Stupid, stupid everywhere, and no-one stops to think.

Bugger it being a big weekend for sport, this has been one of the biggest weekends for idiocy I can remember in a long time. Let's start with sport though;

Iran has indicated it will attend the 2012 Olympics in London, despite complaining that the Games logo resembles the word "Zion".

I couldn't help but chuckle when the story of a proposed boycott broke, but it would appear that perhaps it isn't that important to them after all.

They objected on the grounds that its resemblance to the word Zion - a Biblical term for Israel - was racist.

But now the Iranian-backed Press TV has quoted an official as saying Iranians will "participate gloriously".

Will they? Oh, that's nice. It's not often I agree with Cameron but he hits the nail on the head here:

In an interview with the London-based paper Jewish News, Mr Cameron said: "It's completely paranoid. If the Iranians don't want to come, don't come - we won't miss you.

I think Iran may have one or two more important things to worry about. Boycott the Olympics because the logo is a Zionist insult to Islam? Really? I can understand you boycotting the Olmypics because the logo is crap and a PR catastrophe, but this?

William Hague isn't about to quit, and hasn't lost his mojo and has the full support of the PM. That makes me think there'll be a new Foreign Secretary before the month is out. It seems that Baldy Bill hasn't learned from his mistakes of the past:

“So there’s a certain irony,” he adds. “People tell me there’s a newspaper article saying I lack energy, presumably written by some lounge lizard who’s rolled up at 11am and wondered what to write about (without being rude about journalists!) when I’m already on my second country that day. We’ve put a huge amount of new energy into British foreign policy.”

How many pints at how many pubs on the dray round? 'When I'm already on my second country that day'? I have visions of Hague sat at a table, with the tablecloth tucked into his collar, knife and fork in hand.

What is it with politicians and willy waving? What is it with politicians and making laws, then deciding that the laws they've made don't apply to them because they're too important? EU law especially. I forget who it was who made the point in the House over the prisoner votes debate about the danger of governments picking and choosing which laws they abide by, and the SNP are masters of this.

Plans to introduce minimum drink pricing in Scotland will be revived if the SNP wins May's Holyrood election.

If, although given the low regard the big three are held in at present, May probably can't come quick enough for the SNP.

But they [the plans] were opposed by Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories, who said minimum pricing would penalise responsible drinkers and was probably illegal.

It doesn't matter if it's illegal though, because a politician wants to do it. The thing with politicians (especially Socialists) is that the rule of law is absolutely sacrosant, right up until the point where it is obstructive or inconvenient for them, then it must be ignored.

But addressing delegates, Ms Sturgeon, also the Scottish health secretary, will say the SNP acted like a government, while opponents acted disgracefully.

Oh, how telling. She's right though, by completely disregarding a law they don't like, the SNP have indeed acted just like I would expect a government to act. The disgraceful actions of the opposition must only refer to their saying 'but that's against the law, we can't do that', if so, I have no desire to be a disgrace, does this give me carte-blanche to ignore all laws? Because I'm game.

As Counting Cats pointed out the Ecoloons are already starting to make capital out of the quake and tsunami in Japan. He has some arseclown putting it all down to homeless polar bears, or something. Meanwhile in Germany. . .

The nuclear accident in Japan has sparked a discussion about atomic power in Germany, where a massive anti-nuclear protest was already planned for Saturday. A senior Green Party politician has said that some German plants are vulnerable to the same kind of failure as happened at Fukushima 1.

Riiiiiight. Vulnerable to the same kind of failure?

According to the US Geological Survey, the last earthquake in Germany was as recent as February 14th this year, it came in at a jaw dropping 3.9 on the Richter Scale. 3.9 is labelled as 'often felt, but rarely causes damage'. The difference between 3.9 in Germany and 8.9 in Japan is akin to the difference between dropping teaspoon on your kitchen floor and dropping a reinforced concrete box full of lead and elephants on your floor.

I can find no records of a tsunami in either the Baltic or the North Sea. So when you say that 'some German plants are vulnerable to the same kind of failure as happened at Fukushima 1', you mean that after an earthquake of unbelievable power and then being hit by a bloody great tsunami it still hasn't blown up and made the east coast of Japan uninhabitable for the next four generations, I think I'd be tempted to take my chances. I wonder how many Japanese wind turbines are standing after the quake and tsunami. I'm betting not many, but then I'd be surprised if there were that many to start with, because the Japanese have more sense and realise that a functioning country is more important than making offerings to some green god.

It looks like 10,000 people in one town, half the town's population, has been wiped out. It makes Aberfan look like a stubbed toe, and you have the gall to make capital out of it for your own self-importance and political agenda? The Greens really are some of the least attractive people about, there is no depth to which they will not stoop.

The One That Isn't Celebrating. . .

Ahhhh, New Year's Eve. It's a celebration I struggle with. It seems to me to be a wholly false celebration of the marking of passing from one completely arbitrary set of numbers to another completely arbitrary set of numbers. You'd get some odd looks if you got a group of people together stood around in a pub as they enthusiastically count down the last ten seconds of March 15th into March 16th, and then as the clock strikes midnight held hands in a bloody ridiculous fashion and sang a fucking stupid song.

No, NYE is something I find it hard to get excited about. So the calendar moves from 09 to 10. So? It could have been done last week, it could be done next week, next month. Indeed wouldn't it make sense to change the year on the last day of winter/first day of spring? That'd be tidier than having one season over two years. Very slapdash.

The problem is the socialising angle. I am a social animal, but I get annoyed with the concept that on this night of the year, it is almost mandatory to have a good time. It doesn't work like that. I'm unlikely to have a good time tonight, if the production of snot was taxable I'd be in the street by now, and to make matters worse I see Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt have been given honours for their services to playing the same three chords for the last forty years.

Then there's the question of where to go? A lot of pubs will charge £20 for entry (in advance) with the promise of a buffet and some fizz at midnight. You'll find the buffet is no more than a bowl of cocktail sausages and a tube of pringles and the fizz is some carbonated Bulgarian 2-star petrol, you then realise why you don't go into that pub for the rest of the year as the clientelle are arses to a man. So after an hour you wish you were at home, but you've paid £20 quid, dammit, and you MUST have a good time.

Alternatively there's the pub you do use quite regularly. None of this ticket bollocks there. So by half seven you can't get in the door. If you have got in the door by 7:29, you can't get to the bar. And it's hot, very hot. Your arms are pinned to your side, and if you do manage to wiggle your way to the bar, you're going to get a hot pint because the glasses are being taken right out of the glasswasher. Not that it really matters, because your arms are pinned to your side by the crush of humanity, so you can't pick the glass up. If you do manage to pick it up, you can be assured that some kink in the crowd mechanics will see to it the drink is sloshed out of the glass all down your shirt and over the floor. Still, you've not paid £20 and you MUST have a good time.

Perhaps it's better to be around your friend's house? They're having a little get-together. You'll be able to hear yourself talk, you'll be able to sit down, you'll be able to have a drink. Yes, that sounds much more civilised. So you go to your friend's house, you like your friend, that is one of the defining qualities of your friendship, that you get on. So you trot round, a bottle of decent wine (but not the really good stuff, you can be sure someone will put a dash of lemonade in theirs and ruin it) and some passable chocolate or something to sit on the table with the cocktail sausages, tortilla chips and those funny little baked things with the dip that no-one ever touches. After half an hour you remember the conclusion you came to at their summer BBQ, whilst you like your friend, your friend's friends are all arseholes. Especially the couple where she talks about how her 4 year old is really advanced for her age and is reading Foucault and then goes off on a rant about the problem with the English middle-class, without realising the irony that the problem with the English middle-class is people like her. Her husband/partner, you know the one, fucking stupid hat and a multi-coloured waiscoat over his black turtle-neck jumper, is pouring wine down his ridiculously bearded maw. He gets more lecherous, devastated that he has committed himself to his harridan of a shrew shreiking about the middle classes, he starts to 'accidentally' rub against the other females navigating around the house. He thinks some semi-erudite put down gives him an invisible shield against retribution from other halves of women whose breasts he is now squeezing when any of them come into his reach. And the put down does work, until the proper working class bloke, who has been having his ego massaged by the shrew in some attempt at faux solidarity, launches himself at the bearded wanker and gives him a good old fashioned working-class kicking. It is still only half nine and you MUST have a good time.

Fuck it, I'll spend the evening at home. Except. . .

Most people who drink spirits at home pour well over what they would get in a pub when trying to give a single measure, figures suggest.

Oh, for fuck's sake, can we not be left alone? Not even for one night of the year?

The government's Know Your Limits Campaign found that among 600 people tested, the average amount poured was 38ml, compared with a standard 25ml.

Those aged 31 to 50 - the most generous pourers - gave an average of 57ml.

Well bloody good for them, what kind of cretin put optics up in their house, anyway?

It then bleats on about units and daily limits and women and men and not being a kill joy, but at least I got a fucking invite for this evening, I bet none of these knobjockeys were asked out.

Here's the money-shot.

This advice comes at a welcome time as recent data shows that three quarters of people intend to see in the New Year at home. It is also timely as people think about how they can improve their health in 2010.

Oh, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. My health would be improved by my blood pressure not being raised through the roof by reading shit like this.

Hang on, three quarters of people? At home? Perhaps I will go to the pub tonight?

Bollocks to it. I'll be in bed by half ten.

Happy New Year all.

The One That Wants Them To Shut The Hell Up. . .

Cheap deals on alcoholic drinks should be illegal, a new report is proposing, with a call for tighter controls on the marketing of alcohol.

The British Medical Association (BMA) argues young people are highly influenced by advertising and price deals, which encourage them to drink excessively.

It is none of your fucking business. Doctors will moan that cheap booze leads to them doing more medical stuff on people.

It doesn't. People drinking too much leads to them doing more medical stuff on people. If people didn't get sick or do silly things they'd all be out of the job that pays them shit loads for not working evenings and weekends and allowing them to play golf four days a fucking week.

What is it about doctors? Why do they think that a 5 year medical degree makes them not just an expert on medicine, but also everything else in the whole fucking world?

This is like an association of mechanics asking for diesel to be banned because people keep putting it in petrol driven vehicles. Would they? No. They may feign sympathy when it happens, but inside a little voice is singing the words to the happy dance. It keeps food on their table.

Perhaps the Licensed Victuallers Association can start complaining about how long waits in A&E are making their customers stay out of pubs longer and that something should be done.

Wind your fucking necks in, shut up, make people better. That's your job, it is not your job to be our guardians/nannies/camp guards or to make political policy.

Got it?

The One That Is Advising You To Mind Your Own Fucking Business. . .

I blogged yesterday about corporatism. Slowly but surely big companies are becoming as important, if not more important, than elected and traditional government institutions.

ACPO set the fashion by being a private company that is somehow in charge of police, so who better than Asda to be in charge of the country's moral wellbeing?

A man who was prevented from buying a bottle of wine in a Sussex supermarket because he was with his 15-year-old daughter has criticised its policy.

Mark Brown said he told staff at Asda in Brighton that the wine was for him.

But Mr Brown, who often shops with his daughter Madison, said he was told he could not be served the alcohol unless she had ID to prove her age.

Right, but even if she was going to drink it at home, it's none of Asda's fucking business.

A statement from Asda said it had been "erring on the side of caution in line with national guidelines".

Yes, but it's none of your fucking business. Why not be more cautious? Why not refuse to sell alcohol to someone who lives in a town where people are under the age of 18.

The company is one of several supermarkets using the new checkout policy in order to prevent individual members of staff from being prosecuted for selling alcohol to someone under age.

Yes, but he isn't under age. Fucknuts.

Richard Dodd, of the British Retail Consortium, said: "I think parents should actually be reassured to see retailers being so rigorous in their determination not to sell alcohol to under-18s."

Do you? Do you indeed. I think you should MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS. You righteous, preaching, self important little cuntwaft. Because the thing is, the guy that was buying the alcohol was over 18. Do you see?

Do you?

It's very simple.

Cunts.

(Sorry, I try not to swear too much, but really, these fucktards should be lined up against a wall and be shot. And I'm virulently anti-death penalty.)

The One That Says 'Mind Your Own Bloody Business'. . .

The latest in health and lifestyle choice advice centres, earlier today.

Some people I could quite happily hit in the face with a frying pan, in a 'Bottom' style. The repeated clang and manic Ade Edmonson grin would be most theraputic.

Pravda South East was leading with this story tonight:

Caroline Williams was 23 weeks pregnant with her second child when she was asked to leave the Sussex Cricketers pub in Hove, East Sussex last Saturday.

The 26-year-old hairdresser said she felt humiliated and accused the pub staff of acting like "drink police."

"I was on a rare night out with some friends. I had a pint of lager and a friend offered to get me another half – that was going to be my limit.

"He was refused service because it was for me. When I later took a sip from another friend's glass, the assistant manageress asked me and my friends to leave.

It is perhaps not surprising that the assistant manager stands by her decision, she obviously knows what is best for everyone else, and her beliefs must take precedence over those of all others.

A pub spokeswoman said Mrs Williams, "a heavily pregnant lady who was drinking alcohol", and her friends had been asked to leave because the assistant manager was concerned.

Ahhh, ain't that nice? You go out for a drink and the people you pay to serve you beer take such a concern for your wellbeing that they then tell you to do one.

Liberties, as spoken of yesterday; The proprietors are well within their rights to decide who may and may not patronise their establishment. Those patrons are well within their rights to walk right past this pub in Hove, and to go and spend their money somewhere else.

With so many pubs closing each week, you'd have thought that the managers of The Sussex Cricketer would have been keen to have held on to as many customers as possible.

When the Righteous are in official positions it is difficult to do much about them, directly. When they are in private enterprise, you just take your cash elsewhere. I hope this party and many others do.

What a lackwit this manager is, not only sanctimonious and hectoring, but also lacking any business acumen. Their future doesn't look great, does it?

The One That Is Only An Occasional Drinker. . .

The government's top medical adviser has drawn up plans for a minimum price for alcohol which would double the cost of some drinks in England.

FUCK

OFF

YOU

CUNTS

That plain enough for you?

The One That Thinks It Knows What's Coming Next. . .

And how do I know? Simple, it has already started.

OK, let's start with smoking. I smoke, and I hate it. It is expensive, makes me stink, destroys my taste buds and is generally unpleasant. I started when I was 21, it was the single stupidest thing I've ever done and I wish I'd never started. The whole bansturbation mania surrounding smoking pisses me off, although I personally prefer pubs without smoke, I can see no reason why smoking exclusive and smoking inclusive venues can't be had, but that and the new proposals surrounding the display and sale of cigarettes isn't the point here.

The point is that as soon as smoking is trussed up, the target of the nannies is going to be alcohol. We've seen the first shots fired today. Firstly, today is the day that drinking on the London transport network is now verboten. We also have notification of plans to stop the under 18's drinking in public.

Now, most reasonable people would respond that this is a reasonable step. Isn't socio-political conditioning a wonderfully insidious thing? Because teenagers drinking in public is immediately associated with teenagers fighting, intimidating passers by, vomiting and any other of a legion of anti-social activities. It always starts with the children. (Won't someone pleeeeeease think of the children?) Firstly, isn't existing drunk and disorderly and public order legislation robust enough to deal with this?

Secondly, the reason that kids are carrying on like this is because they're so fucking bored. There's nothing to do, where are the town centre cinemas? Closed, to go out of town with the wonderful shopping centre, and there's no public transport, that's where. Where are the youth clubs of yore? Closed, because of obscene insurance rates brought about because if an accident happens, it must be someone's fault and thus they owe you a shit load of cash.

Thirdly, what about kids drinking perfectly legally, such as is allowed under licencing laws with their meals with a family. That is drinking in public, is this to be banned as well?

Once again we see huge amounts of our cash spunked on another initiative, the Police with loads of PCSOs but no officers to enforce the law. It isn't a legislation problem, it is an enforcement and parenting problem.

I smoke, and smoke responsibly, but shortly will not be allowed to do so, or if allowed my perfectly legal behaviour will be made very difficult indeed.

I drink as well, I await the ban on alcohol advertising, drinking in public (excepting Royal palaces, obviously), the display of alcohol in shops and so on. This will be because a small number of people cannot behave in a reasonable fashion. It is akin to the teacher threatening to keep the whole class in detention if the miscreant fails to own up. . . And when the miscreant does own up, punishing the whole class anyway.

Then the ban on advertising confectionary and fatty foods, eating these products in public, the display of said items. . .