England’s fake emergency figures again

BBC News today is using the wrong A&E figures again to suggest the other nations are in the same sinking boat.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen this use of the wrong data. The correct figure should be 64% for NHS England.



In February 2020, I explained:

Only Type 1 A&E departments are full resuscitation, consultant-led and comparable with those in the rest of the UK. Type 2 and 3 are small drop-in minor injury sections in hospital with no A&E. NHS England, alone, collect the data for these and use them to generate fake data which much of our MSM just accept. The Guardian, the Independent and Channel 4 have changed after being contacted by ‘us.’ I’ve explained to several BBC reporters but they ignore the evidence.

And, NHS England A&E data, even if they use only the directly comparable Type 1 data, are further fiddled:

NHS England also has the dubious practice of restarting the clock after patients are admitted whereas in Scotland counting continues from first arrival. See this:


This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is untitled-29.png

7 thoughts on “England’s fake emergency figures again

  1. Now why would they fiddle the figures?

    Oh, yes, England MUST be the best, even if its the worst.

    The BBC is now a front organisation for Downing Street propaganda.

    Pravda for Boris.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. But like the ventriloquist, you can see their lips moving!

        And the ventriloquist dummy (DRossie) has button eyes, a fixed grimace and an utter lack of comprehension over the actuality.


        1. gavinochiltree
          But the French are well wise to England,s
          Weasel words and actions
          And that is why they insisted that the Brexit withdrawal agreement was fully translated into French and signed by Boris
          And that is where the smart UK lawyers
          Specialising in International. Trade deals and Treaties have dug deep into to reveal
          Exactly what Boris signed up for
          A few examples
          1.France insisted that the fisheries agreement meant that current EU qoutas
          Pertain, but renegotiated every 5 yrs and only reduction is based on Scientific advice and temporary
          Furthermore a deadly clause exits that states that no matter what,such talks MUST conclude under such terms within
          6 months, if not Brexit agreement null and void,resulting in UK having to trade in WTO terms with the EU
          France does indeed protect its Fishing and farming communities
          Unlike Boris Who knows full well he was selling both well and truly down the river
          And to think that various UK Governments passed and enforced our agricultural industries to work and produce under very high husbandry and environmental standards
          Are now well and truly being sold down the river in the Aussie and NZ trade deals
          Treachours to say the least
          And Pritti ( ugly ) Patel had the cheek and audacity to tell the French that they were NOT doing the job she had paid a extra £50 million for French police to patrol the beaches to prevent refugees sailing for England
          What transpired France has not received one penny
          And the Police Commander responsible informed Macron that unless he received
          The extra monies promised he would stand down all his personel imediately
          As he was no longer willing to use his contingency emergency funds to do so
          You hear none of this from UK Government or its lackeys in the MSM
          Wonder why ?

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Is this an example of “levelling up”? No, just as Gavin says, England just has to be the best, even if they only manage that by cheating the stats.


  3. I think that they used the same massaging technique in this article of 09 January 2020 to comparatively enhance NHS England waiting times.
    “11 charts on the problems facing the NHS” by Nick Triggle and Ben Butcher – in particular item 4. “Waiting times are getting worse”

    I complained about this at the time (along, I think with many others) but got the response that the page did tell me “The way they [waiting times] are measured differs between the UK nations.” as if this made it clear the BBC had done their duty to inform.

    That was rather the point of the complaint. They know that they are comparing figures obtained on different bases. They know which NHS figures benefit from different treatment and that the difference is not trivial (and if they were incompetent enough not to know before they published them, after being better informed they still leave them inadequately qualified as a permanent piece of misinformation). And then they do it again from time to time.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. The BBC’s misrepresentation of stats around England’s A&E 4 hour standard has become blatant. Apparently – even in website articles – it’s just not feasible to go into that level of detail!!!


    ‘BBC News website : It is stated: ‘In September (2021) a quarter of patients who came to A&E in England waited longer than four hours for treatment.’ And we are told: ‘That is the worst performance since 2004, when the four-hour target was brought in.’

    ‘The authoritative NHS England source is: ‘A&E Attendances and Emergency Admissions September 2021 Statistical Commentary’ (https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/10/Statistical-commentary-September-2021-jf8.pdf )

    ‘It reports that: ’75.2% of patients were seen within 4 hours in all A&E departments this month ..’ But the NHS England document explicitly refers this to ‘ALL A&E departments’. The same NHS source tells us this: ’64.0% of patients were seen within 4 hours in Type 1 A&E departments ..’

    ‘Type 1 A&E departments are the ones that most people would recognise as ‘A&E’ – like the one in the TV series Casualty’. And 64% is a lot worse than 75% is it not?

    ‘Why does the BBC opt to report in this incomplete manner? Candidly, under any reasonable assessment, as a public service broadcaster the BBC is opting to misrepresent the true and significant situation in what most would regard as ‘A&E’.

    ‘(The Radio 4 PM programme this evening has repeated multiple times the one in four, i.e. the 75%, rather than the 64% performance even though in one part of its news coverage it made reference to ‘main’ A&E sites so the existence of a distinction was clearly known.!) Is 64% just too bad to be acknowledged?

    ‘Bias by omission?’


    ‘Dear XXX

    ‘Thank you for contacting us about the article, “NHS in bleak position as A&E waits worsen, say doctors” by health correspondent Nick Triggle.

    ‘We reported that A&E waits had “sunk to their worst levels in England since the four-hour target started”, and explored how ministers and GPs had clashed over demands that practices see more patients face-to-face.

    ‘We said “a quarter of patients waited more than four hours for treatment in September”. I appreciate you felt this overlooked more detail involving type 1, type 2 and type 3 A&E departments.

    ‘There is of course no intention to misrepresent the situation, and we are free from any agenda.

    ‘However, we can’t always go into the level of detail that every reader might prefer. This article didn’t relate only to the statistics, but also explored responses to the government’s calls for more face-to-face GP appointments, including from Dr Richard Vautrey, of the British Medical Association, and the deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, Saffron Cordery.

    ‘Nevertheless, I appreciate you might continue to have reservations.

    ‘We do value your feedback about this. All complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight report.

    ‘These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the company and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly.

    ‘This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.

    ‘Thanks again for sharing your views.

    ‘Kind regards,


    BBC Complaints Team

    Note ‘ we can’t always go into the level of detail that every reader might prefer.’ – even in an online article? And never mind ALL details how about just the significant ones?

    Now I realise that if like me complaints are now catalysed by frustration and submitted without any expectation of achieving anything. A thought tho’ – bombard the BBC with complaints – polite, linked to the corporation’s own editorial guidelines where possible – IN ORDER (ONLY!) to share publicly the responses! Candidly something more, something ‘innovative’ needs to be devised.

    (https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint )

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.