Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

She got absolutely destroyed & railed by BBC right by the fireplace #Blacked #BBC #Destroyed #Railed #Interracial #BBCslut #Hardcore #Creampie #RoughSex #FireplaceFuck #QOS #BigBlackCock #Porn #Hotwife #Viral #NSFW

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

NURSE FILMS DYING PATIENTS Margaret Haywood spent 20 years as a nurse before deciding the truth mattered more than her career. In 2004 she agreed to wear a hidden camera for BBC Panorama BBC Panorama inside the Royal Sussex Hospital in Brighton, run at the time by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, now University Hospitals Sussex University Hospitals Sussex. The hospital had a 0-star rating from regulators and an £8m deficit. Numbers rarely lie, even when hospitals do. Over 28 shifts across 6 months she filmed what the trust did not want anyone to see. A patient left to die alone. Another left waiting hours just to use the toilet. The footage aired in 2005 as Undercover Nurses and the public was horrified. The Nursing and Midwifery Council Nursing and Midwifery Council was less horrified by the neglect than by the filming. In April 2009 they struck Haywood off the nursing register for breaching patient confidentiality. The backlash was instant. Over 43,000 people signed a Royal College of Nursing petition. An MP raised her case in Parliament. Turns out the public had a clearer sense of right and wrong than the regulator did. 3 days before her High Court appeal, the NMC quietly climbed down. Her ban was swapped for a 1 year caution and she got her job back. She later won the public vote at the Nursing Standard Nurse of the Year Awards. She exposed neglect. She got struck off first and thanked later. Punishment now, apology once the pressure gets loud enough, the standard NHS whistleblower timeline. Sources BBC Panorama Nursing and Midwifery Council

Artur Nadolny

24,529 次观看 • 1 个月前

It’s outrageous that President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), say many in the media. “You have to admire the chutzpah,” wrote one columnist. “Donald Trump describing the BBC as ‘corrupt’ while threatening to take legal action….The man has never been known for his self-awareness, so it’s safe to say the irony has almost certainly passed him by.” But there is no question that BBC employees deliberately manipulated Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021, to make it sound like he had encouraged violence. An independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, wrote a major report on the BBC’s bias, which concluded that the BBC had “spliced together two clips” to create “the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.” Americans might think this story doesn’t concern them because it’s about a British media company. Few Americans listen to the BBC. But the story is highly relevant to Americans because US news media companies are guilty of manipulating their coverage of Trump, transgenderism, and race in nearly identical ways as the BBC. And given the BBC’s longstanding reputation as one of the most credible news organizations in the world, Prescott’s independent report has rightly sparked a major international media discussion. Over the weekend, the BBC’s CEO and its Director-General both stepped down. “The Future of the BBC is Now in Doubt,” writes Tim Stanley, an influential columnist, in the Daily Telegraph. Prescott’s report should inspire reform-minded owners of US news media companies to clean up their act. For example, CNN falsely claimed that January 6 was an “insurrection” that resulted in the deaths of five people and did a similarly manipulative edit of Trump’s speech, noted an investigator on X, MAZE. “It may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did,” he noted, “because there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same. Make the speech sound worse than it was. Take everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible.” Last year, we criticized CNN and other news media for deliberately twisting the meaning of Trump’s remarks about Liz Cheney for being a war hawk, and Prescott makes the same observation. “Mr. Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost,” he notes. And yet “the BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what Trump said.” Readers of Public are aware that we have been critical of the BBC’s fact-checking program, “BBC Verify.” One purpose of BBC Verify appears to be to label stories with which the BBC disagrees as “misinformation” and thus as something that social media platforms should censor. Last year, the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, said, “Disinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process,” shortly after the BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. BBC’s first “disinformation” reporter, Mariana Spring, apologized in 2023 after she was caught lying on her resume. Spring remains employed at BBC as its “Social Media Investigations Senior Correspondent.” Prescott described how BBC Verify spread misinformation. “BBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britain’s major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity,” notes Prescott. “The central claim implied causation, (that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.” Adds Prescott, “the entire report was taken down, which I understand is very rare. It had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging misinformation. As far as I know, no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode and worrying questions remain.” Another example of the BBC’s bias concerned a major story about doctors causing serious harm to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Readers of Public will recall that in the Spring of last year, we released documents, The WPATH Files, which a whistleblower had given to us. “In March 2024,” writes Prescott, “there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times, and others, but not the BBC.” Prescott points out other examples of the BBC's censorship and bias on transgenderism. It refused to cover detransitioners, people who regretted taking hormones or receiving surgeries in an attempt to change their sex or gender. It didn’t cover a major lawsuit by a group of nurses after their hospital allowed a man to use their changing room. And, beyond WPATH, the BBC gave little to no coverage of the trans medical scandal, even though the UK government has banned puberty blockers. By contrast, the BBC produced “a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens,” celebrated a male wrestler who competed in the women’s category, and published an article last year headlined, “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out.” Wrote the reporter, “Lexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.” More information about the scandal may come out. Just today, Cath Leng, BBC’s former chief writer, says she was “forced out” in 2023 after 25 years because she was critical of transgender ideology. Prescott identified other areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem. “My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all,” he writes. “Indeed, I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself - meaning the last recourse for action is the Board.” All of this is deeply damaging to the BBC, regardless of whether Trump decides to sue it. “BBC staff have destroyed their own trump card in future negotiations over the licence fee,” writes Stanley at the Daily Telegraph. “The problem is this: in the modern, post-TV world, the licence fee is entirely unjustifiable. The BBC has to explain why, when there’s so much else available, it should be allowed to compel us to pay for it – just when tastes are diverging, national identity is fractured and the quality of the BBC’s output is in doubt…” What, then, explains the BBC’s fall from grace? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

43,703 次观看 • 9 个月前

THE FIRST WHISTLEBLOWER LAW IN THE UK GOT DESTROYED ON ITS FIRST TRY In 1999, seven care workers at a BUPA Bupa UK care home in Bromley noticed something horrible. Elderly residents were being overdosed and physically abused by staff. So they did the normal human thing. They reported it. BUPA did the normal corporate thing. Instead of sacking the abusers, they shuffled them off to other care homes, like a bad Tinder date you just relocate instead of deleting. The seven workers, led by Eileen Chubb Eileen Chubb, kept pushing. Eventually they were squeezed out of their jobs entirely. This became the first ever case under the UK's brand new whistleblower law, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Fresh law, first real test, should have been an easy win for the good guys, right. Wrong. The tribunal agreed safety rules were broken. Then it let BUPA stand up and call all seven of them liars, while the independent report proving they were right stayed locked out of the courtroom. Imagine being told you're lying, in a room where the evidence that you're not lying isn't allowed in. Parliament eventually noticed. In 2004 MP John Horam handed in their petition and the press nicknamed them the BUPA Seven. Eileen Chubb turned the whole ordeal into a charity, Compassion in Care, which has now logged over 15000 complaints from care settings. She still campaigns for Edna's Law, named after a resident who died after years of documented abuse that nobody with actual power bothered to stop. Twenty five years later the pattern hasn't changed. Sources BBC News (UK) Private Eye Magazine The Guardian Channel 4 News

Artur Nadolny

25,410 次观看 • 1 个月前

SHE FILED 181 REPORTS. POLICE TOLD HER THE CHILDREN WERE NOT RELIABLE WITNESSES.. Sara Rowbotham was an @NHS sexual health coordinator in Rochdale. From 2004, she started documenting what everyone with the authority to act had decided not to see. Girls as young as 13. Groomed, trafficked, and raped by groups of men. She wrote it all down and reported it. 181 referrals to Greater Manchester Police and social services between 2004 and 2011. The answer was always the same. The girls were not credible witnesses. Not their problem. Move along. Nine men were eventually convicted in 2012, but only because a new chief prosecutor arrived, read the evidence Sara had spent years building, and actually did something with it. The Crown Prosecution Service had previously dropped the case entirely. Sara had been right all along. Then the system turned on her. She was blamed. Accused of failing to refer cases properly. The institution that had ignored 181 reports about the rape of children decided the problem was the woman who filed them. Primetime television did what 181 referrals could not. Three Girls aired on BBC One in 2017. Maxine Peake played Sara. The public was furious. A drama series achieved what seven years of documented evidence never could. In January 2024, a damning 173-page independent review commissioned by Mayor Andy Burnham confirmed what Sara and fellow whistleblower Maggie Oliver Maggie Oliver had been saying for twenty years. They were the only people raising the alarm while GMP and Rochdale Council looked the other way. The review found 74 children who were exploited, serious failures to protect 48 of them, and 96 men still considered a current risk to children. As of late 2025, 61 men have been convicted across multiple investigations. Combined sentences total almost 630 years. Sara received an MBE in 2021. The officers who ignored her 181 reports got their pensions. Two decades of raising the alarm. A BBC drama, a 173-page review, and an MBE later, the abusers were still being found. SOURCES BBC News (UK) ITV News The Times and Sunday Times Byline Times

Artur Nadolny

193,092 次观看 • 1 个月前

LAW FIRM THAT DESTROYED TRACY MCFADDEN'S CASE ALSO PAID ED DAVEY 60,000 POUNDS A YEAR Tracy McFadden ran a shop and post office in Sandiacre Derbyshire for 14 years. She put 250k pounds of her own money into building it in 2002. Business was going so well she was planning to expand. Then the Horizon system flagged a discrepancy and her life fell apart. Tracy McFadden did the responsible thing. She called the Horizon helpline for help. The debt magically doubled to 2,000 pounds overnight. Then it kept climbing. 4,000. Then 16,000. Tracy had no way to check the system herself because she was never given proper access to it. She was told to accept the debt or lose the right to trade. So she accepted a debt that never existed just to keep her doors open. She only escaped a criminal prosecution because witnesses vouched for her, including the wife of a regional Post Office manager. Her contract was terminated in 2014. The business was gone. The reputation was gone. Tracy McFadden went from running a thriving shop to what she describes as begging for benefits. Now here is the SHOCKING part. This was never just a broken piece of software. It was a chain of people who knew and chose their careers over the truth. Post Office executives signed off on prosecutions built on a system riddled with bugs. Fujitsu built that system and stayed quiet for years while it destroyed lives. Ed Davey was postal affairs minister from 2010 to 2012 while all of this was unfolding. When campaigner Alan Bates asked him to meet about serious concerns with Horizon, Ed Davey told him a meeting would not serve any purpose. Years later Ed Davey took a paid consultancy with Herbert Smith Freehills, the very law firm hired by the Post Office to fight the sub postmasters in court, earning 275k pounds for his time there. His brother Henry Davey was a corporate partner at the same firm. What a coincidence. Tracy McFadden was one of 555 claimants in the group litigation against the Post Office. They won. Technically. Legal costs swallowed most of the settlement before the victims ever saw a penny of it. A computer did not do this to Tracy McFadden. People did. People who had every chance to stop it and chose their fees and their careers instead. SOURCES BBC News (UK) ITV News ComputerWeekly Nick Wallis

Artur Nadolny

39,420 次观看 • 4 天前

MEET THE BARRISTER THE POST OFFICE FEARS Here's a name that deserves to trend more than half the people who actually do. Sam Stein KC. While the Post Office was busy ruining ordinary people's lives over money that was never actually missing, Stein was in a courtroom taking it apart piece by piece. He represents most of the subpostmasters at the Post Office Horizon Inquiry Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, instructed by Howe and Co Howe + Co Solicitors, on behalf of the people the Post Office tried to bury. In 2021 he stood in the Court of Appeal representing a group of subpostmasters, instructed by Howe and Co Howe + Co Solicitors, in the same case that finally cleared Jo Hamilton Jo Hamilton and dozens of others after years of wrongful convictions. He told the judges the Post Office's refusal to investigate its own broken Horizon system, built by Fujitsu Fujitsu UK, was the longest running affront to British justice in living memory. The judges agreed and quashed the convictions. Then the public inquiry started and Stein really got going. He told the inquiry the Post Office had turned itself into "the nation's most untrustworthy brand." A blunt summary, backed by 2.2 million pages of evidence. He described former Post Office lawyer Mandy Talbot as "the Post Office's very own evil robot" after she was asked repeatedly who had directed a legal strategy built to silence a subpostmaster and kept saying she couldn't remember. Convenient amnesia. Goes around a lot in this organisation. He summed up a whole phase of hearings by calling the parade of witnesses "a rogues' gallery." Executives who forgot everything except how to protect themselves. Questioning executive Angela van den Bogerd about the Post Office's own helpline, he told her she had been "intimidating and bullying" toward subpostmistress Jennifer O'Dell, who kept calling to say she hadn't stolen a penny. She was telling the truth. Nobody listened for years. In his closing submission for phase 2, he told the inquiry to work out whether the entire scandal was a "cock-up or cook-up." By phase 3 he had his answer. Cook-up, no doubt about it. He said the Post Office spent that entire phase dodging its own failures and instead "turned its tank turret gun on Fujitsu." Subpostmasters called the organisation that prosecuted them "the abuser." Questioning former minister Pat McFadden about it, Stein got that word onto the official record, permanently. In his final closing statement, Stein made the point that mattered most. This was never really a problem with a computer. It was a problem with people, and people paid the price. He said what actually drove the scandal was "cruelty, callousness and connivance," and that people are still living with the consequences. He also named former CEO Paula Vennells, executive Angela van den Bogerd and in-house lawyer Jarnail Singh as part of a rogues' gallery remembered for lies and incompetence, and pointed out £37 million received by the Post Office is still unaccounted for. Nobody's chasing it. Urgency always disappears when it's the institution's own money at stake. He also said the external law firm Cartwright King failed subpostmasters, because by the time its lawyers were brought in, they had become company men. Stein also pushed the inquiry to recommend actual restorative justice. Counselling for postmasters and their families. Bursaries for children whose education was wrecked. A permanent memorial. Reputations rebuilt in the small communities where they were destroyed. Volume 1 of the final report landed in July 2025. The rest keeps slipping. Current estimate is September 2026, and even that looks optimistic. A criminal investigation into the Post Office is on hold waiting for it. People keep dying while they wait to be believed. The Post Office spent two decades hoping this would quietly disappear. Sam Stein KC made sure it never got the chance. SOURCES ComputerWeekly Law Society Gazette BBC News (UK) and many others.

Artur Nadolny

41,019 次观看 • 19 天前

IS THE POST OFFICE WAITING FOR BETTY BROWN TO DIE BEFORE IT PAYS UP?? Betty Brown ran the Annfield Plain Post Office in County Durham with her husband Oswall from 1985 to 2003. Good business. Nice customers. No problems. Then Horizon arrived in 2000, built by Fujitsu Fujitsu UK, and the till started lying. First night it was £500 short. Within weeks it was £1,500 to £1,600 a week, every week. Betty and Oswall paid every shortfall out of their own pocket because the alternative was being branded a thief. They handed over more than £50,000. Betty says the real figure was closer to £100,000. That was their retirement money, poured into a hole created by software nobody at the Post Office bothered to question. Betty was never prosecuted. Small mercy. Instead a manager decided she was too old for the job and needed replacing with someone who understood the technology. She was pushed out in 2003. Oswall died a year later. Betty believes the stress helped kill him, and says his dying thoughts were about whether the Post Office had finally been in touch. She spent the next two decades fighting for compensation while the people who built and defended a broken system kept their salaries, their bonuses and their pensions. In 2025, aged 92, Betty finally settled her claim. In 2026 she received an OBE from King Charles at Windsor Castle. She used the moment to tell him that money does not equal justice, and asked him to pass that on to the Prime Minister. She still had not received a single penny of her settlement by the time she collected the medal. That is the British state's idea of closure. Ruin someone for over two decades then hand them a piece of metal before the cheque clears. Betty says every subpostmaster caught up in the Horizon scandal deserves the same recognition she got. She is right. None of them asked for a medal. They asked for their money and their names back. SOURCES BBC News (UK) ITV News ComputerWeekly Nick Wallis Karl Flinders

Artur Nadolny

72,500 次观看 • 5 天前