
Mogs, I am reading on my mobi. The Bridgen article is still up.
Have you refreshed your page? Mine just said “page not found” and disappeared. Actually another poster mentioned it elsewhere so I know it’s not tech issues at my end.
Mogwai, you appear to be correct. I looked for the article and couldn’t find it, so I googled the exact phrase “A Bridgen too far” and the article appears in the search result as follows:
1 day ago — A Bridgen Too Far. by Nick Dixon · 14 January 2023 7:00 PM. Although I couldn’t resist the headline, I have no intention of adding to the many hit pieces on …
with a link to The Daily Sceptic, but when you click on it, you get this at the top of a Daily Sceptic web page:
Page Not FoundSorry the page you were looking for cannot be found. Try searching for the best match or browse the links below:
Definitely gone. Searched ‘site for articles by Nick Dixon and not in the list.
There will be no rest! Until this exorcision against humanity is bought out, in full, for all the world to see.
The BBC long ago fell into the trap of believing that it needed to be “relevant” and that “relevance” was measured in viewing figures. It now chases the wagon of viewing figures, hauled by the twin horses of sensationalist reporting and reflecting the millieu. During the pandemic, that led it to repeat government and health authority claims of viral armaggedon. And we the people do love to be scared don’t we? Witness the people still wearing masks even now, when Covid is little more than a background murmur. I’m old enough to remember when he BBC’s investigative journalism was incisive to the point of ruthlessness but today they seem to fear the diaphonous onslaught of social media too much to bother.
I understand why the likes of BBC employees are deep under the mass formation, especially since any dissenters are suitably squashed and slurred as conspiracy nuts or far-right within the organisation (I guess that phrase really frightens some people, which I suppose it should – if applicable – are you listening? When applicable) but surrounding yourself with yes-.. people[?] (inclusive) will undoubtedly make it feel as though you’re doing the right thing when you’re not (precisely why a diverse range of voices and perspectives is imperative in good living, and of course how we disseminate that good living.. journalism). Why we’re having to repeat age-old advice is absurd but it is where we are.
Though I’m still struggling to understand why it was a predominantly left-wing ideologues who were in general cheering these interventions on, from the lockdowns to the big pharma snake oil. “The left” should surely know better when the latter is concerned, how they’ve gone from ‘pharma is not to be trusted, they’re only out for profits’ .. to the complete opposite of.. ‘get your stabbings immediately – otherwise we’re all going to die’? Wasn’t it the left that came up with the Big Pharma catchphrase warning?
I’d suggest this phenomenon is prime candidate for some sort of case study. Unless it’s so simple as that is its achilles, once you’re in awe of government, no matter what’s drummed up, even from an opposing party currently in power[?], is somehow justified for the greater good? Genuinely, I don’t understand, the left wing are continuing to lose the plot further, in itself not a surprise given their poster policies of late but their scepticism was something we could’ve all relied on with the Conservatives losing the plot themselves. Policies no one wanted or needed – this is what happens when you don’t stand on principle.
It’s an appeal to authority. Sorry, I’ve just figured it out (can’t edit my comment – perhaps that’s only for subscribers?). Which, if lacking any principle to guide you obviously leads to the blind appeal we’ve witnessed so prevalently.
Now why would the BBC want to avoid any discussion of the possible consequences of lockdown, or the wisdom of injecting experimental genetic products into the arms of people who were at no risk from the virus?
I don’t know ….. perhaps we should ask Bill Gates?
Gates and his mill’s through BBC Media Action? (not to mention countless other media he’s bought off since his rep was in the gutter). Yeah, I’d start there for any conflicts, but nothing to see here apparently.
The BBC is the propaganda arm of the people that the government report to.
I read the full article – within which lurkS the following sentence:-
“Malhotra took advantage of a distracted presenter to espouse his controversial views on Covid-19 mRNA jabs.”
The article is entirely focussed on the ‘L word’ and its ensuing harms. But save for the quoted mention above, it entirely ignored the ‘V word’. So no discussion whatsoever of the hugely overshadowing, indeed, the principal (given where we are) elephant in the room: the thousands of deaths and serious injuries caused by the experimental mRNA/DNA injections – and what to do about them.
Dr Malhotra’s “views” on the COVID jabs may be controversial within the blinkered halls of the BBC’s criminally censorious ‘Trusted News Initiative’ but are certainly not so in the outside world.
The writer cannot be unaware that Dr Malhotra’s conclusions are supported by hundreds of peer reviewed studies and concurred with by thousands of medics and medical scientists represented by groups such as: The International Covid Summit; Doctors For COVID Ethics; HART Group; The World Health Council; America’s Front Line Doctors; Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care; Canadian Covid Care Alliance; New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science; etc.??
So, ‘Charlie Walsham’, whoever you are and whoever you are representing, I’m afraid your article has to be categorised as a ‘limited Hangout’ – and a grotesque one at that..
(PS: If unintended, then, clearly, “Must try harder”, applies!)
Possibly another one: –
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/15/britain-excess-death-rate-covid-nhs-cost-of-living
Although in this case referring to the excess deaths as a humanitarian crisis will surely raise questions amongst readers.