The above has appeared in a few places, but I believe originates from Guido.I reproduce it here without shame.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
The One That Is Jumping On The Bandwagon. . .
The above has appeared in a few places, but I believe originates from Guido.I reproduce it here without shame.
The One That Thinks The Penny Might Have Dropped. . .
I'm a bit of an old cynic. Was Thursday a 'good day to bury bad news'? We've had endless coverage of the terrible goings on in Mumbai, and I can't help wondering if the decision to arrest Damian Green was taken partly as a result of these goings on meaning media coverage would have been limited.
I don't buy the claims that the Labour grandees didn't know the arrest was coming. Leg Iron hit the nail squarely on the head when he deconstructed Pa Broon's phrase: "I had no prior knowledge, the Home Secretary had no prior knowledge, I know of no other minister who had any prior knowledge,"
It is a wonderful peice of Sir Humphreyism. You are to believe that Gordon Brown knew nothing about the arrest until after the event. What he's actually saying is that 'we didn't know about the arrest before such time as we knew about it.' Two very different statements.
Anyhow, it would appear that sections of the political world finally get it. Nick Clegg (God save us) described it as being a 'mayday warning for democracy' in the UK. There have been several outpourings of outrage, Ian Dale wrote a decent piece here, Conservative Home have two leaders here and here and the Torygraph's Janet Daley makes similar points as well.
One commenter on Daley's article makes an interesting point:
Of course the Righteous would just respond to this as being ridiculous. However, it follows a simple course. Power A is used to regulate, prosecute or to protect from Group B. Power A will never be used for any other purpose.
Power A is then misused to prosecute Person C. Person C is guilty as hell and deserves what he gets so no-one complains.
Power A is then used to inconvenience or intimidate Person D. Complaints are batted away with the explanation that this use, although not what was intended, is perfectly appropriate.
Power A will then be used against Old Granny E who suffers a broken hip when her house is raided by 'anti-terror' police one morning when she is spotted putting an apple core into a hedge. There will be public outcry and lessons will be learned. Of course they won't be learned, a high ranking police officer will dig his heels in and talk about 'correct procedure' and 'regrettable incidents'. A minister will talk about it being a 'matter for the police.'
Indeed, all the above has happened, only now Power A has been used to intimidate 'seditious' Politician F.
The penny has finally dropped about our leaders. Labour do not want power because they have some misguided mission to improve the country. They want power because they want power. It is an end in itself. They will do anything to protect their position, prevent dissent and stamp out anything that acts against them.
The Tories and the LimpDems are the same. They have no real vision, just a lust for control. The disappointing thing is, the outrage doesn't come because it has happened, it comes because it has happened to them.
Should Labour get kicked out in 2010 (and I feel an emergency preventing an election coming on), watch out, their replacements will be no different at all.
I don't buy the claims that the Labour grandees didn't know the arrest was coming. Leg Iron hit the nail squarely on the head when he deconstructed Pa Broon's phrase: "I had no prior knowledge, the Home Secretary had no prior knowledge, I know of no other minister who had any prior knowledge,"
It is a wonderful peice of Sir Humphreyism. You are to believe that Gordon Brown knew nothing about the arrest until after the event. What he's actually saying is that 'we didn't know about the arrest before such time as we knew about it.' Two very different statements.
Anyhow, it would appear that sections of the political world finally get it. Nick Clegg (God save us) described it as being a 'mayday warning for democracy' in the UK. There have been several outpourings of outrage, Ian Dale wrote a decent piece here, Conservative Home have two leaders here and here and the Torygraph's Janet Daley makes similar points as well.
One commenter on Daley's article makes an interesting point:
'I have asked when therefore I should start complaining; when protest is a criminal offence; when opposition MPs are arrested for no good reason; when supporters of oppostion parties are required to wear an identifying symbol; when they are arrested as anti social elements and held indefinately; when opponents of the government start being murdered; or when the murders pass a certain hurdle rate?'
Of course the Righteous would just respond to this as being ridiculous. However, it follows a simple course. Power A is used to regulate, prosecute or to protect from Group B. Power A will never be used for any other purpose.
Power A is then misused to prosecute Person C. Person C is guilty as hell and deserves what he gets so no-one complains.
Power A is then used to inconvenience or intimidate Person D. Complaints are batted away with the explanation that this use, although not what was intended, is perfectly appropriate.
Power A will then be used against Old Granny E who suffers a broken hip when her house is raided by 'anti-terror' police one morning when she is spotted putting an apple core into a hedge. There will be public outcry and lessons will be learned. Of course they won't be learned, a high ranking police officer will dig his heels in and talk about 'correct procedure' and 'regrettable incidents'. A minister will talk about it being a 'matter for the police.'
Indeed, all the above has happened, only now Power A has been used to intimidate 'seditious' Politician F.
The penny has finally dropped about our leaders. Labour do not want power because they have some misguided mission to improve the country. They want power because they want power. It is an end in itself. They will do anything to protect their position, prevent dissent and stamp out anything that acts against them.
The Tories and the LimpDems are the same. They have no real vision, just a lust for control. The disappointing thing is, the outrage doesn't come because it has happened, it comes because it has happened to them.
Should Labour get kicked out in 2010 (and I feel an emergency preventing an election coming on), watch out, their replacements will be no different at all.
Friday, 28 November 2008
The One That Is Shouting 'They Are Coming To Get You!'. . .
Well, I wrote yesterday about my connections with the fair town of Ashford. First it comes into the news because Clarkson unleashes his fury about the ridiculous 'shared space' scheme, and now the town is catapulted squarely into the headlines as local MP Damian Green has been arrested, for, well, as far as I can see, doing his job.
I have had cause to come across Damian Green on several occasions, and on every occasion I have found him to be a decent person. He has come out to bat for his constituents against the (Tory) local council on a couple of occasions and seen them off. He has broken with protocol to speak out on political issues which should be the preserve of the council, and he's been right to do so. He is that rarest of creatures, a front-bencher who is a good constituency MP. I've always found him to be a man of his word, I trust him a damn sight more than the vast majority of the other buggers in the House. OK, he's a Tory, but nobody's perfect.
So he seems to be involved in the release of details about the widespread employment of illegal immigrants in the 'security' (bouncer) industry. If that is the case, he was right to be so.
He seems to be involved in the release of details about the employment of an illegal as a cleaner in the House. If that is the case, he was right to be so.
He seems to be involved in the release of details about Labour rebels voting against 42 days. If that is the case, he was right to be so.
He seems to be involved in the release of details about a letter sent by the Home Secretary warning that a recession could lead to an increase in crime. If that is the case, he was right to do so.
That last point is the real indicator. He's pissed off Jacqui Smith. She's come to get him. She doesn't care. Fuck me.
Jesus.
If she's so brazen about going after a front bench MP, she'll not give a flying fuck about coming after me and you. Thank the Lord she's defending a majority of only 2,716.
This is Trotsky, dead in a Mexico City hotel room. This is the Star Chamber, silencing sedition. This is Charles I, kicking down the doors to Parliament.
This is also a declaration of war, against the practices of the House, against all parties in opposition and against anyone who dares to ask what is being done in their name.
I'd love to know what was said to the Magistrate to grant these search warrants. I'd love to know how far up the food chain the person was leaning on him or her to authorise the warrant. Justice Secretary? Home Secretary? Lord Chancellor? Prime Minister?
Am I being cynical? Is this a concerted effort to discredit all parties? First the BNP, now this, I hope the LimpDems, SNP, Plaid and UKIP are looking over their shoulders.
Opposition politicians. Enemies of the State.
Stalin, Mugabe, Brown, Mao, Hoxha.
Doesn't the name sit nicely in that list?
Cameron, pull your bloody head out of your bloody arse and make a fucking fuss, won't you? I am more than a little scared now.
I have had cause to come across Damian Green on several occasions, and on every occasion I have found him to be a decent person. He has come out to bat for his constituents against the (Tory) local council on a couple of occasions and seen them off. He has broken with protocol to speak out on political issues which should be the preserve of the council, and he's been right to do so. He is that rarest of creatures, a front-bencher who is a good constituency MP. I've always found him to be a man of his word, I trust him a damn sight more than the vast majority of the other buggers in the House. OK, he's a Tory, but nobody's perfect.
So he seems to be involved in the release of details about the widespread employment of illegal immigrants in the 'security' (bouncer) industry. If that is the case, he was right to be so.
He seems to be involved in the release of details about the employment of an illegal as a cleaner in the House. If that is the case, he was right to be so.
He seems to be involved in the release of details about Labour rebels voting against 42 days. If that is the case, he was right to be so.
He seems to be involved in the release of details about a letter sent by the Home Secretary warning that a recession could lead to an increase in crime. If that is the case, he was right to do so.
That last point is the real indicator. He's pissed off Jacqui Smith. She's come to get him. She doesn't care. Fuck me.
Jesus.
If she's so brazen about going after a front bench MP, she'll not give a flying fuck about coming after me and you. Thank the Lord she's defending a majority of only 2,716.
This is Trotsky, dead in a Mexico City hotel room. This is the Star Chamber, silencing sedition. This is Charles I, kicking down the doors to Parliament.
This is also a declaration of war, against the practices of the House, against all parties in opposition and against anyone who dares to ask what is being done in their name.
I'd love to know what was said to the Magistrate to grant these search warrants. I'd love to know how far up the food chain the person was leaning on him or her to authorise the warrant. Justice Secretary? Home Secretary? Lord Chancellor? Prime Minister?
Am I being cynical? Is this a concerted effort to discredit all parties? First the BNP, now this, I hope the LimpDems, SNP, Plaid and UKIP are looking over their shoulders.
Opposition politicians. Enemies of the State.
Stalin, Mugabe, Brown, Mao, Hoxha.
Doesn't the name sit nicely in that list?
Cameron, pull your bloody head out of your bloody arse and make a fucking fuss, won't you? I am more than a little scared now.
Thursday, 27 November 2008
The One That Cannot Believe This. . .
But I fear it is probably true.
Yes. That is a baby holding its very own pair of high heels.
The Express broke the story today.
For the love of God.
The One That Can Prove They Want Us Dead. . .
Problem.
You have a huge welfare budget and in the current climate you cannot afford to foot the bill.
You cannot cut the benefits you hand out, as to do so would be political suicide.
How to rationalise your outgoings? You cannot restrict the access for some targeted areas of society as you would be open to accusations of certain '-isms'.
Your research shows that your biggest drains on the public purse, beyond your 5-A-day officers and your Community Cohesion Empowerment Outreach Advisors are young single mothers, their pre-school children and the elderly.
You notice that all your biggest drains all do the same thing. They hang around the centre of town aimlessly milling around until they are allowed back into the B&B or the social pop-in day centre opens for its one afternoon that week.
I know, let's kill them! Let's kill them and make it look like we had nothing to do with it!
That is exactly what Ashford Borough Council has done with its introduction of shared space.
Shared space is public roads where there is no division of usage for motor-traffic, cycle traffic and pedestrian traffic. What could be a better idea?
I grew up in the borough of Ashford and have very strong links to the town, I am a fanatical supporter of the town's football team and have a number of friends who live there. I have yet to see this wonderful idea with my own eyes, but hope to rectify this on Saturday. The feedback I've received from everyone in the town is the same; 'madness, complete madness, somebody will die.'
But it will reduce the burden on the tax payer when these people are killed, plus you can also use this to continue your campaign of hate against motorists. 'Look! Look at the bad motorist who ploughed into this young woman of 14 and her three kids. His attention was probably diverted by the filthy cigarette he was smoking.'
Perhaps those at Ashford Borough Council had been down to Howletts Wildlife Park, one of the local attractions (and a very impressive one at that) where they have used the same theory of shared space between animals and visitors. Of course it should be pointed out that you are sharing space with a family of lemurs. I don't think there are any plans to tear down the very sturdy fences between guests and tigers just yet. Although this seems to be what Ashford Borough Council have done.
It is only a matter of time before lessons are learned.
As an aside, I've also been told by an Ashford resident that there is a plan for the fun-fair to come to town and for bumper cars, coconut shy and all to be set up for the enjoyment of all. . . in an underground car park.
World class!
You have a huge welfare budget and in the current climate you cannot afford to foot the bill.
You cannot cut the benefits you hand out, as to do so would be political suicide.
How to rationalise your outgoings? You cannot restrict the access for some targeted areas of society as you would be open to accusations of certain '-isms'.
Your research shows that your biggest drains on the public purse, beyond your 5-A-day officers and your Community Cohesion Empowerment Outreach Advisors are young single mothers, their pre-school children and the elderly.
You notice that all your biggest drains all do the same thing. They hang around the centre of town aimlessly milling around until they are allowed back into the B&B or the social pop-in day centre opens for its one afternoon that week.
I know, let's kill them! Let's kill them and make it look like we had nothing to do with it!
That is exactly what Ashford Borough Council has done with its introduction of shared space.
Shared space is public roads where there is no division of usage for motor-traffic, cycle traffic and pedestrian traffic. What could be a better idea?
I grew up in the borough of Ashford and have very strong links to the town, I am a fanatical supporter of the town's football team and have a number of friends who live there. I have yet to see this wonderful idea with my own eyes, but hope to rectify this on Saturday. The feedback I've received from everyone in the town is the same; 'madness, complete madness, somebody will die.'
But it will reduce the burden on the tax payer when these people are killed, plus you can also use this to continue your campaign of hate against motorists. 'Look! Look at the bad motorist who ploughed into this young woman of 14 and her three kids. His attention was probably diverted by the filthy cigarette he was smoking.'
Perhaps those at Ashford Borough Council had been down to Howletts Wildlife Park, one of the local attractions (and a very impressive one at that) where they have used the same theory of shared space between animals and visitors. Of course it should be pointed out that you are sharing space with a family of lemurs. I don't think there are any plans to tear down the very sturdy fences between guests and tigers just yet. Although this seems to be what Ashford Borough Council have done.
It is only a matter of time before lessons are learned.
As an aside, I've also been told by an Ashford resident that there is a plan for the fun-fair to come to town and for bumper cars, coconut shy and all to be set up for the enjoyment of all. . . in an underground car park.
World class!
The One That Is Back On-line.
Following a technical hitch that required a visit from the BT man and his blue polythene galoshes.
I just need to build up a head of bile and stop playing guitar hero. . .
I just need to build up a head of bile and stop playing guitar hero. . .
Friday, 21 November 2008
The One That Is Going To Buy A Tin Helmet. . .
Leg-Iron wrote a truly astouding article on the drivellings of some Daily Mirror hack who has effectively called for radical groups to visit violence upon those who are members of the BNP. Indeed Leg-Iron is swiftly becoming one of the best writers out there. So good is he, that I expect to see him carted off in a police car for terror offences before long.
The gist of the article is that people like the moronic Brian Reade have been able to pick on vilified individuals like smokers, drinkers, the obese, Daniel O'Donnell fans, etc without any fear of reprisals as they are but individuals. There may be many like them, but they have no association. The problem begins when you incite violence against an organisation that has a good number of members and even more non-member supporters, they will respond in an organised fashion and it can only escalate. It is the few little stones slipping at the top of the mountain that results in the catastrophic avalanche at the bottom.
The little stones have slipped.
A car has been burned out on an estate (that apparently has no history of such activities) on a road, outside a house of one of those who was listed on the BNP membership document that was leaked.
- It is irrelevant that the car may not have belonged to a BNP member. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
- It is irrelevant that those who set light to it may not be members of any black radical group. The real perpetrator is unlikely to identify themselves, the perception will be that it was someone who is a member of, or sympathetic to black radical groups. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
- It is irrelevant that the person on this estate may have a wife, children, elderly relatives, now angry and fearful for their property and their lives. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
- It is irrelevant that this guy's next door neighbour has seen his car torched, it doesn't belong to the BNP member. He now feels anger towards this anonymous group, whether they are responsible or not. The BNP recruiting Sergeant gets a new conscript without leaving his armchair. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
- It is irrelevant that the person on this estate named on the BNP list may not even be a member of the BNP. We have no proof that the list is either accurate or genuine. If this has been brought about by some fifth column working in the party, who knows who they have stuck on the list to settle some personal vendetta. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
Already those little stones are picking up snow, and we've only had one incident. All it takes tonight is some white bloke to get a thump outside a kebab shop and blame it on the 'coons or the pakis', all it takes tonight is some drunken lout who decides to pay his Asian taxi driver with a smack in the mouth rather than a tenner, and the stones pick up more snow. It doesn't matter that one is a liar and the other is an idiot, is it seen as reprisals or a concerted campaign, and it can only escalate.
Real, real danger of large scale civic disorder. The line between order and chaos is a micron thin. The electricity goes out and looting begins. The shops run out of bread and riots erupt. A white man gets stabbed by a black man, the next day three black men get shot by one white man. What next? A mini-van full of football supporters? A church choir on a bus? The church itself on a Sunday morning?
I watched Question Time last night and was aghast at the complacency of the 'established' parties. Saying they didn't want kids being politicised in the classroom, when they are putting Fabians in the classroom. Sneering as they consistently referred to the BNP as a 'legal' political party. Are there any illegal ones? Why? How can there be in a democracy? The inescapable feeling that they were just itching for an excuse to ban them.
Then who? UKIP? The Libertarians? The Socialist Workers? The Greens? That's them out of the way. Hmmmm, they still find Sinn Fein, UDP, Plaid Cymru and the SNP objectionable. They'll be got rid of. The Tories and Labour could get enough votes in the house to ban the Lib Dems, why not?
I despise the BNP and no doubt their members would find my political views reprehensible. The difference between us is that I appreciate the need for these people to be able to hold their views, no matter how strongly I disagree with them. I'm afraid I can't say the same for them.
But their popularity is easily explained. Take every election night as dinner time. Every dinner time you have a choice of spaghetti bolognese, or meatballs and pasta, or pasta in tomato sauce. Who wouldn't get fed up of it? Who wouldn't go and find something else to eat and try to order off menu?
BNP membership and voters are not the fault of the BNP and racists, they are the fault of the main political parties who will not listen, who will not react to the wishes of their constituents, who will continue to unthinkingly impose their will on the country because they have a 'mandate' and a 'common purpose.'
It was they who sat at the top of that mountain, and gave those little stones a kick without giving it a thought.
The gist of the article is that people like the moronic Brian Reade have been able to pick on vilified individuals like smokers, drinkers, the obese, Daniel O'Donnell fans, etc without any fear of reprisals as they are but individuals. There may be many like them, but they have no association. The problem begins when you incite violence against an organisation that has a good number of members and even more non-member supporters, they will respond in an organised fashion and it can only escalate. It is the few little stones slipping at the top of the mountain that results in the catastrophic avalanche at the bottom.
The little stones have slipped.
A car has been burned out on an estate (that apparently has no history of such activities) on a road, outside a house of one of those who was listed on the BNP membership document that was leaked.
- It is irrelevant that the car may not have belonged to a BNP member. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
- It is irrelevant that those who set light to it may not be members of any black radical group. The real perpetrator is unlikely to identify themselves, the perception will be that it was someone who is a member of, or sympathetic to black radical groups. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
- It is irrelevant that the person on this estate may have a wife, children, elderly relatives, now angry and fearful for their property and their lives. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
- It is irrelevant that this guy's next door neighbour has seen his car torched, it doesn't belong to the BNP member. He now feels anger towards this anonymous group, whether they are responsible or not. The BNP recruiting Sergeant gets a new conscript without leaving his armchair. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
- It is irrelevant that the person on this estate named on the BNP list may not even be a member of the BNP. We have no proof that the list is either accurate or genuine. If this has been brought about by some fifth column working in the party, who knows who they have stuck on the list to settle some personal vendetta. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.
Already those little stones are picking up snow, and we've only had one incident. All it takes tonight is some white bloke to get a thump outside a kebab shop and blame it on the 'coons or the pakis', all it takes tonight is some drunken lout who decides to pay his Asian taxi driver with a smack in the mouth rather than a tenner, and the stones pick up more snow. It doesn't matter that one is a liar and the other is an idiot, is it seen as reprisals or a concerted campaign, and it can only escalate.
Real, real danger of large scale civic disorder. The line between order and chaos is a micron thin. The electricity goes out and looting begins. The shops run out of bread and riots erupt. A white man gets stabbed by a black man, the next day three black men get shot by one white man. What next? A mini-van full of football supporters? A church choir on a bus? The church itself on a Sunday morning?
I watched Question Time last night and was aghast at the complacency of the 'established' parties. Saying they didn't want kids being politicised in the classroom, when they are putting Fabians in the classroom. Sneering as they consistently referred to the BNP as a 'legal' political party. Are there any illegal ones? Why? How can there be in a democracy? The inescapable feeling that they were just itching for an excuse to ban them.
Then who? UKIP? The Libertarians? The Socialist Workers? The Greens? That's them out of the way. Hmmmm, they still find Sinn Fein, UDP, Plaid Cymru and the SNP objectionable. They'll be got rid of. The Tories and Labour could get enough votes in the house to ban the Lib Dems, why not?
I despise the BNP and no doubt their members would find my political views reprehensible. The difference between us is that I appreciate the need for these people to be able to hold their views, no matter how strongly I disagree with them. I'm afraid I can't say the same for them.
But their popularity is easily explained. Take every election night as dinner time. Every dinner time you have a choice of spaghetti bolognese, or meatballs and pasta, or pasta in tomato sauce. Who wouldn't get fed up of it? Who wouldn't go and find something else to eat and try to order off menu?
BNP membership and voters are not the fault of the BNP and racists, they are the fault of the main political parties who will not listen, who will not react to the wishes of their constituents, who will continue to unthinkingly impose their will on the country because they have a 'mandate' and a 'common purpose.'
It was they who sat at the top of that mountain, and gave those little stones a kick without giving it a thought.
The One That Wants A Licence To Print Money . . .
I had to check the date. I can confirm it is the 21st November, not the 1st April.
I just can't help wondering how much taxpayer's money has been spanked on this vital bit of research.
Life in a buggy is emotionally impoverished? What in the wide, wide world of sports is she talking about? Babies don't spend their lives in a buggy. Or at least babies that have parents with even the most basic understanding of parenting skills don't.
You see, the Righteous (TM Leg-Iron) are making excuses for the next generation already. It isn't your fault you are a simpleton thug with no social skills or ability to behave like a normal human being. It is the fault of your parents for walking down to the shops (where they were most likely going to buy cigarettes and alcohol) with you facing forwards. What chance did you have? We shall take care of you. All you need to do is report those who seek to hurt you further. Let us start with your parents, as they did this to you.
I love the last line:
Dr Zeedyk called for a larger pot of money so she could extend her fixed term contract and let everyone know that she has made the best choice about their child's development.
I just can't help wondering how much taxpayer's money has been spanked on this vital bit of research.
'Our data suggests that for many babies today, life in a buggy is emotionally impoverished and possibly stressful.'
Life in a buggy is emotionally impoverished? What in the wide, wide world of sports is she talking about? Babies don't spend their lives in a buggy. Or at least babies that have parents with even the most basic understanding of parenting skills don't.
You see, the Righteous (TM Leg-Iron) are making excuses for the next generation already. It isn't your fault you are a simpleton thug with no social skills or ability to behave like a normal human being. It is the fault of your parents for walking down to the shops (where they were most likely going to buy cigarettes and alcohol) with you facing forwards. What chance did you have? We shall take care of you. All you need to do is report those who seek to hurt you further. Let us start with your parents, as they did this to you.
I love the last line:
Dr Zeedyk called for a larger scale study to be carried out so parents could make the best choice about their child's development.I've run that through Google's language tools to translate it from public sector bullshit to a language we can all understand. It returned this:
Dr Zeedyk called for a larger pot of money so she could extend her fixed term contract and let everyone know that she has made the best choice about their child's development.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
The One That Knows They Are Two Faced Liars. . .
I've been getting a little concerned that the Labour government may be undergoing something of a 'bounce', I'm starting wonder if that deficit in the polls isn't as insurmountable as it seemed.
I want them out.
The thing is, I don't want the other lot in either. As for the Lib Dems, well you've got to be kidding me.
The below video was drawn to my attention by the Libertarian Party blog, and was originally posted by Mark Wadsworth.
That kind of makes Call me Dave's promises about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty look like a load of shit, doesn't it?
I've always said that if we are given the choice and we vote yes I can have few complaints, but where's the choice? All three of the parties will rail-road us in to some collectivist hell-hole of a Federal Europe before we have the chance to take breath. This is not what we voted for in the referendum to join the Common Market.
And they wonder why the BNP are picking up votes?
The electorate may not be able to put their finger on what is wrong, but they know something is very wrong. Part of me hopes the BNP pick up some Parliamentary seats. They may be nasty little racist bastards, but I can only imagine the look on the faces of the remaining 646 when these revolting little trolls start sitting on the benches, in the committee rooms and the bars and restaurants with them. Their little club will never be the same, and it is the disruption to that club which is the only thing that will bring home how much we hate them, and how much they have to change and actually offer us something approaching opposition.
As an aside, doesn't that corpulent little wankstain look like every MEP you've ever imagined? Look at him, his tie is almost horizontal as his shirt buttons strain to keep his expanding belly under wraps. Too much gravy and first class champagne I think.
I want them out.
The thing is, I don't want the other lot in either. As for the Lib Dems, well you've got to be kidding me.
The below video was drawn to my attention by the Libertarian Party blog, and was originally posted by Mark Wadsworth.
That kind of makes Call me Dave's promises about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty look like a load of shit, doesn't it?
I've always said that if we are given the choice and we vote yes I can have few complaints, but where's the choice? All three of the parties will rail-road us in to some collectivist hell-hole of a Federal Europe before we have the chance to take breath. This is not what we voted for in the referendum to join the Common Market.
And they wonder why the BNP are picking up votes?
The electorate may not be able to put their finger on what is wrong, but they know something is very wrong. Part of me hopes the BNP pick up some Parliamentary seats. They may be nasty little racist bastards, but I can only imagine the look on the faces of the remaining 646 when these revolting little trolls start sitting on the benches, in the committee rooms and the bars and restaurants with them. Their little club will never be the same, and it is the disruption to that club which is the only thing that will bring home how much we hate them, and how much they have to change and actually offer us something approaching opposition.
As an aside, doesn't that corpulent little wankstain look like every MEP you've ever imagined? Look at him, his tie is almost horizontal as his shirt buttons strain to keep his expanding belly under wraps. Too much gravy and first class champagne I think.
Monday, 17 November 2008
The One That Will Not Be Opting Out. . .
Oh, this is easy. What a bloody giveaway.
OK, my view; when the Grim Reaper comes calling, I will be seriously pissed off if any useable body parts of mine aren't given to someone who could do with them. Mrs. Snowolf's mother is a transplant patient so I'm well aware how amazing a thing it is to get a second chance.
So, you'd think I was all in favour of presumed consent, wouldn't you?
But I'm not. This is yet another example of how people's personal choices are swept away to fall into line with the beliefs of others. I would not think well of anyone who refused permission for their next of kin's organs to be used to someone else's benefit when they shuffle off this mortal coil. Let's face facts, the dead person isn't going to be needing their kidneys any more. However the crux of the matter is that these organs are not the state's to take. I detest the arrogance of people who demand that these organs be taken.
We've seen a steady stream of parents of young children awaiting, recently received or tragically passed away for the want of donated organs on TV today. This is emotional blackmail. I completely support the idea of organ transplant and feel that hospital staff should be unafraid to ask greiving relatives 'please, will you give us permission to take your husband's/wife's/son's/daughter's/mother's/father's organs to stop someone else going through what you are now experiencing?'
But to presume it is acceptable just to take them is the worst sort of theft. What is the difference between this and the Alder Hey scandal? Will the burden of proof be on the relatives? Will they have to demonstrate that the recently departed did not want their insides taking away?
It is another example of New Labour imposing their will on everybody else. Don't want to donate your organs? Look at this little boy, he's going to die because of you, you are detestable. Your views are irrelevant. We have spoken. You will comply.
Of course it isn't just Labour that are capable of this conformist arrogance, the Tories are just as bad.
Days after (rightly) lambasting Gordon Brown for using the case of 'Baby P' to score political points, Iain Duncan-Smith does just that to forward his own agenda.
The inference is that Baby P has ended up dead because his parents weren't married.
Oh for crying out fucking loud. HELLO? HELLO? IS ANYONE LISTENING? It doesn't fucking matter. IDS then goes on to trot out a load of meaningless stats with no context that goes to suggest that kids in one parent families are lucky, frankly, to escape with their lives.
I lost my father when I was at primary school and was brought up in a one parent family. My mother worked hard (a nurse), was unstinting in her efforts to bring me and my brother up, faced enormous challenges when the death of our remaining grandparents in quick succession removed the support network, showed us boundless love and we got through it. It wasn't easy, but we did it, and I never, not once saw a social worker. It just wasn't needed.
Don't you dare give me that shit that child abuse happens because people aren't married, you detestable little fuck-bubble, it happens because people are rewarded for having children they are not equipped to deal with and have money thrown at them. Well it isn't money you need, my mother proved that, it is fortitude and a practical outlook on life, but you can't buy that.
But no, we must do as we are told. We must fall in line with their beliefs. They know best, they must do, they've been elected to office, it qualifies them to know everything about everything, but makes them responsible for fuck all, if it all goes wrong.
IDS wants marriage to be encouraged, divorce made harder. He wants laws to make 'informal' relationships difficult and marriage preperation classes get official sanction.
Well, who the fuck are you? What do you know? Nothing.
Whilst I was undergoing a childhood of single parentism, around the corner from me were two boys, the same age as my brother and I, their parents detested each other and the atmosphere in their house was so hostile, it was almost tangible. They stayed married, but effectively seperated in the same house, for the good of the children. The result? Two young lads incapable of building proper relationships, totally dysfunctional with huge (and possibly dangerous) psychological flaws, completely incapable of coping with life. Two adults full of hate, resentment and bitterness. Four lives seriously damaged.
Don't you dare try and impose your values on me, they are meaningless and have no value whatsoever.
OK, my view; when the Grim Reaper comes calling, I will be seriously pissed off if any useable body parts of mine aren't given to someone who could do with them. Mrs. Snowolf's mother is a transplant patient so I'm well aware how amazing a thing it is to get a second chance.
So, you'd think I was all in favour of presumed consent, wouldn't you?
But I'm not. This is yet another example of how people's personal choices are swept away to fall into line with the beliefs of others. I would not think well of anyone who refused permission for their next of kin's organs to be used to someone else's benefit when they shuffle off this mortal coil. Let's face facts, the dead person isn't going to be needing their kidneys any more. However the crux of the matter is that these organs are not the state's to take. I detest the arrogance of people who demand that these organs be taken.
We've seen a steady stream of parents of young children awaiting, recently received or tragically passed away for the want of donated organs on TV today. This is emotional blackmail. I completely support the idea of organ transplant and feel that hospital staff should be unafraid to ask greiving relatives 'please, will you give us permission to take your husband's/wife's/son's/daughter's/mother's/father's organs to stop someone else going through what you are now experiencing?'
But to presume it is acceptable just to take them is the worst sort of theft. What is the difference between this and the Alder Hey scandal? Will the burden of proof be on the relatives? Will they have to demonstrate that the recently departed did not want their insides taking away?
It is another example of New Labour imposing their will on everybody else. Don't want to donate your organs? Look at this little boy, he's going to die because of you, you are detestable. Your views are irrelevant. We have spoken. You will comply.
Of course it isn't just Labour that are capable of this conformist arrogance, the Tories are just as bad.
Days after (rightly) lambasting Gordon Brown for using the case of 'Baby P' to score political points, Iain Duncan-Smith does just that to forward his own agenda.
The inference is that Baby P has ended up dead because his parents weren't married.
Oh for crying out fucking loud. HELLO? HELLO? IS ANYONE LISTENING? It doesn't fucking matter. IDS then goes on to trot out a load of meaningless stats with no context that goes to suggest that kids in one parent families are lucky, frankly, to escape with their lives.
I lost my father when I was at primary school and was brought up in a one parent family. My mother worked hard (a nurse), was unstinting in her efforts to bring me and my brother up, faced enormous challenges when the death of our remaining grandparents in quick succession removed the support network, showed us boundless love and we got through it. It wasn't easy, but we did it, and I never, not once saw a social worker. It just wasn't needed.
Don't you dare give me that shit that child abuse happens because people aren't married, you detestable little fuck-bubble, it happens because people are rewarded for having children they are not equipped to deal with and have money thrown at them. Well it isn't money you need, my mother proved that, it is fortitude and a practical outlook on life, but you can't buy that.
But no, we must do as we are told. We must fall in line with their beliefs. They know best, they must do, they've been elected to office, it qualifies them to know everything about everything, but makes them responsible for fuck all, if it all goes wrong.
IDS wants marriage to be encouraged, divorce made harder. He wants laws to make 'informal' relationships difficult and marriage preperation classes get official sanction.
Well, who the fuck are you? What do you know? Nothing.
Whilst I was undergoing a childhood of single parentism, around the corner from me were two boys, the same age as my brother and I, their parents detested each other and the atmosphere in their house was so hostile, it was almost tangible. They stayed married, but effectively seperated in the same house, for the good of the children. The result? Two young lads incapable of building proper relationships, totally dysfunctional with huge (and possibly dangerous) psychological flaws, completely incapable of coping with life. Two adults full of hate, resentment and bitterness. Four lives seriously damaged.
Don't you dare try and impose your values on me, they are meaningless and have no value whatsoever.
The One That Still Thinks They Are Thinking Of The Wrong Children . . .
What did I say the other day?
And now a report that a father spent the night in a cell after smacking his seven year old son once on the bottom for wandering away by himself in the dark.
Well what the fuck was he supposed to do? Shrug his shoulders and say 'well, he's old enough to make his own decisions'?
This just goes to show, it isn't about the welfare of children, it's about making sure that you can get all those nice stars on your annual departmental report. I think the Titanic was a 5 star vessel.
And now a report that a father spent the night in a cell after smacking his seven year old son once on the bottom for wandering away by himself in the dark.
Well what the fuck was he supposed to do? Shrug his shoulders and say 'well, he's old enough to make his own decisions'?
This just goes to show, it isn't about the welfare of children, it's about making sure that you can get all those nice stars on your annual departmental report. I think the Titanic was a 5 star vessel.
Sunday, 16 November 2008
The One That Wonders How It Came To This. . .
It reads: 'Also In The News: Which star will face first bush tucker ordeal?'Sorry? Did you say news?
Jesus H Fucking Christ, this is news?
There can be only response to this question:
'Who gives a fuck?'
Unfortunately, there can be only response to that one:
'A good many people do.'
We're doomed. I'll think I'll just walk down to the gulag myself and save them the effort of transporting me.
Friday, 14 November 2008
The One That Wonders What He Spent The Money On. . .
I'm going to prove two points.
Point 1: It isn't just DK and Obo that can bang on about techie stuff.
Point 2: It isn't just the public sector that can completely screw stuff up.
Perhaps you will have seen the incredulous news reports on the BBC about people queuing up to buy the new World of Warcraft game at midnight or whenever it was during the week.
I've never played WoW, mmorpg's really don't appeal to me, but people who play them are not hurting me, so if it makes them happy, I'm happy. The tone of the BBC report on the morning of the release was quite startling, you see there were a lot of people, mainly young, many of them in costume waiting to get their hands on a copy of this game (incidentally, I wonder how many of them were stopped and searched under s44 of the Terrorism Act?), the obvious question should have been 'What's all the fuss about?' Unfortunately the question that was asked, and is almost as obvious, was 'Are these games turning our kids into fatties/socially dysfunctional types/drooling simpletons/paedophiles/terrorists? It's always paedos and terrorists. It is a computer game and therefore baaaaaaad.
Funny how a group of people, many of whom were probably hanging around waiting for Game to open during the week, were being described in glowing terms when they did exactly the same for the release of the Harry Potter novels.
Anyhow, as with cinematic releases, computer and video games are normally put out on general release on a Friday and I can't help feeling that the unusual midweek release of WoW was down in part to the release of another hugely popular game today.
The latest incarnation of the Football Manager series was released today and has been eagerly awaited by many people, me included. FM is my poison of choice.
Just as with music, piracy is big news in the video game market and publishers are taking big steps to combat the problem. Electronic Arts have courted a good deal of controversy by introducing the secuROM anti-piracy software to their releases. I'm no techie and don't quite understand how it works, but it is in effect a validation tool that ensures you're not running a moody copy. The problem with EA's software is that nowhere in the EULA does it mention that this peice of software will be installed on the user's computer. It is also unremovable, so if you uninstall the software that it came with, it is still on your computer. The only way you can get rid of it by doing a complete format of your hard disk and re-installing everything. It also regularly conflicts with other software. EA (makers of the fantastically popular Sims, FIFA and NFL series) are now the subject of class actions in the USA because of the covert nature of this software.
Sega, the publishers of the Football Manager series are probably the most famous name in the industry, after Nintendo, and following the effective retirement of Sonic The Hedgehog, FM is probably their biggest title. They've introduced a less invasive validation system for the new FM game and it has caused uproar. They've made a right arse of it, the game must be validated before you can play it, and incredibly hardcore gamers have been trying to validate their copy of the game for twenty hours now, and the company that Sega have contracted to do this bit of work has seen its system collapse under the pressure.
This is a failure of public sector magnitude, one would have thought that on their biggest day of the year, Sega would have made sure that their mandatory validation system would have had the strength and bandwidth to get the job done. I can't help wondering how many copies of this game will be returned to the shop tomorrow for, what is in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable refund, and again on Sunday when the less fanatical FMers amongst us go shopping only to realise that they can't actually use it. The retailers will no doubt be furious as they've dedicated a great deal of shelf and promotional space to a product they will make very little money on and will probably demand answers.
The difference between the public sector and private industry? I would expect that a public wringing of hands and a couple of written warnings will not suffice. I would expect that heads will roll. The other difference is that it will be done with dignity and behind closed doors.
Point 1: It isn't just DK and Obo that can bang on about techie stuff.
Point 2: It isn't just the public sector that can completely screw stuff up.
Perhaps you will have seen the incredulous news reports on the BBC about people queuing up to buy the new World of Warcraft game at midnight or whenever it was during the week.
I've never played WoW, mmorpg's really don't appeal to me, but people who play them are not hurting me, so if it makes them happy, I'm happy. The tone of the BBC report on the morning of the release was quite startling, you see there were a lot of people, mainly young, many of them in costume waiting to get their hands on a copy of this game (incidentally, I wonder how many of them were stopped and searched under s44 of the Terrorism Act?), the obvious question should have been 'What's all the fuss about?' Unfortunately the question that was asked, and is almost as obvious, was 'Are these games turning our kids into fatties/socially dysfunctional types/drooling simpletons/paedophiles/terrorists? It's always paedos and terrorists. It is a computer game and therefore baaaaaaad.
Funny how a group of people, many of whom were probably hanging around waiting for Game to open during the week, were being described in glowing terms when they did exactly the same for the release of the Harry Potter novels.
Anyhow, as with cinematic releases, computer and video games are normally put out on general release on a Friday and I can't help feeling that the unusual midweek release of WoW was down in part to the release of another hugely popular game today.
The latest incarnation of the Football Manager series was released today and has been eagerly awaited by many people, me included. FM is my poison of choice.
Just as with music, piracy is big news in the video game market and publishers are taking big steps to combat the problem. Electronic Arts have courted a good deal of controversy by introducing the secuROM anti-piracy software to their releases. I'm no techie and don't quite understand how it works, but it is in effect a validation tool that ensures you're not running a moody copy. The problem with EA's software is that nowhere in the EULA does it mention that this peice of software will be installed on the user's computer. It is also unremovable, so if you uninstall the software that it came with, it is still on your computer. The only way you can get rid of it by doing a complete format of your hard disk and re-installing everything. It also regularly conflicts with other software. EA (makers of the fantastically popular Sims, FIFA and NFL series) are now the subject of class actions in the USA because of the covert nature of this software.
Sega, the publishers of the Football Manager series are probably the most famous name in the industry, after Nintendo, and following the effective retirement of Sonic The Hedgehog, FM is probably their biggest title. They've introduced a less invasive validation system for the new FM game and it has caused uproar. They've made a right arse of it, the game must be validated before you can play it, and incredibly hardcore gamers have been trying to validate their copy of the game for twenty hours now, and the company that Sega have contracted to do this bit of work has seen its system collapse under the pressure.
This is a failure of public sector magnitude, one would have thought that on their biggest day of the year, Sega would have made sure that their mandatory validation system would have had the strength and bandwidth to get the job done. I can't help wondering how many copies of this game will be returned to the shop tomorrow for, what is in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable refund, and again on Sunday when the less fanatical FMers amongst us go shopping only to realise that they can't actually use it. The retailers will no doubt be furious as they've dedicated a great deal of shelf and promotional space to a product they will make very little money on and will probably demand answers.
The difference between the public sector and private industry? I would expect that a public wringing of hands and a couple of written warnings will not suffice. I would expect that heads will roll. The other difference is that it will be done with dignity and behind closed doors.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
The One That Thinks He Should Have His Hands Chopped Off. . .
A corrupt, theiving, unprincipled bastard, with no shame or concern for anyone but himself, earlier today.It would appear that in this modern age of politicians lording it over us and treating us with disdain as if we were irrelevant serfs, you can still go too far.
And Densmore 'Den' Dover, the Conservative MEP for North West England is to be given his marching orders after spunking £500,000 of taxpayer's cash (that cash was taken from me and you, by the way) on his family and being ordered to repay it.
Obviously a cool half mil is too much to laugh off or sneer off.
What a twat, look at him there in that fucking awful suit with that shit eating grin. That, my friends, is a face that the house brick was invented for.
You'd have thought he'd have done the decent thing and resigned. Actually, no, you wouldn't, it probably didn't even occur to the unprincipled fucktard, he's probably trying to find a way to reclaim it on expenses.
The One That'll Buy Him A Ticket . . .
This story has already been touched upon by The Refuser, and now Al-Beeb reports:
Ah. Problem. I'm assuming, Jordan, Afghanistan, Iran or some other stan doesn't appeal. I can't quite see him getting a beachfront house in Malibu, or a nice apartment overlooking Sydney Harbour.
Perhaps he's concerned that with the taxpayer bailing out all those banks, his benefits might be cut. . .
Radical cleric 'may flee abroad'.
Excellent, does he need a ticket? I'll buy him one myself.
Radical cleric Abu Qatada is considering leaving the UK
if he can find a country to take him.
Ah. Problem. I'm assuming, Jordan, Afghanistan, Iran or some other stan doesn't appeal. I can't quite see him getting a beachfront house in Malibu, or a nice apartment overlooking Sydney Harbour.
Perhaps he's concerned that with the taxpayer bailing out all those banks, his benefits might be cut. . .
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
The One That Thinks They Are Thinking Of The Wrong Children . . .
Sky have been leading with the story of a thirteen year old girl refusing a heart transplant all morning.
Hannah Jones, who I have just seen being interviewed on Sky News, is a very mature, articulate, intelligent and well brought up young lady who has suffered from Leukemia and now 'needs' a heart transplant. Having been in and out of hospital for the vast majority of her short life, she's decided she's had quite enough of that thank you very much and has elected to refuse treatment. A right which I understood to be the most basic a patient has. She has the full support of her parents (her mother is a former ICU nurse, so has some idea of what is going on), but the local 'Child Protection Officer' sees things differently, and threatened that the police would turn up with an ambulance and forcibly remove her from her home and cart her off for this operation.
There is no certainty that this most traumatic of operations would extend her life by any meaningful period. One can only wonder what quality that life would offer as well. Local health officials even went so far as to go to the High Court to apply for an order enforcing Hannah to go and have the operation, but thankfully the procedings have been dropped.
You see, Hannah is a child. Therefore her opinion on her own destiny is irrelevant. Everybody knows better than her. Her parents agree with her (and can you imagine the sheer horror of having this conversation with your thirteen year old daughter?), as they do not share the views of the The Righteous individual(s) dealing with this case, they must be threatened with the courts, police and criminal procedings. How dare those parents have the temerity to question the infinite wisdom of these officials? They are going to lose their daughter, and because they've not toed the line, they must lose everything else. These dissenters cannot be tolerated.
If only these efforts had been employed in the case of 'Baby P' a 17 month old boy who was covered in sores and bruises, had eight broken ribs, had been smashed in the mouth so hard that it was ripped, along with his nose, and had swallowed a tooth. His fingertips had had their tissue destroyed and he was missing a number of fingernails he had also broken his back. He had been a regular visitor to the hospital and a number (five, I believe) of social workers had accepted the accounts of the child's mother as to how his continuing injuries came to be. Perhaps unsurprisingly he now lies dead.
When released from hospital, with previous injuries, Met Police recommended that he not be handed back to his mother. Haringey Social Services chose not to follow this advice.
Predictable calls for an inquest have been made, and the question 'has nothing been learned from the Climbie case?' will be an oft-heard cry over the next few days.
What the fuck? What where these individuals doing? I appreciate that social workers have a tough job, but this is their equivalent of a policeman happening across a jewellers with alarms ringing and some men with shotguns and bulging bags marked 'swag' running out and jumping into a waiting car, and then accepting the explanation that it is an elaborate practical joke.
How could you not see what was going on? Even bloody plod managed it, I can only imagine the immense anger that the police involved in this case feel, and can only wonder if the Social Services wonk's first thought is 'well, that's my job then.'
Perhaps if you'd spent a little less time on people like Hannah Jones and rounding up slightly tubby kids to be taken into care, irrespective of how good, loving and supportive their home life is and spent more time thinking 'Hey, how'd that little baby break eight of his ribs?' This situation would have been avoided.
Call me an old cynic, but as no details of the boy's mother or her boyfriend have been released, I'm betting they're black. I'm not suggesting that this abuse took place because that is what is expected of black parents, I'm suggesting that the authorities would tip-toe all around the abuse issue for fear of being labelled racist.
One final point. Whilst driving home from work yesterday I was listening to a debate on Simon Mayo's show on BBC Radio 5. It was about adoption, and the ridiculous policy that the racial, cultural and linguistic heritage of a child is the most important consideration in adoption placements. In short, if you are white, forget adopting a black child. If you are black, forget adopting an Asian child. If you are Asian, forget adopting a white child.
Quotes attributed to the powers that be included such things as 'it would be more beneficial for a child to remain in care than to join a trans-racial family' and 'given the history I could never let a white family adopt a black child.' As a result of this odious and racist policy there are scores of Black and Asian children who are denied a stable and loving family environment for no other reason than the colour of their skin. This is repellent.
I do not respond to the dogwhistle of 'won't somebody think of the children?' But when the children really do need somebody to give them very serious thought, they are the secondary consideration behind what the political implications of the situation are.
It fills me with near incoherent, violent rage.
UPDATE
Some of the Social Workers have been given written warnings. I do not have the words to comment on this.
It would appear that the lodger in this case was white. It is therefore reasonable to assume the rest of the characters involved in this were white. That makes the Social Service's timidity even more incomprehensible.
Hannah Jones, who I have just seen being interviewed on Sky News, is a very mature, articulate, intelligent and well brought up young lady who has suffered from Leukemia and now 'needs' a heart transplant. Having been in and out of hospital for the vast majority of her short life, she's decided she's had quite enough of that thank you very much and has elected to refuse treatment. A right which I understood to be the most basic a patient has. She has the full support of her parents (her mother is a former ICU nurse, so has some idea of what is going on), but the local 'Child Protection Officer' sees things differently, and threatened that the police would turn up with an ambulance and forcibly remove her from her home and cart her off for this operation.
There is no certainty that this most traumatic of operations would extend her life by any meaningful period. One can only wonder what quality that life would offer as well. Local health officials even went so far as to go to the High Court to apply for an order enforcing Hannah to go and have the operation, but thankfully the procedings have been dropped.
You see, Hannah is a child. Therefore her opinion on her own destiny is irrelevant. Everybody knows better than her. Her parents agree with her (and can you imagine the sheer horror of having this conversation with your thirteen year old daughter?), as they do not share the views of the The Righteous individual(s) dealing with this case, they must be threatened with the courts, police and criminal procedings. How dare those parents have the temerity to question the infinite wisdom of these officials? They are going to lose their daughter, and because they've not toed the line, they must lose everything else. These dissenters cannot be tolerated.
If only these efforts had been employed in the case of 'Baby P' a 17 month old boy who was covered in sores and bruises, had eight broken ribs, had been smashed in the mouth so hard that it was ripped, along with his nose, and had swallowed a tooth. His fingertips had had their tissue destroyed and he was missing a number of fingernails he had also broken his back. He had been a regular visitor to the hospital and a number (five, I believe) of social workers had accepted the accounts of the child's mother as to how his continuing injuries came to be. Perhaps unsurprisingly he now lies dead.
When released from hospital, with previous injuries, Met Police recommended that he not be handed back to his mother. Haringey Social Services chose not to follow this advice.
Predictable calls for an inquest have been made, and the question 'has nothing been learned from the Climbie case?' will be an oft-heard cry over the next few days.
What the fuck? What where these individuals doing? I appreciate that social workers have a tough job, but this is their equivalent of a policeman happening across a jewellers with alarms ringing and some men with shotguns and bulging bags marked 'swag' running out and jumping into a waiting car, and then accepting the explanation that it is an elaborate practical joke.
How could you not see what was going on? Even bloody plod managed it, I can only imagine the immense anger that the police involved in this case feel, and can only wonder if the Social Services wonk's first thought is 'well, that's my job then.'
Perhaps if you'd spent a little less time on people like Hannah Jones and rounding up slightly tubby kids to be taken into care, irrespective of how good, loving and supportive their home life is and spent more time thinking 'Hey, how'd that little baby break eight of his ribs?' This situation would have been avoided.
Call me an old cynic, but as no details of the boy's mother or her boyfriend have been released, I'm betting they're black. I'm not suggesting that this abuse took place because that is what is expected of black parents, I'm suggesting that the authorities would tip-toe all around the abuse issue for fear of being labelled racist.
One final point. Whilst driving home from work yesterday I was listening to a debate on Simon Mayo's show on BBC Radio 5. It was about adoption, and the ridiculous policy that the racial, cultural and linguistic heritage of a child is the most important consideration in adoption placements. In short, if you are white, forget adopting a black child. If you are black, forget adopting an Asian child. If you are Asian, forget adopting a white child.
Quotes attributed to the powers that be included such things as 'it would be more beneficial for a child to remain in care than to join a trans-racial family' and 'given the history I could never let a white family adopt a black child.' As a result of this odious and racist policy there are scores of Black and Asian children who are denied a stable and loving family environment for no other reason than the colour of their skin. This is repellent.
I do not respond to the dogwhistle of 'won't somebody think of the children?' But when the children really do need somebody to give them very serious thought, they are the secondary consideration behind what the political implications of the situation are.
It fills me with near incoherent, violent rage.
UPDATE
Some of the Social Workers have been given written warnings. I do not have the words to comment on this.
It would appear that the lodger in this case was white. It is therefore reasonable to assume the rest of the characters involved in this were white. That makes the Social Service's timidity even more incomprehensible.
The One That Loves Overreactions. . .
Reach for your tin hats! It's happened again!
Yes folks, the poor old Beeb is in the headlines again, as yet another 'phone storm blows up.
Sam Mason, a presenter on BBC Radio Brizzle has been given the boot after she made 'unacceptable comments' during a phone call to a local taxi firm.
Now this call was not broadcast, and probably not intended to be broadcast, but was recorded.
Details of the conversation have not been released, and one can only speculate that she'd booked a taxi for someone, ooooh, about three weeks previously and was still waiting for it despite being told it would only be five minutes. It probably went along the lines of 'where's my fucking taxi, you cretins?'
That is irrelevant however, this is the new post-Brand BBC and anyone, saying anything even remotely unpleasant on the phone must be hunted down and burned at the stake.
They really don't have a clue, do they?
UPDATE.
Oops.
Yes folks, the poor old Beeb is in the headlines again, as yet another 'phone storm blows up.
Sam Mason, a presenter on BBC Radio Brizzle has been given the boot after she made 'unacceptable comments' during a phone call to a local taxi firm.
Now this call was not broadcast, and probably not intended to be broadcast, but was recorded.
Details of the conversation have not been released, and one can only speculate that she'd booked a taxi for someone, ooooh, about three weeks previously and was still waiting for it despite being told it would only be five minutes. It probably went along the lines of 'where's my fucking taxi, you cretins?'
That is irrelevant however, this is the new post-Brand BBC and anyone, saying anything even remotely unpleasant on the phone must be hunted down and burned at the stake.
They really don't have a clue, do they?
UPDATE.
Oops.
Sam Mason, 40, who joined BBC Radio Bristol in September, called the taxi firm off-air when she was playing a song on her afternoon show. . . The firm, which records messages routinely in case of queries or complaints, recorded her speaking to the operator about her daughter and telling her "A guy with a turban on is going to freak her out. I know this sounds really racist but I'm not being... please don't send anyone like, you know what I mean, An English person would be great."
Monday, 10 November 2008
The One That Is Banging His Head Against The Wall Until It Really Hurts. . .
GLITTER GCSE OUTRAGE
Screams the headline of The Sun today.
Apparently, Glitter's 'Leader of the Gang'* is included on the syllabus for GCSE music, and it has, perhaps a little unsurprisingly, generated a good deal of faux bluster from the gutter press.
I for one do not think he should be on the syllabus, as his music just isn't very good.
The quote from some Deputy Head is a killer:
Probably some pictures of a bloke with mad hair wearing silver spandex, apparently the Deputy Head 'asked not to be named in case his daughter is penalised in the exam.'
I think that's code for 'we've made this interview up.' I find it unlikely that the AQA would penalise a 16 year old girl in an exam for something that her father said.
Note to those who jump up and bark when the dogwhistle is blown; you can't catch nonceism from listening to music recorded by a nonce 30 years ago. It isn't going to happen. The fact that your 14 year old son might start fancying 14 year old girls is not an indicator of being a nonce, it is an indicator of puberty.
*This now means that there are two songs to which the answer can only be 'no'. This little ditty and Jerusalem. 'Do you want to be in my gang?' 'No.' 'And did those feet in ancient times, walk upon England's mountains green?' 'No.'
Screams the headline of The Sun today.
Apparently, Glitter's 'Leader of the Gang'* is included on the syllabus for GCSE music, and it has, perhaps a little unsurprisingly, generated a good deal of faux bluster from the gutter press.
I for one do not think he should be on the syllabus, as his music just isn't very good.
The quote from some Deputy Head is a killer:
Boys and girls of 15 or 16 who select this song will go straight to the internet to find Glitter’s music. I dread to think what they may find searching online for him.
Probably some pictures of a bloke with mad hair wearing silver spandex, apparently the Deputy Head 'asked not to be named in case his daughter is penalised in the exam.'
I think that's code for 'we've made this interview up.' I find it unlikely that the AQA would penalise a 16 year old girl in an exam for something that her father said.
Note to those who jump up and bark when the dogwhistle is blown; you can't catch nonceism from listening to music recorded by a nonce 30 years ago. It isn't going to happen. The fact that your 14 year old son might start fancying 14 year old girls is not an indicator of being a nonce, it is an indicator of puberty.
*This now means that there are two songs to which the answer can only be 'no'. This little ditty and Jerusalem. 'Do you want to be in my gang?' 'No.' 'And did those feet in ancient times, walk upon England's mountains green?' 'No.'
Friday, 7 November 2008
The One That Is In Awe. . .
I dislike purely linking to other posts, but there really is nothing I can add to Leg Iron's most recent missive.
An exceprt:
I implore you to go and read the whole thing. If there is a more salient evaluation of the state of the nation, I have yet to see it.
An exceprt:
Does anyone remember the 'stiff upper lip' of the British? The fighting spirit? The indomitable people who once ran a big chunk of the planet, and who could chase away armed guerillas with a walking stick and an angry voice? A people who, nevertheless, could laugh at themselves and had a great, if sometimes cruel, sense of humour? What happened to them?
Those people would never have set off a security scare because a schoolboy dressed up as the Joker and waved a plastic gun around. Those people would never have arrested a man in fancy dress because he had a plastic knife as part of his outfit (tipped by anon in the comments here). Those people would not have shrieked 'Terrorist!' at the sight of a plastic halloween skeleton. The first might have earned a caning, but not expulsion. The second and third should not even have raised an eyebrow. Neither should Old Holborn's walk.
The people who replaced those real British are spineless weaklings who jump at shadows. Who call the police if they are slightly offended by a word or two. Worse, the police respond not by saying 'It's nothing, don't worry about it', but by harassing and usually arresting anyone complained about, no matter how trivial and all too often, no matter whether an offence has been committed or not.
I implore you to go and read the whole thing. If there is a more salient evaluation of the state of the nation, I have yet to see it.
The One That Thinks The World Is Going Mad. . .
I pride myself on being a fairly erudite chap, sometimes the occasional naughty word crosses the screen here and that is normally through passion. However, sometimes my system needs a reboot because things just build up and do. . . not. . . . compute.
I wanted to post about these earlier, but I was unable to do so because all I could do was sit there, wide eyed, slack jawed pouring forth a stream of expletives.
I'm over it now.
FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK.
Ok, I'm over it now. Old Holborn has pretty much covered what I was going to say, but in fairly contrasting fashions. It's been like bring your completely insane relative in to edit the news day in the media. I mean, there's spin and there's telling downright bloody lies.
90% of people in the UK are happy.
Really? Define happy? If it is 'happy at not quite living in some dystopian vision' then it probably is correct. However, I doubt the research question was 'are you happy living in a place that resembles something Orwell dreamed up after stubbing his toe catching his foreskin in his fly?' Fuck me, was the first question 'Would you like some laudanum before answering question two?'
Jacqui Smith keeps being asked by people if they can get their ID cards any sooner.
I'll accept that. Of course they are all Eritreans, Albanians and Iraqi. I'd like mine now, I want to to attach razor blades to the edges and stick it straight up her arse.
The government is very concerned that we have suitable entertainment for our pets.
Are there not slightly more pressing matters? For the love of God. Anyhow, it didn't work. I set up the Wii for little Wolfers to play Guitar Hero whilst I was out on the little walk. When I got back, she still hadn't got past the first song. So that was a waste of bloody time, wasn't it?
Hazel Blears thinks. . .
Now hang on, stay with me here, let's not dismiss that concept out of hand.
Hazel Blears thinks that it is a pretty poor show that some people think their views are just as valid as those of a Cabinet Minister. (H/T to Obo, but a real fisking linked to a bloody Lib Dem. How bad are things going get?)
. . . wha . . . fuc . . . cun . . . bit. . .
Oh bollocks to it. I'm going to hire a tank, any of you fancy going dutch on the diesel?
I wanted to post about these earlier, but I was unable to do so because all I could do was sit there, wide eyed, slack jawed pouring forth a stream of expletives.
I'm over it now.
FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK.
Ok, I'm over it now. Old Holborn has pretty much covered what I was going to say, but in fairly contrasting fashions. It's been like bring your completely insane relative in to edit the news day in the media. I mean, there's spin and there's telling downright bloody lies.
90% of people in the UK are happy.
Really? Define happy? If it is 'happy at not quite living in some dystopian vision' then it probably is correct. However, I doubt the research question was 'are you happy living in a place that resembles something Orwell dreamed up after stubbing his toe catching his foreskin in his fly?' Fuck me, was the first question 'Would you like some laudanum before answering question two?'
Jacqui Smith keeps being asked by people if they can get their ID cards any sooner.
I'll accept that. Of course they are all Eritreans, Albanians and Iraqi. I'd like mine now, I want to to attach razor blades to the edges and stick it straight up her arse.
The government is very concerned that we have suitable entertainment for our pets.
Are there not slightly more pressing matters? For the love of God. Anyhow, it didn't work. I set up the Wii for little Wolfers to play Guitar Hero whilst I was out on the little walk. When I got back, she still hadn't got past the first song. So that was a waste of bloody time, wasn't it?
Hazel Blears thinks. . .
Now hang on, stay with me here, let's not dismiss that concept out of hand.
Hazel Blears thinks that it is a pretty poor show that some people think their views are just as valid as those of a Cabinet Minister. (H/T to Obo, but a real fisking linked to a bloody Lib Dem. How bad are things going get?)
. . . wha . . . fuc . . . cun . . . bit. . .
Oh bollocks to it. I'm going to hire a tank, any of you fancy going dutch on the diesel?
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
The One That Knows Who He Is. . .
It was very nice to meet a good number of very decent people before, during and after the little walk today. It was quite bizarre, I don't think anyone knew more than two people and yet we all got along famously.
I don't think any of us had done anything like this before, we were, in the majority, political virgins, driven to do something because we despaired of the situation in which we find ourselves. Our group today included the self employed, high level managers, public school educated people, civil servants and the unemployed. Up until earlier this year, I didn't know about Libertarianism. Had you mentioned it to me, I would have given you a blank look. I knew bloody well what I wasn't - I wasn't one of them. I certainly wasn't Labour, I'd had a brief fling with the Limp Dems as a teen, but fairly quickly figured out that it really wasn't for me, the Tories? I agreed with a degree of what they said, but it was dwarfed by that which I disagreed with. I suppose it is like choosing execution by stoning, crucifixion or poison. I'd choose poison, because at least you'd get some grub.
It was Mac The Knife who pointed me towards the Libertarians, and thank Christ he did, because I saw what they had to say and was relieved. As one of our number said today, 'for so long I was shouting at the TV - I can't be the only person in the world who feels this way - and the feeling when you realise you aren't is marvellous'. It is all down to the blogosphere, so for Hazel 'Nuts' Blears to say this, is Grade A, export quality, Taste The Difference Bullshit.
I am NOT a self appointed political class, no-one is forcing you to read this. I AM AN ORDINARY PERSON. I have been empowered by this fantastic tool, and realise that I am not alone, even if our number is small. The reason Hazel doesn't like it, is because we do not espouse her philosophy, we must therefore be silenced.
Now, a state which silences people who hold a contrary view to theirs, stops and searches people walking down the street for no apparently good reason and treats every member of the population as a potential criminal, has a name. Would anyone care to venture what that name is?
Hazel says that "Politics needs "more people who know what it is to worry about the rent collector's knock, or the fear of lay-off." She's been a solicitor or an MP for the last 30 years, so I'm guessing it's been a while since the landlord's goons have come calling to her for cash in a menacing fashion. Indeed, from where I sit, she looks like one of those goons.
I don't think any of us had done anything like this before, we were, in the majority, political virgins, driven to do something because we despaired of the situation in which we find ourselves. Our group today included the self employed, high level managers, public school educated people, civil servants and the unemployed. Up until earlier this year, I didn't know about Libertarianism. Had you mentioned it to me, I would have given you a blank look. I knew bloody well what I wasn't - I wasn't one of them. I certainly wasn't Labour, I'd had a brief fling with the Limp Dems as a teen, but fairly quickly figured out that it really wasn't for me, the Tories? I agreed with a degree of what they said, but it was dwarfed by that which I disagreed with. I suppose it is like choosing execution by stoning, crucifixion or poison. I'd choose poison, because at least you'd get some grub.
It was Mac The Knife who pointed me towards the Libertarians, and thank Christ he did, because I saw what they had to say and was relieved. As one of our number said today, 'for so long I was shouting at the TV - I can't be the only person in the world who feels this way - and the feeling when you realise you aren't is marvellous'. It is all down to the blogosphere, so for Hazel 'Nuts' Blears to say this, is Grade A, export quality, Taste The Difference Bullshit.
I am NOT a self appointed political class, no-one is forcing you to read this. I AM AN ORDINARY PERSON. I have been empowered by this fantastic tool, and realise that I am not alone, even if our number is small. The reason Hazel doesn't like it, is because we do not espouse her philosophy, we must therefore be silenced.
Now, a state which silences people who hold a contrary view to theirs, stops and searches people walking down the street for no apparently good reason and treats every member of the population as a potential criminal, has a name. Would anyone care to venture what that name is?
Hazel says that "Politics needs "more people who know what it is to worry about the rent collector's knock, or the fear of lay-off." She's been a solicitor or an MP for the last 30 years, so I'm guessing it's been a while since the landlord's goons have come calling to her for cash in a menacing fashion. Indeed, from where I sit, she looks like one of those goons.
The One That Had A Smashing Day Out. . .
The little walk was very good fun, and is covered by Guido here and here.
A few people have been missing the point, asking what did we acheive? It is simple really, nothing. But that wasn't the aim, we weren't protesting. It demonstrated that you cannot walk down the street in a costume without being stopped and hassled. That is the real story here.
There's something very wrong with this country, don't you think?
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
The One That Is Singing 'Val Da Ree, Val Da Raa' . . .
The ticket has been bought, in cash, this morning. The wallet has been emptied of everything excepting a little pocket money, the mobile phone will be left sat on the TV at home.
No apologies for plugging this again.
Yes, tomorrow is the (first annual?) Old Holborn walk. The man himself will be in the Chandos pub on St. Martins Lane from 11am. I shall be arriving in the area very shortly afterwards.
Many will be wearing costumes (no, not disguises, Nov 5th is one of the closest things we have to a national holiday and I for one see nothing wrong with people dressing up in celebration of the salvation of democracy), I shall not be in fancy dress, but will be made recognisable by wearing a T-shirt bearing the legend 'Snowolf'. That, or Wolfers, is my name. I'll be keeping this on a strict Reservoir Dogs basis.
To re-iterate; this is not a demonstration, nor a protest, or anti-social behaviour or an act of, or in preperation for, terrorism. We are merely walking down the road. There will be no banners, shouting or chanting. I have no intention of breaking the law regarding demonstrations, even if I do think it is bloody stupid.
No apologies for plugging this again.
Yes, tomorrow is the (first annual?) Old Holborn walk. The man himself will be in the Chandos pub on St. Martins Lane from 11am. I shall be arriving in the area very shortly afterwards.
Many will be wearing costumes (no, not disguises, Nov 5th is one of the closest things we have to a national holiday and I for one see nothing wrong with people dressing up in celebration of the salvation of democracy), I shall not be in fancy dress, but will be made recognisable by wearing a T-shirt bearing the legend 'Snowolf'. That, or Wolfers, is my name. I'll be keeping this on a strict Reservoir Dogs basis.
To re-iterate; this is not a demonstration, nor a protest, or anti-social behaviour or an act of, or in preperation for, terrorism. We are merely walking down the road. There will be no banners, shouting or chanting. I have no intention of breaking the law regarding demonstrations, even if I do think it is bloody stupid.
Monday, 3 November 2008
The One That Is Looking For Pitchforks And Flaming Torches. . .
This story has already been touched on at the LPUK Blog.
Of course there's no dumbing down in the UK. They just don't want to confuse the plebs. (Oh, hang on, that might be Latin.)
I'm not normally driven to feelings of violence, but things like this have me looking for flaming torches, pitch forks and other items of an agricultural bent. (Ah, I think agricultural might have a Latin root.)
I see the spokesperson for Bournemouth Council has remained anon. (Ooops. I think that might be Latin as well. It's not easy, is it?), good job too, I'd be keeping a low profile if I'd driven people to the edge of homicide. (Bollocks, I've done it again!)
Of course there's no dumbing down in the UK. They just don't want to confuse the plebs. (Oh, hang on, that might be Latin.)
I'm not normally driven to feelings of violence, but things like this have me looking for flaming torches, pitch forks and other items of an agricultural bent. (Ah, I think agricultural might have a Latin root.)
I see the spokesperson for Bournemouth Council has remained anon. (Ooops. I think that might be Latin as well. It's not easy, is it?), good job too, I'd be keeping a low profile if I'd driven people to the edge of homicide. (Bollocks, I've done it again!)
The One That Is Very Disappointed. . .
Tom Harris, MP. What a disappointment.Many of you will be aware of the Libertarian Party's 1984 campaign. Some of you will be aware that Tom Harris, Labour MP for Glasgow South received his early and that he has commented on the receipt of this here. Following a fairly robust comments thread he responded (sort of) here. I was under the impression that he was going to pen a proper, considered response on Sunday afternoon. This came and can be seen here.
Well, I'm sorry Tom. That simply isn't good enough. I will give you credit for the dissention you have permitted on your blog, and it is your blog so I would have little problem with you refusing to post such comments. However I can't help feeling that you've let us down by refusing to enter into a proper debate on this subject. There are only three conclusions from which one, or a combination thereof, can be permed.
1. You really do hold people in such contempt that anyone holding an opinion contrary to yours is unworthy of being listened to, or agued with. (I would happily agree to disagree with you, if only there were some qualification of your point of view.)
2. You realise that you cannot justify the encroachments of the last eleven years, and thus do not attempt to do so. (Here's a subversive idea, could it be that you actually agree with us and this has tempered your response that must toe the party line?)
3. You have been 'got at' by the party who have instructed you to leave well alone, lest any controversy blow up. (Perhaps not totally unrelated to point 2.)
Whichever way you look at it, this (lack of) response marks you out either as a control-freak authoritarian, an individual lacking foresight enough to see where this is going, or a servile lap-dog who will say, or not say, whatever his party wants irrespective of his own views.
I expected more. Perhaps that was a foolish mistake on my part, I suppose I should have known better. However, the offer of a drink after PMQ's on Wednesday 5th is still extant.
Saturday, 1 November 2008
The One That Doesn't Ask For Much, But Does Ask For This. . .
A collection of complete heroes, earlier today.I blogged a little while ago about the High Court victory for the Gurkhas. As we know a court victory doesn't actually mean anything when it is against the government, they will delay, dissemble and generally ignore what they are told. People like Tom Harris aren't really interested in what the electorate have to say, so you can bet your bottom that they couldn't give two hoots about judges. Judges are there to punish the little people for not obeying their laws.
I digress.
The Gurkhas have been out on the streets of Folkestone this weekend (they are based at nearby Shorncliffe Barracks) to get signatures on their petition to give full settlement rights to former Gurkhas. Given the fact that British passports are handed out like golf sale fliers to any who demand it, I think it is the least we can do for people who join up to defend our country and conduct themselves with the utmost dignity, honour and humility. There are very few people who get my unqualified respect, but anyone who wears the uniform of the Gurkha regiment has mine without a second of hesitation.
I don't ask for much from my readers, but I would ask that you sign the petition in support of these thoroughly decent individuals here.
Many thanks.
The One That Will Not Be Going For A Pint In Aberdeen. . .
I'm really at a loss on this one. I'm so flabbergasted that I'll just quote the leading text of this news story from Al-Beeb:
So, is this some kind of sobriety test akin to the ones we see used by American cops on the roadside?
Well, no.
I'm not sure how that would effect somebody working in a dispensing chemist or a pharmaceutical firm. But let's see what else is going on. . .
Oh, so that doesn't seem too bad then, you can tell them to piss off in the nicest possible way then. . .
Of for the love of God. What is wrong with these people? Look, I don't like drugs, I don't use drugs (yeah, yeah booze and baccy, but you know) and think that people who deal in drugs should be cast into a dark pit of their own filth. But you cannot just blanket target everybody, just because they might have traces of drugs on them. Despite saying in the report that people could be searched if they return an amber reading on the machine, the very act of taking hand swabs, in my book, constitutes a search. It is another example of everything that is wrong with this country. Where are the reasonable grounds or suspicion? Is entering the pub grounds for suspicion that you are there solely to deal in drugs? How do the landlords feel about this? Has a similar line been taken with them as it has with his punters? Have they been told 'It is voluntary, but if you don't do it, we'll suspend your licence.'
This is the worst, most cowardly way of doing business and I'd love to know what the effects of this programme are on the pubs' takings. I wouldn't have drugs on me. I would object to the search on the basis of my own personal liberty to not be searched trying to enter a pub, and so walk away. I would also be thinking to myself 'this pub obviously has a drugs problem, I'll go elsewhere as I don't want to be in there.'
Sometimes I get so angry. . .
Pub-goers in Aberdeen are facing a drugs test before entering bars as part of a crackdown by Grampian Police.
So, is this some kind of sobriety test akin to the ones we see used by American cops on the roadside?
Well, no.
Officers in the force will be the first in Scotland to use an Itemiser - a device which can detect traces of drugs from hand swabs in a matter of seconds.
I'm not sure how that would effect somebody working in a dispensing chemist or a pharmaceutical firm. But let's see what else is going on. . .
The test is voluntary,
Oh, so that doesn't seem too bad then, you can tell them to piss off in the nicest possible way then. . .
. . . but customers will be refused entry if they do not take part.
Of for the love of God. What is wrong with these people? Look, I don't like drugs, I don't use drugs (yeah, yeah booze and baccy, but you know) and think that people who deal in drugs should be cast into a dark pit of their own filth. But you cannot just blanket target everybody, just because they might have traces of drugs on them. Despite saying in the report that people could be searched if they return an amber reading on the machine, the very act of taking hand swabs, in my book, constitutes a search. It is another example of everything that is wrong with this country. Where are the reasonable grounds or suspicion? Is entering the pub grounds for suspicion that you are there solely to deal in drugs? How do the landlords feel about this? Has a similar line been taken with them as it has with his punters? Have they been told 'It is voluntary, but if you don't do it, we'll suspend your licence.'
This is the worst, most cowardly way of doing business and I'd love to know what the effects of this programme are on the pubs' takings. I wouldn't have drugs on me. I would object to the search on the basis of my own personal liberty to not be searched trying to enter a pub, and so walk away. I would also be thinking to myself 'this pub obviously has a drugs problem, I'll go elsewhere as I don't want to be in there.'
Sometimes I get so angry. . .
The One That Doesn't See The Problem . . .
I was genuinely shocked by the tone of the report on the BBC/ZNL evening propaganda broadcast on the Ten O'Clock News last night.
Now, I don't normally hold with the view that the BBC news is overt in its support for the political views of the Government. I do accept that they quite subtly push the agenda, but the constant trotting out of the Gorgon phrase 'hard working families' aside, I don't think it is too in your face.
However, the story that Barclays have decided to secure funding from someone other than the taxpayer was met with near screams of protest from the financial correspondent with the odd diction (his name escapes me). The line was that Barclays - 'that most quintessential of British banks' had taken mid-east cash to avoid government dictation of how they should run their affairs. It was, the Beeb claimed, so they could continue to pay their directors huge bonuses.
I am of the opinion that as Barclays is an independent and private enterprise, what they pay their employees is a matter for them. If the shareholders don't like it, then they can do something about it. Why the hell is the BBC lambasting them for daring to strike out by themselves? As a tax-payer I'm quite happy about it. I don't especially want my cash to be pumped into banks. If it goes wrong and the bank looks like it is going to collapse, the government should turn round and say 'Sorry, that was a one time offer.'
But for the BBC to turn around on the news and effectively criticise them for taking cash from some Arab investigators rather than from the government, and for deciding to run their own affairs rather than to be under the control of Brown and his chums is a shocking state of affairs.
Now, I don't normally hold with the view that the BBC news is overt in its support for the political views of the Government. I do accept that they quite subtly push the agenda, but the constant trotting out of the Gorgon phrase 'hard working families' aside, I don't think it is too in your face.
However, the story that Barclays have decided to secure funding from someone other than the taxpayer was met with near screams of protest from the financial correspondent with the odd diction (his name escapes me). The line was that Barclays - 'that most quintessential of British banks' had taken mid-east cash to avoid government dictation of how they should run their affairs. It was, the Beeb claimed, so they could continue to pay their directors huge bonuses.
I am of the opinion that as Barclays is an independent and private enterprise, what they pay their employees is a matter for them. If the shareholders don't like it, then they can do something about it. Why the hell is the BBC lambasting them for daring to strike out by themselves? As a tax-payer I'm quite happy about it. I don't especially want my cash to be pumped into banks. If it goes wrong and the bank looks like it is going to collapse, the government should turn round and say 'Sorry, that was a one time offer.'
But for the BBC to turn around on the news and effectively criticise them for taking cash from some Arab investigators rather than from the government, and for deciding to run their own affairs rather than to be under the control of Brown and his chums is a shocking state of affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)