Schnell! Kerzen kaufen!

So, the Euro, then. Those on the fringes are starting to drop like flies, this increases the strain on the bigger member states who are going to have to paddle like stink to prevent the ship from going under.

Not since the 1950's has German industry been so important, and not just to Germany now, who are going to have to ensure they have the financial clout to prop the currency up, but also to the others who are relying on that clout to ensure they don't end up eating out of dustbins.

Thankfully, German industry is one of the most efficient industrial programmes in the world, a real powerhouse, the envy of the rest of Europe.

Obviously, doing anything to damage that industry would be madness.

Wouldn't it?

Well, the German government has announced it is embarking on the biggest programme of industrial sabotage the world has ever seen.

Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.

Riiiiiiiight.

There have been mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany in the wake of March's Fukushima crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami.

Which is kinda like the residents of a small town in the middle of Australia hitting the streets in panic about a flood in Cumbria. Earthquakes and tsunamis just aren't going to happen in Germany. But never mind, why let something simple like that get in the way of a good panic?

Mr Rottgen said the seven oldest reactors - which were taken offline for a safety review immediately after the Japanese crisis - would never be used again. An eighth plant - the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, which was already offline and has been plagued by technical problems, would also be shut down for good.

Six others would go offline by 2021 at the latest and the three newest by 2022, he said.

Of course, by doing this, Germany has ensured that it is immune from any nuclear issues at all, should something happen in France (which is almost entirely reliant on nuclear power, sensible Froggies) any fall out will stop at the border. The town of Saarbrucken will be unaffected.

There's still a way to extract guilt money though, still a means to demand the tithe to the Great Green God.

Mr Rottgen said a tax on spent fuel rods, expected to raise 2.3bn euros (£1.9bn) a year from this year, would remain despite the shutdown.

So, you're going to continue taxing an industry which will have no means of generating any income? Thereby costing the private investors and pension funds millions, at a time when you've got no cash.

Smart.

But how will they power their industry? The greens in the German coalition are going to be a bit sniffy about coal and gas fired stations, aren't they?

"The various studies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . ."

Oh, this is going to be good.

". . . show that renewables could deliver, basically, global electricity by 2050," he said.


"Germany is going to be ahead of the game on that and it is going to make a lot of money, so the message to Germany's industrial competitors is that you can base your energy policy not on nuclear, not on coal, but on renewables."

Making a lot of money? This is the same renewable energy industry that sucks up public money like an industrial pump and then pisses it all up the wall? That renewable industry?

A tip; if you want a BMW, Mercedes or VW car, make sure you buy one in the next ten years, because they'll not be making them in Germany before long.

Sell Euros, the currency is screwed after this, take the money and invest it in German candle sellers. They'll make a bomb.

Phew! That's a relief.

Cornwall Council has admitted giving out the wrong figures for its credit card bills which led to claims of lavish spending on travel and hotels.

A bit of human error, but these things happen, as long as the council tax payers of Kernow are satisfied they've got it right now, that's the main thing. Embarrassing, yes, but let's cut some slack, shall we?

It told the Daily Telegraph it had spent nearly £9m on credit cards since 2008, including on overseas travel.

Nine million? That's quite a bill, I should hope they have got that wrong.

But the council said it had not checked the figures before releasing them, which were "at least" £1.3m less.

At least? I'd hope they were much less than that, even if it is coming in at £7.7m, that's still a hell of a lot of money, especially for a county which is not the most densely populated.

Among the figures was £114,142 for hotels in India, which was actually in rupees, and should have been £1,645.

Yeah, big difference in those amounts, you still get a lot of Rupee for your quid.

The figures, given to the newspaper in a Freedom of Information request, were published on Saturday.

It just shows the importance of checking your stats before going to pre. . .

Whoa, whoa, rewind a moment.

India?

India?

What the hell were Cornwall County Council doing going to India? Indian Queens, yes, but India?

No, still looks like lavish travel to me.

*boggle*

You get the brushes, I'll get the whitewash.

No, not another post about the shenanigans going on at LPUK.

It seems like only a couple of days ago that I posted about the corruption investigation going on at FIFA.

Mainly because it was only a couple of days ago that I posted about the corruption investigation going on at FIFA.

Well, I'll give Bin Hammam 10/10 for havoc raising, but 0/10 of originality.

You see, Mohamed Bin Hammam, the head of the Asian Football Confederation is standing for election as the President of FIFA next Wednesday. The current incumbent, Swiss Sepp Blatter takes a dim view of this. Since Joao Havelange, the previous President and part-time Jabba the Hutt impersonator unseated the old gent, blazer and general duffer, Sir Stanley Rous in 1974, it has sort of been an unwritten rule that whilst there is a Presidential election once every four years, you don't stand unless the incumbent announces his intention to toddle off. Even then it appears to be more of an annointing (usually with Adidas boot-oil*) than a proper election.

Bin Hammam has broken a golden rule and Blatter obviously decided to punish it for him by bringing in the 'Ethics Committee', an anti-corruption force with such a poor reputation that even OLAF point at them and piss themselves laughing.

Jack Warner has been pulled into it as well. He's a thoroughly unattractive man, just look at his record at how he blows hot and cold towards the FA and the UK in general.

Not to be outdone it appears that Bin Hammam has pulled the same trick on Blatter now.

As far as I can make out all three of them are as corrupt as each other. The whole organisation is lousy with corruption. I find as I grow older my love for the game diminshes, not just because of the corruption amongst the blazers, but also because of the antics of the players and managers, both on and off the pitch. I still get a little angry at the naked feathering of nests, at the end of the day football is only a game and you have a very easy choice to consume or not, but it is the world game - and at the risk of sounding like a FIFA promo video, it really can be a force for good. The sport and its supporters deserve better.

Quite how any election can go ahead now on Wednesday and have even a pretence of credibility is beyond me. There may well be a third man sat in the wings, thanking his lucky stars that things have turned out so well, make no mistake Blatter, bin Hammam and Warner are hugely powerful people in the organisation.

From what I can see this is a problem to a lesser or greater extent with administrators in most sports, they seem to be the only class who are more venal and corrupt than politicians, or perhaps because of a lack of accountability and that because at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter, they just aren't as polished as hiding it as politicians.

It is unfortunate that it is easy to tar them all with the same brush. I feared the worst when Michel Platini, a sublime player and half-way sensible chap took on the top job at UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), it remains to be seen what sort of administrator he'll turn out to be. However, the use of the patented Wolfers Trophy Test is good indicator. To his credit, Platini has gone on record to say he prefers a Wembley style affair where the victorious team in a final climbs to a balcony rather than an on-pitch stage, this simplifies matters no end, but watch an administrator handing a trophy to a winning captain. If they get out of the bloody way before the captain raises the trophy skywards and the confetti goes off, it is a good thing, if he strives to keep a grubby mitt on it whilst the captain initiates the celebrations, this is a bad thing and shows how desperate he is to be part of the action.

Platini seems to be in the former camp. But he is one of the very few world class players who has been that man with the trophy in his hand on his own merit, to move into administration. One can only question why the likes of Beckenbauer (although he has been active in the DFB), Charlton R, Van Basten, Zoff et al haven't made the move as well. Perfectly intelligent and capable people, could it be they view the administrators with the same disdain and don't want to get involved?

One thing is for sure, this whole affair promises to make the Salt Lake olympics scandal look like a storm in a teacup. At least there there was no cash changing hands. I think for the good of the game it would be best if the whole show at FIFA was laid waste and the organisation started over. Unfortunately I think the whole thing will be a whitewash, the message will have been sent out by Blatter that if you want a career at FIFA, you don't stand against him.

If you're interested in the ongoing story, I can heartily recommend 'Foul' by Andrew Jennings, a real jaw dropper. Jennings is not a well liked man at FIFA, so he must be doing something right.

*Blatter is very much an Adidas man, the sportswear company have enormous power in the organisation, no-one else gets a look in.

Did I do the right thing?

A few days ago I set out my thinking about jumping ship from LPUK to UKIP. Well, my membership card arrived on Monday. That means I can now register for the UKIP forum and read about what is going on in the UKIP world.

I'm not sure how I feel about the UKIP forums being available to registered members only. Posting, probably fair enough, reading? I don't know. One of the strengths of the Libertarian cyber-movement is the ability to access material without trouble, what also sets the Libertarian set apart is the willingness to allow unmoderated comment on party and personal blogs, something most other parties would run a mile from.

Although as we'll see, this isn't without its down sides.

Still, we'll see. I went and visited the old house this morning, to see what has been going on over at the LPUK site. Since I left, it appears that the place has continued to fall apart, although I don't think the two are linked, it was heading that way anyway, that's why I left.

The whole thing is dominated by truth, half-truth, spun-truth, conspiracy theory and complete fantasy. It made it impossible for me to have any faith in any of the people involved. It is a complete bun-fight, and I should imagine to an outside observer it is very, very funny.

There are three news stories over at the LPUK site, where the same old people go on and throw the same old accusations, with the same old people issuing the same old rebuttals, and the same old people running the same old smear campaigns. The comments on these articles really are most . . . interesting? Enlightening? Entertaining? I don't know. But when articles start referencing a forum run by David Icke, you have to wonder who and what is involved in the party.

Maybe there is some grand conspiracy involving Common Purpose, the Illuminati, the Masons and lizards from outer space, I suppose we'll know when tin foil is banned. Up until that point and given the inability of governments to organise the simplest of tasks, I'll remain sceptical.

Have I done the right thing in joining UKIP? That remains to be seen, I do believe that the question of our EU membership is the biggest item on the agenda, arguing about anything else is a waste of time. It's like discussing what colour your new curtains will be while watching your house burn down. What you should be doing is calling the fire brigade. Let's sort the big one out and then worry about the other stuff, eh?

Have I done the right thing in leaving LPUK? Without doubt. I can't read the musings of those involved, the excuses, the accusations, see the smoke and mirrors and the rapidly swivelling eyes, and think that anyone would want to be involved with the party.

To those involved in the ridiculous arguments; well done, you've killed the party stone dead. A plague on both your houses.

My, that's convenient.

Mohamed Bin Hammam and vice president Jack Warner have denied wrongdoing after Fifa opened disciplinary proceedings against them following bribery allegations.

 Blimey, FIFA sorting their house out at last?

Executive committee member Chuck Blazer has passed a report to Fifa alleging that the men attempted to bribe members of the Caribbean Football Union to secure votes for Bin Hammam in the presidential election a week today. 

Ah, I see.

So that'll be a no then. Funny isn't it, how Blatter runs this just a week before he's due to stand for re-election? Funnier still that the accused is his opponent in the election.

Don't misunderstand me, they're all as corrupt as each other, but just when you think FIFA and Blatter's stock couldn't get any lower...

Stalin would be proud if it weren't so painfully transparent.

That's a telling comment.

We are aghast, Denmark has banned Marmite. I'm firmly in the love it camp, by the way, so thick that it burns the roof of your mouth. Wonderful stuff.

'They'll be trying it here next.' Has been the mantra. Another example of EU intrusion.

Except it isn't.

Many well known breakfast cereal and drink brands have already been banned or taken off supermarket shelves after Danish legislation in 2004 restricted foods fortified with extra vitamins or minerals. 

Nothing to do with the EU. There's plenty of stuff we can blame on them, but this isn't one of them. This is home grown authoritariansim (if you're Danish). It's kind of a shame, the outrage in the UK if the EU tried to pull this stunt would be irresistable. For that reason I wish it was on the EU agenda. No matter, the scales are falling from the eyes of more and more people every day.

Just as with Dick Puddlecote's smoking survey, the EU aren't afraid to massage the truth to their own ends. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so I will happily perpetuate the myth that the EU is trying to ban God's own sandwich spread.

But here's a telling comment from the article in question from 'Riwi' at ten to four this afternoon:

Lets get one thing clear - Marmite has not been banned in Denmark, the importer just "forgot" to apply for approval to sell it...... 

And there you have it.

I like the Danes, not as fun as the Norwegians, but a pleasant people. However one of Scandinavia's greatest problems is this sort of mindset. People in the majority over there really do see nothing wrong in having to ask the government's permission to sell a sandwich spread.

Can you imagine?

Sadly I find it all too easy.

Now what on Earth is that supposed to mean?

Flippant, glib, disrespectful, self-serving and a sign of total denial. That's the only conclusion I can draw from Inspector Gadget's response to the news that the DPP has reconsidered the decision not to bring charges against Simon Harwood over the death of Ian Tomlinson. It simply reads:

Maybe, if we work at it, we can get PC Harwood charged with the Kennedy assassination.

It would appear that the Inspector does not agree with the decision to bring charges.

I can only guess why, as the Inpsector is unusually brief. Given his rather fatuous comment about the Kennedy assassination, I think I can safely put some words into his mouth.

The problem seems to be that a police officer who kills someone in the course of his duty should not, in Gadget's opinon, be subject to the same laws as the general population. This obviously gives a lie to the seventh Peelian principle:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

In other words, from his short posting, I can only draw the conclusion that Gadget believes that the laws the police enforce do not apply to them.

I can also only assume that Gadget feels it is also wrong that the affair was subject to an inquest, and that obviously the inquest returned an incorrect verdict of unlawful killing.

That's unlawful killing.

That's a police officer, on duty, taking the life of an innocent man, without any lawful grounds, a man who was walking away from him, apparently peaceful, nothing to do with the protest that was going on, indeed trying to get away from the protest.

Are we to suppose, Inspector, that you consider this inquest should not have gone ahead? Because I have a real problem with that.

I do not want to live in a country where the police can act without any fear of accountability, where they can kill people in the street without fear of consequence.

Gadget would no doubt point to the fact that Tomlinson had been drinking and was over the legal drink drive limit.

So? Does that mean he deserved to die?

Let's reverse the roles for a moment, shall we? Let us assume that  an individual shoved a policeman with significant enough force that the officer died. Let us assume that the officer who had died had just been walking the beat and had not been engaged in any controversial activity.

Would Inspector Gadget be so dismissive of an inquest verdict of unlawful killing? How would he react if a non-police blogger made a jibe about fitting the individual in question up with the murder of Keith Blakelock as well? Not well I'm assuming.

The Inspector will know well that in the public at large you get bad people and good people. Bad people will do bad things. Sometimes good people will make poor decisions. Sometimes people do things in the heat of the moment which are out of character, actions which they regret. Would the Inspector suggest that as this was out of character it is somehow unfair that they are called to account and held responsible for these actions?

PC Simon Harwood did a bad thing, one of the worst things someone can do. If Gadget would expect someone who does not wear uniform to stand trial for doing a bad thing, then he must surely expect someone who does wear uniform to stand trial? To suggest otherwise leads us down a road that finishes with scenes similar to those we have seen in Egypt, with a police force that is detested by the whole of society, not just those whose illegal activities mean they dislike the police.

I support Gadget's railings against the idiocy of those in management positions in the police, but I will temper it with the observation that I don't hear the Police Federation making much noise on the subject, an indicator of a lack of pressure being brought to bear by the membership, perhaps?

What I cannot agree with is Gadget's seeming inability to consider that anyone below the rank of Ch. Inspector is capable of any wrong doing. It does him and the police no favours at all.

Worse than a warble glomist? Not quite.

Ecological doom and gloom has been something I've grown up with. As I matured and became aware of the world around me the big scare was the ozone layer. I stand to be shown evidence to the contrary, but I think that one was probably right, it seemed to me that there was a bloody great hole. The rush to ban CFC's seems to have arrested the problem, at least, I think so, it's a story we've not heard in a long, long time. I'm assuming that nature and this planet, being the marvellous things they are, will, in time repair the damage, maybe this process is underway? As I say, the story is such a blast from the past it is easy to forget that it ever happened at all.

However, I do remember that the scare at the time was that with the hole in the layer as it was, the entire populations of Australia, New Zealand and the southernmost residents of Argentina and Chile were going to die in agony of rampant skin cancer. I certainly don't recall that happening.

Ecomentalists love to catastrophise, and with good reason, it makes people give them their undivided attention and the contents of their wallets. The whole global warming/climate change gig has been running for a while, since I was a teenager, certainly. I'm now in my mid 30's. I distinctly remember being told that islands in the Pacific were doomed and that the only way you'd be able to visit St. Paul's would be by going for a paddle. All this was to happen in the next ten to fifteen years, unless action was taken. Now. I was scared, the house I grew up in in rural Kent was below sea level, with only the flat expanse of the reclaimed Romney Marsh between us and the channel, it was surely doomed.

We are told that CO2 emissions continue to rise, or at least do not fall to a level below those which were recorded some five years after the first catastrophic predictions were made. The house in which I grew up is still dry, no atolls have disappeared, I have yet to see anyone wear a souvenir St. Paul's life jacket.

Still the predictions of despair come, every time the same time frame is quoted, near enough to be alarming, but far enough into the future to allow redemption. I'm not sure if the countdown clock is re-set each time.

People talk about the Green God, and environmentalism being a new religion, and they are entirely right. The similarities are striking.

It may be a bit of laugh, but Harold Camping confidently predicted the onset of Armageddon this weekend, the fact that you are reading this is a demonstration that this didn't happen.

Well, he's at it again:

Evangelical priest Harold Camping has set a new date for the world’s end as he backtracked from a prediction that ‘Judgement Day’ was supposed to come last Saturday.


The US Christian, who made headlines for his outlandish claim that a selected 200 million of the world’s population would be raptured, has now marked 21 October 2011 in his calendar as the real date for the apocalypse.


The 89-year-old had previously stated that an earthquake – bigger than anything ever felt before - would strike each corner of the planet by 6pm local time on Saturday 21 May.


But according to Camping’s new end of world forecast, the globe will actually be engulfed by a huge fireball - exactly five months after the botched doomsday prediction.


Speaking of the failed ‘Judgement Day’ on his radio show last night, he claimed that 21 May 2011 was just an ‘invisible judgement day’ and that he understood it as a spiritual, rather than physical event. 


After hiding in a motel for two days, the Californian preacher admitted his Bible-based calculations were incorrect.


He said he believed rapture didn’t come because God decided to spare humanity five months of “hell on earth.”


During his hour-and-a-half radio broadcast, he said: “It won’t be spiritual on 21 October. The world is going to be destroyed all together, but it will be very quick.”

Most people are looking at this guy as some sort of nutter, many of them will be environmentalists scoffing at this man's, and his followers', credulity.

But stop for a minute. Consider the similarities.

He uses a text, which a mutual friend of mine on Facebook described thus:

Sometimes we take the Bible too literally, forgetting it's actually a composite work of fiction translated from a mishmash of defunct languages via Latin and therefore about as near to the 'absolute truth' as unsolicited email from Nigeria.

A harsh, if fairly accurate description. Say this to a Christian, (the same will also hold true of Jews and Muslims about their holy texts) and you run the risk of being shouted down. You see, it is all true, the animals in the big boat, the walls of the city falling down, the parting of the Red Sea, it is all true. It must be, because it is written here. The text cannot be challenged. It is, a-ha, gospel. Any attempt to question the content or the interpretation is, literally, heresy. It cannot be allowed.

Now speak to the warmist, question their data, their holy book, question the interpretation of their data, you'll get a very similar response. The denial of peer review is an anti-heretical device.


People who leave the fold are treated in a similar fashion to those who have turned their back on the Westboro Baptist Church.


They too have their Popes and high priests, people who are infallible. There can be no discussion.


They too confidently predict the end of the world. Some would suggest here there is a difference, the faithful of the Abrahamic religions welcome the prospect of the end of days, even if with more than a little trepidation. Enviromentalists want to avoid the scenario, but why do I get the impression some of them would derive great pleasure from treading water as the seas rise with an indignant look on their faces, saying 'I told you so'?


And just with Camping, when the predicted end does not materialise, they just pick another date. And another, and another.


There is very little difference between the methods of control used by religious organisations and the activities of the environmental lobby. There is very little difference between the two camps' desire for our cash and our unquestioning obedience to their pronouncements and decrees. Very little difference in the way they want to have the say in how to run your life.


Actually, there is one difference, Camping has at least had the guts to hold his hand up and admit his calculations are wrong. That is a confession I've yet to hear coming from the Green Church.


Save resources, water, food and energy, reduce waste. It makes sense on a personal and national economic level, but don't dare preach to me and spread your baseless tales to get what you want, you just look like these guys:

Update:

American Thinker has had similar thoughts.

Oh yeah? Or what?

It's a fatal four-way.

This super-injuction thing needs sorting. A statement of the bleeding obvious, perhaps.

What really needs sorting though is the question of libel tourism in the UK, and the question of the jurisdiction of the British courts.

To be honest, I couldn't give a pair of dingo's kidneys if some premier league footballer has been a premier league arsehole and has been putting it about while wifey has been at home looking after her collection of designer handbags (and probably screwing the gardner when hubby is away on a European trip) or whatever it is these nouveau-fops and their trophy air-head brides get up to when they're not spitting, screaming in the face of the referee or being generally disrespectful and objectionable to each other and the people that have paid through the nose to watch them.

However, this could be a good fight;

Legal proceedings are being taken by a professional footballer against Twitter for allegedly publishing information covered by a super-injunction.

As Anna Raccoon points out about DSK in the rape case, this is a class of people who are used to having everyone jump whenever they give the word, whatever that word may be. But when a footballer tries to take on Twitter, he's going to find he comes up against an organisation and a man who takes freedom of expression very seriously indeed.

Papers lodged in the High Court are against Twitter and "persons unknown". 

Twitter are a company who operate out of California, I wonder if they are going to capitulate in the face of documents from the British High Court? I reckon not.

The order requires Twitter to disclose the requested information within seven days - or within the appropriate time required by the law in California, where Twitter has its headquarters.

Lawyers at Schillings who represent CTB have issued a statement clarifying the action it has taken.


It said it was not suing Twitter but had made an application "to obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order".

Yes, but breached a court order in the UK. Not California. Now, if CTB, whoever he may be, wants to invoke California law, he needs to be careful. As I understand it, the courts in California would look at this attempt via the High Court in a very dim light indeed, and any order to Twitter to release information would probably be contested in court in California by Twitter, who would be likely to make the reasonable argument that as a company operating in California, they are no more subject to the whims of the High Court in London than they are to a magistrate in Gambia. The courts in California would be highly unlikely to allow an application for this data to be filed under a protected, or false name. It would be very much a case of Clogger O'Toole of 27 Footballer Street, being named by the court as the applicant.

Wikipedia is not so coy as the British media and names who they believe is the person in question and goes on to quote the Streisand effect. While the media in Britain can be gagged in Britain, you can't gag the internet, a; because it just isn't possible, it would be like trying to nail mercury to the floor, and b; sooner or later a foreign media outlet is going to tell the High Court that they have no jurisdiction outside these islands and no sanction.

Twitter has helped bring down governments that have held on to power for decades in the space of a fortnight, a premiership footballer who can't keep his pants on is no challenge at all.

As for the High Court, they too are used to people acting on their every word. I wonder how they will react when another Court in another country turns around and says 'Hey, buddy, my jurisdiction, back in your box, please'?

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.