Learning to count.

No laughing matter, although I suspect someone has done something a little foolish having had a one or two drinks too many. No, this isn't denormalising drinking, it is an illustration of making a choice, or series of choices, and dealing with the consequences. Doesn't make the events any less tragic for those concerned, but if my suspicion is correct, then the individual in question has but one person to blame - themselves.

Anyhow, what am I blithering on about? This story from the Kent office of the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. I've taken a screenshot, as I suspect there maybe some hasty editing before long:

'After being hit by up to several vehicles'? Well how many is that then? I'm assuming the progression is thus: one - a few - several - lots - shitloads.

Also available on the new thesnowolf.com 

Pass the cyanide.

I'd like to be able to follow my own advice and not consume (see post below) but Mrs. Wolfers watches it religiously. I entertain myself in other ways, flying sorties over the blogosphere or reading a book, walking the real snowolf, doing the washing up, whatever.

I'm not even sure why she watches it, she doesn't seem to enjoy it.

What am I talking about?

Eastenders.

I've never enjoyed it. I'm not a lover of soap operas at all, but Eastenders takes the biscuit. Corrie is bearable, there is at least some comic relief, and from what I've seen the stories aren't as far fetched, and the actors, in my opinion, are better. Emmerdale used to be on the menu as well, but for reasons unknown to me has fallen off. The two Aussie ones I am spared, however the English equivalent, the truly toe-curlingly awful Hollyoaks does make an appearance on the occasional Sunday morning - it seems to go on for about 4 hours, and it is utter, utter tripe. I am assured by some that the girls are well fit, however when I do see it, all I see is a parade of young ladies who look identical and are all totally without bosom or behind. I'll have a proper woman with a proper figure please.

Anyhow, back to Eastenders. Before getting too earnest, can anyone explain to me how the pub is always packed to the gunwhales, unless there is something going on down the club, which, I hasten to add is the quietest nightclub in history? Nobody owns a car or a washing machine, and despite the presence of a tube station, will normally take a cab 'up west'. Nobody works outside the environs of the square - not one person commutes into town for work, and despite these low wage jobs, they can all afford to run these enormous, seemingly 8 bedroom, late Victorian town houses. Perhaps this accounts for the lack of washing machines and cars? Despite this low level of vehicle ownership, 'Phil' can make a living running a small backstreet grease pit, and can seemingly buy any business he wants, just like that.

It's all a bit odd.

What really does bug me about this programme though is the fact that no-one, not one character is permitted even a moment's fleeting joy or happiness. Any good news is almost immediately followed up with a personal or communal disaster. I appreciate that this is a dramatic construct, but it just seems to go on with unrelenting misery, for everyone. Perpetually. It is soul destroying stuff.

Further to that, I believe that the show puts out a very bad message. Nobody shows any aspiration beyond working on a fruit stall or loading and unloading washing machines and tumble dryers. Kids that do well at school and go off to university seem to be socially awkward or incompetent in some regard, or will return to the square a few weeks in to their first term having failed to cope with the demands placed upon them.

People are bad with money, forever tapping up the same old people for a loan, loans which are normally given with humiliating strings attached. Indeed anyone who does have money or is a success tends to be a criminal or morally objectionable in some other fashion.

The message to me is clear; You'll never amount to anything, so why even try? Everyone who has money, drive or ambition is a crook, conman or an arsehole, and you don't want to be like them. Just stick to what you know and make do with what you've been given.

It is a hateful, despicable programme, and quite why anyone watches it is beyond me.

I'm not suggesting it be banned, that just isn't my style, but I hold Eastenders up as a prime exhibit as to why the licence fee should be scrapped.

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

European Union member states should agree on a strong candidate from Europe to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn as head of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission said on Thursday.

Well, colour me surprised. Any particular reason for that? Let me think. . .

No. Can't think of one at all.

Oh, hang on.

Is it because their beloved currency is currently been dragged down under the weight of financial disasters brought about by their own vanity and incompetence?

As the biggest contributor to the IMF, it was natural that the 27 EU states should agree on a candidate, Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen told journalists.

Really? Is the EU the biggest contributor to the IMF? I thought it was the Americans. Oh, I see what you did there, what you did was add up the contributions made by the national economies of EU member states, and then, even less surprisingly, the European Commission tries to pass it off as its own. Note well, when the EU says 'should' it means 'must', 'will' or 'shall', this is not a suggestion, this is an order.

The EU's top economic official, Olli Rehn, said knowledge of the European economy would be a useful qualification for any new IMF chief.

"It is essential that the managing director of the IMF will be chosen based on merit and competence," he told a business conference in Brussels. "It is a merit if the person to be chosen for this task has knowledge of the European economy."

I'll translate that for you:

The EU's top economic official, Olli Rehn, said doing what they are bloody told by the European Commission would be a useful qualification for any new IMF chief.

"It is essential that the managing director of the IMF will be chosen based on our ability to control them completely," he told a business conference in Brussels. "It is a merit if the person to be chosen for this task has surrendered themselves completely to the European Commission."

Now watch as some French bird is railroaded in to the job, despite what the Americans, Brazilians, Chinese, Indians and Russians want or think. Don't for one minute think that the EU's ambitions are penned in by the Volga, Atlantic, Arctic ocean and the Med. They are desperate to extend their influence.

What is even more laughable is the BBC's continual breathless promotion of Gordon Brown (remember him? He's still an MP, although nobody has seen hide nor hair of him for about twelve months. You must remember him, one eyed bloke, fond of a bit of nostril gardening, the man who oversaw the biggest accrual of debt and most spectacular financial crash this country has ever seen. Yes. Him.) as one of the front runners for the job.

Really?

Really?

This is the man who Obama pretty much hid behind the sofa from when he came to visit. This is the man I'm sure the SNP are paying the Labour party huge amounts of money to assure he comes out squarely against independence because it would be a certain win. This is the man that Cameroid (rightly, for once) points at saying 'it's all his fault'. Are we to believe that this government would back Brown's appointment? His stock is lower than a snake's scrotum.

C'mon BBC, give it up. You're starting to look like a psycho ex-lover who keeps turning up on the doorstep weeping profusely.

Gosh! Really? Wow, thanks for telling me that.

Playtime at St. Arseclown's Junior School for the Terminally Hard of Thinking earlier today.

 
The Snowolf Den is undergoing a spot of spring cleaning today, the curtains are out on the line, the wardrobe has been cleared out and the stock evaluated and swapped for some of the stuff that was moved out in autumn, the light fittings have been taken down and cleaned and the furniture has been moved about and cleaned under.

Mrs. Snowolf is struck down with terrible hay-fever. She's been streaming and sneezing and snotting all over the place, therefore it's been down to me. I don't mind, I'm quite happy pottering about doing my thing. As an aside, and speaking as a non-sufferer of hay-fever, I'm convinced it doesn't exist, is purely psychological and a good excuse for the big pharma companies to hawk their lotions, potions and pills like some sort of latter day snakeoil salesmen.

Between the sneezing, blowings of the nose, rubbing of the eyes, popping of pills, administration of nasal treatments and increasingly violent exhortions of frustration and general yukness, we've had the shining beacon of public service broadcast; the finest purveyor of the televisual arts on the globe, the BBC on this morning. I've been exposed to one of the interminable programmes, that one with the slightly fey chap and the socially incompetent antiques 'expert' (and why do they always have such terrible dress sense and unfortunate hair?) who stomp around some old dear's house and evaluate the worthless tat she's managed to accumulate and then take her along to an antiques house, where she is coerced into jumping up and down in excitement at the thought that the sum total of the nik-naks in her house could cover the cost of a weekend in a caravan in bloody Frinton. I get the impression it is the commercial arm of the situation outlined by Leg-Iron the other day.

Anyhow, they uncovered a couple of well rusting 19th century cavalry swords. But, watch out, peasants! There's an important lesson to learn here, although to be honest the lesson I learned was don't watch daytime BBC whilst stood atop a ladder cleaning light fittings, as the effort expended in trying to come up with an inventive, eloquent, yet fatally offensive rant significantly raises the risk of falling off. The lesson?

Wait for it. . .

"You don't need a firearms licence for a sword. . ."

This brought forth one little explosion of enquiring as to why we have to hand over good money to the BBC for the privilege of watching this bilge. This was as nothing when compared to what followed:

". . . but swords should be kept well out of the reach of children."

Oh? Do you think? That puts me in a bit of a bind, because I've just uncovered a cache of weaponry whilst cleaning out the loft, all of it bladed, there's dirks and a cutlass, a broadsword, a battle-axe, a collection of lances, pikes and spears, I think I saw a mace as well. I was going to go and take it all down to the local primary school to see if they fancied having it, but now I've learned that bladed weapons may not be entirely appropriate playthings for kids. Who knew?

Oh, that's not all. Oh, no. Because the swords were rusted, it was also vital to be mindful of the risk of tetanus.

Listen mate, if I come bearing down on you with a five kilo cavalry blade, hell bent on cleaving your skull in twain, the last thing you're going to have to worry about is bloody tetanus.

Stick a fork in them, they're done.

An excellent example of the BBC reporting some of the news this morning. I'll show you what I mean:

Labour have won the Barnsley Central by-election, while the Lib Dems slipped to sixth in the South Yorkshire seat.

Who finished second, then?

UKIP, the Conservatives, the BNP and an independent all finished ahead of the Lib Dems, who had finished second in the seat in 2010's general election.

Blimey, but who finished second?

Lib Dem candidate Dominic Carman said his party had been given "a kicking", while Labour's victorious Dan Jarvis said it was a message to the coalition.

I think it will be the first of a number of protracted and very painful kickings that the LimpDims will get over the next few years, it will culminate in an almighty tonking at the next GE which will probably see them in ICU on life support. Errrrm, who came second?

The contest followed the former Labour MP's resignation over his expenses.

Second place though? Who was it? 

At the general election Eric Illsley had held Barnsley Central with a majority of just over 11,000 and 47% of the vote, with the Liberal Democrats in second place.

OK, so who finished second this time?

But the MP resigned his seat after pleading guilty to falsely claiming £14,000 in parliamentary expenses. He was later jailed for a year.

Yes, yes, we know that, but let's get back to last night, you know, the new bit of the news? Who ended up in that position between first and third place?

Labour got 14,724 votes in the by-election, extending their majority slightly to 11,771, but the turnout fell to 36.5%, compared with 56.4% at the last general election.

Yes, come on, come on!

Labour took 60.8% of the vote, UKIP's Jane Collins 12.19%, the Conservatives' James Hockney 8.25%, the BNP's Enis Dalton 6.04%, Independent Tony Devoy 5.23% and the Liberal Democrats' Dominic Carman 4.18%.

Boom! There it is, even if they don't actually say UKIP came second, there it is, in plain sight, UKIP came second. Why did it take them eight paragraphs to actually give us the news?

More to the point, and at the risk of being accused of accusing the BBC of pro-Tory bias, why is there no mention of UKIP seeing off the Tories, their closest (in terms of policy) rivals?

Yes, Labour won and increased their majority, but this is Barnsley, hardly a shock that. The fact that UKIP beat the Tories, by taking getting on to half again what the Tories managed to poll is big, big news. The LibDems? Meh, their goose was cooked the moment they entered into a coalition, because there's a big difference between the voters and the top table; the voters wanted LibDem policy, the top table wanted a go at pressing the buttons, and now Clegg and chums look like the little kids who press the buttons and waggle the joystick on an arcade machine even though no-one has put any money it. They're playing at being in government, bless.

The media, and the BBC particularly, are banging on about a disaster for Clegg, which it is, but it is oh so predictable. The real sit up and take notice headline is UKIP. They were never going to win this seat, not in a million years, but I would expect them to coming in behind the big three by some distance, perhaps even behind the BNP in a Labour seat as well, the question is, how many Tory voters abandoned the ship and plumped for a seat in the anti-EU lifeboat? Their share of the vote went up from 4.7% in May to to 12.1% yesterday, they've almost trebled their share of the take. The Tories have gone from 17.3% to 8.2%, so is it fair to assume that the 8% extra UKIP gained came from the 9% loss suffered by the Tories? I doubt many of them came from the 13% that deserted the LimpDims, who probably account for the biggest portion of voters who stayed at home in a turn out that was significantly less than was seen in May.

It is always difficult to tell in a by-election, but if we see the same in a general election, where the traditional Lib Dem voters decide that they don't want anything to do with the party, (or probably more likely, Clegg, anyone notice how quiet Vince Cable has been recently?), but have no intention of turning out for the other big two, then the next general election, especially if AV is carried in May, could be very interesting indeed.

What I'd really like to see is a by-election in a 'safe' Tory seat, it would be interesting to see how UKIP perform there, and also to see how much the BNP would take from a no-hope Labour candidate.

The coverage, such as it was, of the campaign in Barnsley was dominated with people bemoaning the general crapness of the big three. Change is on the wind, it is only a little breeze at the moment, but it could turn into a gale, given the right conditions, and they are conditions the big three are unwittingly bringing about.

As for the BBC? Of course they're not biased towards the Tories, that is a ridiculous notion. The only thing that trumps their hatred of the Tories is their love of the Euro-project, and so UKIP will get no recognition at all. Indeed even if the totals for Labour and UKIP in this by-election were transposed, the news would still be about the collapse of the LibDems. Yes, it was predictable, but that's news, isn't it? As far as they are concerned we want dog bites man, what happened was man bites dog, and the EU is a big, ugly, mangy dog.

No, we don't need to know about that at all.

Well it's failed every other time, so it is bound to work now.

Should the UK tax high-fat junk food to cut obesity rates? 

Oh Jesus, here we go.

Because the increase in tax on tobacco, alcohol, petrol, flying, electricity and gas has slashed the number of people who smoke, drink, drive, take holidays, cook and heat their homes, hasn't it? I mean, why wouldn't it work?

In the same way as taxing cigarettes helped to reduce smoking and related illnesses, could putting up the price of junk food - as Denmark has done - cut obesity rates in the UK?

Whoa, hang on. Taxing cigarettes has helped to reduce smoking related illnesses? Has it? Come on, you are a correspondent for a 'reputable' programme on a 'reputable' broadcaster, so I'm assuming you've referenced or linked to your source material for that, have you?

*scans the article*

No, they haven't.

I went on a day trip to Brugge (the French can sod off, it is a Flemish city, so I'll use the correct spelling, thank you very much) last week. Very nice it was too. Just on the Belgian side of the French border is the town of Adinkerke, it has a most impressive collection of tobacco retailers, all patronised almost exclusively by French and British. Why? Because tobacco taxes drive them there. So I would say that taxing cigarettes has helped to increase the profits of those living on the Franco-Belgian border and reduced the income to the treasury in both the UK and La Belle France.

I digress.

The first thing that struck me on the taxi journey into Copenhagen was how slim everyone looked.
I really had trouble spotting anyone fat.
And the second thing that became obvious the moment I stepped out of the cab and was almost run over by a cyclist, was that the Danes are clearly no strangers to exercise. 

Oh, for the love of God.

I've been to Copenhagen as well. Lovely city, very nice people, the Danes.

One thing I noticed; the national sport in Denmark, alongside eating pickled fish, is . . . smoking.

Prohibition does not work. Minimum pricing is illegal. Taxing junk food, really? Who is to say what counts? Are you willing to take on the legal might of McDonald's when you say their burgers are bad, but the burgers sold in the pub two doors down are ok?

I've an alternative, you could just fuck off and stop trying to make people into little grey miserable clones. Try it.

Oh, and BBC, Panorama markets itself as a news programme. Try covering some bloody news for a change, eh?

The One That Is Asking Can You Please Stop It? . . .

I've been driving around all over the place for work today. I can't stand commercial radio as it's all the same four shite songs interspersed with adverts of toe curlingly bad quality. I can't stand Radio 1 as it's like commercial radio but without the adverts, that tool Evans is on Radio 2, Radio 3 is so ridiculously worthy and Radio 4 is as dull as ditchwater. So given I didn't have the foresight to bring my CD's with me that leaves Radio 5. And it's been getting right on my wick today.

Two stories it's been leading with all day have driven me to the edge.

Firstly, they've been reporting this story about a report about the number of children being admitted to hospital with preventable diseases such as tooth decay and obesity. Sigh. Well, you remove any meaningful cooking lessons from school for a generation and what did you think was going to happen? All this citzenship guff started creeping in during my last couple of years at school, and that was under the last Tory administration. Indeed I'm certain I did a project in the 5th year (early 90's) in these extra-curricular yet timetabled lessons called 'Challenge' (God help us) about global warming and how we'd all be bollock deep in glacial melt water by the time 2000 came around. Nothing changes.

Anyhow, I digress. These lessons were at the expense of other lessons about how to cook and child development, and PE and useful stuff. This is what happens when you stop teaching and start indoctrinating. Good isn't it?

So, when I arrived home this afternoon, I was not in the slightest bit surprised to see what the subject of tonight's Panorama is.

From obesity to alcohol misuse, from rotting baby teeth to hearing problems caused by passive smoking - Britain's largest children's hospital is treating younger and younger children for health problems which are ultimately preventable. Many are the result of kids' lifestyles and are, according to the experts, causing them unnecessary suffering.

BBC Breakfast News and 5 Live have form in this area. Look, arsewipes, it's perfectly simple, if you are going to do news and current affairs programming, at the least I would expect the news to be reported. I do not expect you to make a programme and then build your news coverage around it. At best this is ethically questionable. I'd complain to them about it, but it would make no difference. The sooner this bunch of leeches lose their public funding the better. Let's see how much takeup you get on subscription for pretend news, Eastenders, the promotion of Lloyd-Webber's latest show and celebrities clearing out their lofts and heading off to the bootfairs.

The second story that has annoyed me is this constant whining from CEOP about Facebook not having a panic button. CEOP, which is like an elephant's graveyard for retired senior coppers even went over to DC to demand, Demand, a panic button on Facebook.

You can already log complaints of inappropriate conduct and content with Facebook, but it doesn't go to CEOP. You see, an American corporation who generate a huge amount of revenue off the back of advertising on their site have no vested interest in making sure that their users are safe, that their users' parents are satisfied it is safe, and in making sure that their sponsors are happy to be associated with a safe product.

Any parent who allows their kids uninhibited access to the 'net is just plain lazy and naive or neglectful, and it is not the place of a corporation to take over parenting duties for them.

Who the hell do CEOP think they are? How would we react if an American 'law enforcement' agency came over to London and started brow beating our corporations over how they do business?

Oh. . .

One final point in this ridiculous story. Isn't it strange how CEOP start stamping their feet and shreiking about how awful this is, and how they are absolutely the only people who can sort this out just as it seems likely that a Labour government is going lose office and herald a round of significant cuts in the public sector?

It would be cynical of me to draw any connection and to point out that CEOP's record thus far is not entirely glorious.

The One That Is Comparing And Contrasting. . .

Perhaps I’m easily confused, but these two stories on Al-Jabeeba’s website this morning have me scratching my head.

Exhibit A:

A review from the UK Met Office says it is becoming clearer that human activities are causing climate change.

It says the evidence is stronger now than when the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change carried out its last assessment in 2007.

The analysis, published in the Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change Journal, has assessed 110 research papers on the subject.

It says the earth is changing rapidly, probably because of greenhouse gases.

Blimey, that’s a bugger. What the hell are we going to do?

I will console myself by continuing to consume my morning news. Oh… hullo, what’s this?

Exhibit B:

Four ships break free from Baltic Sea ice.

Four ships have broken free after being stuck in the ice in the Baltic Sea, but around 50 remain stuck, officials say.

Some ships are stranded in the waters between Stockholm and the Aaland Islands, while others are stuck in the Bay of Bothnia to the north.

Many of the vessels are not likely to be freed for hours, the Swedish maritime authorities say.

They say no-one is hurt and there are currently no evacuation plans. However, the level of alert has been increased.

So, on one hand we’ve got polar bears breaking out the factor 40 and people in the centre of Australia building arks in anticipation of the biblical flood we’re expecting, and yet on the other hand we’ve got ships stuck in ice off the coast of Stockholm. I know that Sweden is hardly St. Lucia in winter, but Stockholm is a long, long way from the Arctic Circle, and it is bloody March.

Even the IPCC has declared a ‘pause’.

Anyone have any ideas? ‘Cause I’m stumped.

The One That Has Been Reading The Truth. . .

Just not the whole truth.

Having just sat through the BBC 10 o'clock news, I was not surprised to see that the lead story was Copenhagen, the Prince of Wales whittering on and the news that Broon is there to make sure it all gets nicely ballsed up.

There was another story from Seattle. Today the Boeing 787 'Dreamliner' had its maiden flight. Al-Jabeeba reports that:

'Its popularity is partly thanks to its lightweight design. Made of carbon and titanium,'

Wait for it, here comes the pay-off. What's the main benefit of this design?

'it should reduce fuel consumption as well as save on maintenance costs.'

And? And? Come on, join the dots, apart from reduced costs due to less fuel (around 20% less) what else is reduced?

*deep intake of breath*









*I'm holding it.*











*Still holding it*









*No, it's no good.*

When you bear in mind the lead story, nowhere in the report on the telly was the connection made between the reduced use of fuel and the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The website article sort of alludes to it.

Come on, just try to resist the agenda for once, won't you?

The One That Will Not Tolerate Any Discussion. . .

I was working the night shift last night. It's not too bad as I was in the warm and could get on with my work without interruptions and too many bloody silly phonecalls. It also meant that I was working alone, I had the whole office to myself.

One of the advantages is being able to listen to Richard Bacon on 5 Live, it is quite an entertaining mix of the earnest and the ridiculous, as you will possibly have seen in his cameo on The Thick Of It the other week. The late night phone in is great, all the freaks and wierdos come out to play.

Normally the freaks and wierdos are calling in, last night he had them there, in person, and it really did sound like Armando Ianucci had scripted the whole thing. I nearly choked on my muller crunch corner when at the start of the second hour of the show he posed the question that in light of climategate, is global warming real or a massive scam?

To ensure balance, he had a foaming at the mouth 'denier' who talked over everyone, incessantly, to the extent that the segment became almost unlistenable, and of course the absolute barking at the moon, batshit mental 'warmist'. He was an amazing piece of work and came out all guns blazing. No sooner had he been introduced than he embarked on the most amazing rant, browbeating the BBC for daring to allow any debate on the subject, it really was an exceptional demonstration of the practices of the warmist camp and is well worth a listen. It's about an hour into the podcast, the debate over the fidelity (or otherwise) of men that goes before isn't quite so entertaining.

The message that most people would have taken away is that warmists are all nutters who shout and scream, at everyone, regardless of if they agree with them or not, and deniers are all boring farts who just trot out stats and won't shut the hell up. I think the idea was to tell people not to worry about it and to let people who are better than you deal with the issue.

Amazing.

The One That Would Be Sleeping With One Eye Open. . .

. . . if I were Jonathon Ross.

Dimbleby being run over by a cow and missing QT.

Brucie contracting 'flu and missing Strictly.

Is this some plan by the board to save money by ensuring the BBC's biggest earners meet with 'accidents'?

Perhaps the release of those expenses only tell part of the story.

Hmmmmmmm.

The One That Is Saying Well Done. . .

I give the BBC stick quite a lot of the time, but I will always give credit where it is due, and it is due to the BBC trust this evening. They have decided that the BNP will appear on Question Time, I believe it is right a proper course of action for a party that holds two seats in the European Parliament and polled around a million votes in the recent election.

Usual and predictable caveat. Snowolf does not support the BNP and holds only one of their policies close to his heart, to get the UK out of the EU. Although I suspect we approach that conclusion from different angles.

I do not support the Labour party, nor the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or the Green Party, but I understand that they have a role to play on a political discussion programme.

Again, as I've pointed out time and again, the only way to ensure the BNP go precisely nowhere (beyond actually representing and speaking for the people you claim to represent) is to give them every single opportunity to espouse their nonsense. People aren't stupid, they'll see them for what they are.

Peter Hain's protestations about them not being a legally constituted party were a right chuckle and hold very little water.

Personally, as far as I'm concerned, it is their party and they can have whatever rules they want, they can restrict membership to whites only, to men only, to married men only, to married white men aged 48 called Nigel and working as greengrocers only if they want. I don't care.

Whether they are 'legally constituted' or not really doesn't bother me, and it doesn't seem to be a condition of entry on to the panel of QT either. If it were, Ian Hislop, Janet Street-Parker, Him out of Blur and the Chakrabati woman wouldn't be able to go on either, they are not legally constituted parties, and no-one has ever voted for them.

Still, what's to stop the BNP from trotting out the same excuses given by the Labour politicians? They could have said it was a technical breach of the law, in the style of Baroness Scotland. They could have claimed that everyone knows who they are, so what's the problem? Like Harridan Harperson. They could have claimed it was an oversight or an error, like countless MPs. No-one would have believed them, but that doesn't seem to bother the others.

No, the BNP admitted that this was the case, and Nick Griffin gave an undertaking to rectify the situation. From where I'm sitting, and as reprehensible as he is, that puts him way ahead of a large number of other elected representatives, and maybe makes him less reprehensible than them. It is not only views which marks a person out, it is their actions and the way they conduct themselves.

I don't like them, but accept that until things change in this country, they are here to stay. I can deal with that, it would appear that many others cannot, and they would stamp out a corner of democracy in the name of the same.

For shame.

The One That Hopes It Is A Typo . . .

Or does it really reveal some good old BBC bias?

In this article from Pravda which casts an eye over the chances of the English Democrats in the forthcoming European elections, it reads in part:

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) appears to be the main beneficiary of public anger over the MPs' expenses scandal, while the British National Party (UKIP) believes it is on the verge of gaining its first seats in the European Parliament.

Hmmm, is that people really feel in White City, or is it just a typo? Let's see how they take to change it. . .

The One That Is Collecting The Kindling. . .

'We've found a witch! May we burn her?'

'Well how do you know she is a witch?'

'She talks like one!'

Carol Thatcher said a bad word.

I don't know the context, I wasn't party to the off-air, private conversation.

The BBC have demanded and unconditional apology. Carol has refused to give one. Whether she is right to do this or not, I don't know, because as I said, I don't know the context, I wasn't party to the off-air, private conversation.

What I'm concerned about is the fact that Thatcher's refusal to throw herself upon the mercy of the licence theives hasn't resulted in her being barred from all BBC programming. She's just been dropped from the One Show. Al-Beeb have said 'the 55-year-old will not be banned from the BBC as a whole.'

Well hang on (I'm tempted to say 'Play the white man.'), if this crime is so heinous why hasn't she been barred from everything?

What's really caused offence here? The throw-away aside or the refusal to show sufficient cod contrition? I've a feeling it is the latter.

Pathetic.

The One That Is Very Angry Indeed. . .

Many thanks to Bishop Hill who made a very brief posting and drew my attention to this shocking revelation from Harmless Sky.

In short, the BBC has re-edited Barack Obama's inauguration speech to basically fit their own agenda.

Newsnight reported him as saying:

We will restore science to its rightful place, [and] roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.

What he actually said:

Paragraph 16

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Paragraph 22

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

And why? We all know that Obama has bought (been suckered?) into the 'climate change' agenda, so why the need to wilfully manipulate this speech?

I've been of the opinion that the BBC put a very definite spin on news to suit their own agenda but to do this is beyond the pale.

Licence fee, blah blah, subscription, harrumph harrumph, bias, yada yada, but this truly disgusts me, indeed I feel the need to write a letter.

I never trust what politicians say, now I can't even trust that what they've said is sufficiently well reported for me not to trust it. Duplicitous politicians and deceitful media, oh what a wonderful combination.

The One That Is Cold, Angry and also Delighted. . .

Snowolf ventured to the pitchside this afternoon to see his beloved green and whites beat their closest rivals 1-0, and no, I'm not talking about the Old Firm clash north of the border.

It was bloody freezing, my tonsils are the size of beachballs, my head feels like there's a Frenchman living in it and I've got a cold coming on. No matter, we won and I'm delighted.

So I'm not going to get this outrageous peice of cockwaffle from the BBC get me down too much, but I cannot let it pass.

I like Vaclav Klaus, mainly because he's not afraid of standing up for himself and his country. This means the EU despises him and have already reacted in an amusing fashion after he made a bee-line for Irish 'No' campaigner, Declan Ganley.

Klaus is one of a number of post-Soviet bloc presidents who remembers only too well what life was like under the hammer and sickle. He's hardly likely to romp towards the (Western Soviet) European Union with open arms, is he?

According to Al-Beeb;

But Mr Klaus likes to think of his life as a kind of constant dissidence against what he sees as the erroneous views of the majority.

Erroneous views of the majority? Who claims that? Does he claim the views of the majority are erroneous? Is he not, after all, President, democratically elected by the good people of the Czech Republic? Only the second person to hold that democratically tag since the end of the war? He's not going to say that the majority of those who voted are erroneous, they voted for him.

No, what Chris Bowlby of Radio 4 wants us to believe is that the majority of people in the EU are pro-EU. Well that's bullshit, would that we had the chance to put it to the test.

I'm not suggesting that the majority of people are anti-EU, that would be naive, most people couldn't give a pair of Dingo's kidneys, that is the big problem. However, I think it's changing.

That scares tosspots like Bowlby, Barroso the Maoist and the all the other closet Communists in Brussles witless. More power to your arm Vaclav, finally, an EU President I would readily vote for.

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.

The One That Thinks It's Worth A Punt. . .

So Russell 'Oh Why Couldn't I Have Been Born Kenneth Williams' Brand has decided to quit the BBC over the Manuelgate answerphone spat.

The timeline for this makes interesting reading, ten days after the event, and after the BBC had pulled the I-Player recording, 4772 people had complained.

Today, 11 days after the bomb went off, in excess of 18,000 people have called the Beeb to complain.

Now please, explain to me how around 14,000 people have been so offended by something that hasn't been re-broadcast that they were moved to call, write, email or in some other medium lodge a complaint.

I don't particularly like Brand. Ross is OK in small doses. But fucking hell. One of the quotes attributed to Sachs' granddaughter is that the two should 'at least pay with their jobs.'

At least? Where else do you want to go? Whipped naked in Trafalgar Square? Beheaded at The Tower, head on a spike over Tower Bridge and body quartered with sections sent to Dover, Penzance, Barrow and Newcastle?

Let's not get too precious shall we?

As always, the Daily Mash do a great take off of the whole situation here and here.

Now, does anyone have any tapes of Cabinet members making prank phonecalls? It seems to be the way to go. . .

Update.

Having reflected on the story, and the number of complaints it has attracted, I can't help but wonder if these complaints are in large part a protest at the amount of cash Wossy gets handed for doing his thing. Let us not forget that the licence fee is an effective tax on the ownership of televisions, and those employed by the BBC are effectively civil servants.

I suppose that if I heard a story about someone from DEFRA calling somebody up and leaving insulting and personal remarks on their answerphone, I'd be first in the queue calling for their heads.

Perhaps this goes to underline the fact that the BBC are little more than robber barons, or highwaymen, it is unfortunate that the old line about quality of programming just doesn't hold much water anymore. A serious investigation into the funding of the BBC needs to be made, not in light of this incident, but it certainly does draw attention to the organisation.

The One That Wants His Bloody Money Back . . .

Having heaved my sweaty carcass off the sofa after Final Score this evening, I was astonished to see a programme of the worst. . . shitness. . . broadcast on BBC1 whilst I was doing the washing up.

Absolute toss.

'Hole In The Wall' has to rate as perhaps the worst half hour's TV I have watched since. . . well, ever. It consists of Dale Winton and some 'celebrities' (Darren Gough, Vic Reeves, Vanessa Feltz and some others who I don't know) in skin tight silver cat suits and crash hats attempt to stand in a pose appropritate to a hole cut out in a quickly advancing wall. They will then pass through said hole, or not. Resulting in a dunking in a tank of water as the momentum of said approaching wall will carry them from their perch if their pose does not allow them to pass through the hole.

Absolute toss.

Even worse than 'Pets Win Prizes' which previously held the title of being the 'Shittest Way to Pass Half an Hour - (not involving ameobic dysentry)' also, and probably without coincedence, hosted by Dale Winton.

Absolute toss.

And they want to put the licence fee up? The BBC are lucky I'm not marching on TV centre with an assualt rifle and an RPG.

It was, in case I haven't made it clear, absolute toss.

The One That Is Applauding Noel Tinybeard. . .

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be saying 'Good on you, Edmonds.' But this story (oddly enought taken from Al-Beeb) has had me nodding in agreement.

You see the funny little man has decided to stop paying his licence fee because of the Beeb's idea that 'it's OK to badger, hector and threaten people.'

And that's a fine reason to stop paying. The other fine reason is that most of the output is utter, utter crap, news with a political agenda, screwy phone ins and competitions and a management who are incapable of communicating with their staff and who waste cash at a rate which would raise eyebrows in the Home Office.

Bollocks to them, bring in Pay-Per-View, I'd certainly not spend much on watching Celebrity Jumble Sale Auction Room Chefs Sell Houses, At A Boot Fair.

They take our money and are as close to being completely unaccountable as makes no difference. 'Aaah, but they are the national broadcaster' people say. Well, yes. But supposing we nationalised Land Rover, how many would say 'Aaah, but they're the national car company' when they found out that their road tax was being pumped into the 'Drovers to the exclusion of all other car manufacturers?

What a bunch of bastards, and it is a shame, because as I've pointed out before, the BBC is capable of brilliance - but fuck me, those flashes few and far between these days.