Hang on, I've got the receipt here somewhere.

It used to be so simple, didn't it? Making a financial transaction.

I'd be walking down the street and I'd go past your shop, The Whizzo Widget Emporium and I'd think to myself, 'Goodness me, they are awfully nice widgets, I could do with a new widget, my one's nearly worn out.'* And I'd go in, and I'd buy one.** You'd give me a receipt to prove that I hadn't half inched it and to give me some redress in the unlikely event that the widget you'd sold me, in spite of your intensive QC process, was in some way defective. We'd both be happy.

But it's all changed now. Now, apparently, I have to pay. I have no choice. Whether I want the widget or not. I have to pay for it. It is entirely possible that my life is perfectly comfortable without a widget, but I still have to pay for it, as someone may want the widget, but can't afford it. That annoys me.

What really grips my shits, as I believe the phrase has it, is that if I should then want a widget, I have to pay for it. Again. Even though I've paid for it already. Even though some people still get a free widget.

That hardly seems fair, does it? To be made, forced to pay for it, I'll just about take that on the chin. To then have to pay again, because I actually want to use the service I've been forced to pay for, is just not on.

What am I wibbling on about? This:

Parents who send their children to Kent grammar or faith schools could have to pay to use council-run transport.

Just note the targeting there. Grammar and faith schools. Why them?

Kent County Council (KCC) is considering introducing a contributory fee to help towards the cost of transport from September 2012.

A contributory fee? A contribu-bloody-tory fee? That's called Council Tax you utter mongs. What you're actually doing is surcharging people because their kids were fortunate enough to have the brains to pass the 11+ or because of their religious convictions. Nice. As an aside, I wonder how many of them are kids going to Muslim faith schools. I don't know if there are any in Kent, and I've lived here most of my life, never heard of one. I bet you wouldn't bloody dare.

The council said the charge would be waived for children who were from low income families and eligible for free school meals.

Oh, that's generous of them. So they won't screw some people over twice. Bless.

Here's the best bit:

Parents will be able to comment on the plans in the near future, KCC added.

Oh will they now? Well, that is fucking magnanimous of them, isn't it? Bloody hell, they'll be saying they, like, believe in democracy, and shit, next. Parents will be able to comment! Will they have to go on some opinion forming course first? Because being able to express an opinion is such a ground shaking, pant wettingly new experience for the poor little proles, that they may just expire from the excitement. Have you thought this through? Have you made plans to cope in the event that the brains of these parents start to run out of their ears under the effort of making a comment on council policy?

It'd probably be best to keep it to yourselves that the comments they make will be totally ignored. Just give them a reminder at election time that it is your God given right to govern and they had better bloody vote for you.

Why the hell do people continue to vote for these utter wanks who do nothing but treat the people they are supposed to be representing with such total and complete contempt?

* You dirty minded little bastard.

** And, because you are a nice, decent person, you'll do this with wonderful customer service. Attentive when I need you, with deep and impressive knowledge about your widgets, but otherwise leaving me the hell alone unless I really look like, or ask for, your help.

This couldn't have come at a worse time.

I'll let you in to a little secret. I don't like petrol and diesel. It is dirty, dangerous, expensive and props up some pretty horrible regimes. It is also finite, the world economy is hitched to a resource which has a limited life. To be so dependent on one commodity is madness.

So when I see this, it gives me cause for hope:

British scientists 'invent artificial petrol' that could cost just 90p per GALLON (and there's no carbon).

Great stuff. Nice to see we're still good at something in this country. It is possible that this could have a groundshaking effect on our way of life.

Artificial petrol that costs 19p per litre could be on forecourts in as little as three years.

British scientists are refining the recipe for a hydrogen-based fuel that will run in existing cars and engines at the fraction of the cost of conventional petrol.

With hydrogen at its heart rather than carbon, it will not produce any harmful emissions when burnt, making it better for the environment, as well as easier on the wallet.

The first road tests are due next year and, if all goes well, the cut-price ‘petrol’ could be on sale in three to five years.

It really would be fantastic news for most people. The benefits to the individual's pocket are obvious, for industry, the reduction in costs is just as beneficial. It will bring prices down at the point of delivery of raw materials, it will do the same for transporting the finished goods from factory to the marketplace. It will reduce prices at the marketplace, but will allow an increase in profit margin once those savings have been factored in. Lower petrol prices are good news for everyone, except the petrol producers. That is another benefit, the production of a viable synthetic alternative to oil based fuels will break the chokehold that OPEC has on the world.

Even the greens will be happy.

Or will they?

For true environmentalists this has surely got to be a bit of welcome news. For the normal member of the public who is a Friends of the Earth member, for example, they will no doubt be delighted at the reduction of carbon emissions. I don't buy into the whole AGW theory, but many do, and if this satisfies those people, then it satisfies me.

But for the big ecoloons, the ones who lobby governments and influence policy, this is very bad news as the public are about to learn the truth.

The reason petrol and diesel is so expensive in the UK at the moment is not because of the base cost per litre, but because of the tax, and the tax on that tax, that is imposed by the government. We are told that one of the main reasons for this tax is because of the damage to the environment which using petrol and diesel causes.


Quite how handing large amounts of un-ringfenced cash to a wasteful, inefficient and duplicitous State apparatus is supposed to save polar bears has never been made entirely clear. One thing that will become clear is this, once (if) the use of this fuel takes off, the government will have no option but to tax it to the same eye-watering levels as they do now.

Then the gig will be up, the public will realise that they've been played and that the ecological reasoning behind the taxation on fuel has been an excuse, and the government (of whatever colour when this stuff hits the forecourt) will blow their green credentials out of the water as they continue to harvest huge amounts of unjustified cash from the alternative to petrol that we've all been told needs to come. Meanwhile, the ecoloons will spin against and defame the new fuel, dreaming up reasons as to why it is just as evil as what went before, lest the government cut their funding. They will continue to demand the government hands over wads of our cash so they can then lobby that same government.

Oh, it may drop the price by 15p or so a litre, but more importantly than that, it will help turn the spotlight on the people who view us as revenue cows ripe for the milking.

All Hail the Green Hero.

Yes, good old Genghis, terror of Asia. Here was a man good at his job. He (I'm assuming with a little help from his mates) managed to off an estimated 40 million people. Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Hah, novices compared to old Gen.

We'll never see his like again. Hopefully.

Well, I say hopefully, but for some it seems that isn't the case. It isn't just in Mongolia for reasons of national pride.

You see;

Genghis Khan's Mongol invasion in the 13th and 14th centuries was so vast that it may have been the first instance in history of a single culture causing man-made climate change, according to new research out of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.

But surely that's a bad thing, right?

Unlike modern day climate change, however, the Mongol invasion cooled the planet, effectively scrubbing around 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

Still a bad thing. Does that mean he was responsible for the mini-ice age then? What a bastard.

In other words, one effect of Genghis Khan's unrelenting invasion was widespread reforestation, and the re-growth of those forests meant that more carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere.

Really?

Well, I suppose we're all told we can make a difference individually. If you buy the theory of AGW. I'm not sure I do.

But the message here is clear, genocide is fine because it stops global warming.

Give me strength.

What goes around comes around.

Lord Prescott criticises Met's handling of phone-hacking inquiry.

Courtesy of This Is London.

"I just don't trust the Metropolitan Police to conduct a proper inquiry," he said.

"I can't trust them to carry out a proper inquiry and that's why I asked the courts for a judicial review on the Metropolitan Police and the way they've conducted investigations."

You reap what you sow, John. This sort of thing was fine all the time your lot were holding the Commish's leash, but now the other lot have got their turn, all of a sudden a politically directed police force ain't so much fun, is it?

Did you really think that Cameron would allow the sniffer dogs to be set free whilst his comms bod was in the firing line? Would you have done it? No. Of course not.

Thing is, you had 13 years to make sure this sort of thing could never happen, but you embraced the concept of being able to call the shots over police actions completely, without hesitation and without reservation.

Tough shit.

The Delusions of the Criminal.

What a shame to see Tommy Sheridan sent down for three years today. I hope he enjoys his first night in Barlinnie.

I just couldn't help but respond to his reaction to the verdict and sentence.

This multi million-pound prosecution will separate me from my wife and child and that will be heartbreaking.

Well, yes. But it could all have been avoided if you hadn't, you know, lied through your teeth in court.

But I will continue to fight a system that protects the real criminals - the rich and powerful.

Ah yes, the old Socialist mantra, rich equals evil. But where do you draw the line? Let's take Lord 'Sirallun' Sugar. As he's so fond of telling us, he started out selling tat from the back of his van in the East End, with a 20p loan from his old man, or something. At that point he was poor, he then progressed to being comfortable, before arriving at the station marked rich. But where are the dividing lines between the three? At what point did he become criminal in his richness? Who did he injure or hurt whilst he followed his programme of selling cheap electricals?

Does one become rich when say, ooooh, I don't know, £200,000 pounds falls into your lap? £200k which you got by lying?

I have today instructed my solicitor to lodge an appeal against conviction.

As is your right. I don't think you'll win though.

But also to launch legal action against the News of the World, the Metropolitan Police and Glenn Mulcaire over phone hacking.

And what in the wide, wide world of sports does that have to do with you being the most terrible liar?

In addition my solicitors will begin to contact a dossier of Scottish names handed to them of those whose phones may have been hacked.

May have been hacked? May? Angus McTavish. That's a Scottish name. Jock Campbell, there's another. Do you have any proof? It'd be terrible if you found yourself on the end of a defamation suit, wouldn't it?

Andy Coulson may have resigned for the second time but if he and others are not above the law then it is time that they faced justice.

Again? What does that have to do with you being a liar, liar pants on fire?

That chapter is yet to be written.

Yes, and we'll enjoy reading it hugely, I could do with a laugh.

His wife is equally as loopy.

Tommy has dedicated his life to helping others.

Yes, as long as they sing the hymns they are told to. He's also dedicated his life to helping himself of large amounts of Rupert Murdoch's cash, by telling the most awful lies.

The real reason why he's been imprisoned today is because he has fought injustice and inequality with every beat of his heart.

No, the reason he's been imprisoned today is because he is a bloody liar, and lied under oath, whilst taking someone else for every penny he could get. But hey! It's OK, because they are rich, and therefore by Tommy's definition, criminals.

But it won't be long before Tommy is back stronger and continuing the fight.

Yeah, about three years. Continuing the fight? Against what? Strengthening his already fleeting relationship with reality?

She then went off to have a few miniatures of Famous Grouse and Remy Martin she happened to have lying around the place. (possibly)

His mates are snivelling as well.

Solidarity will continue to give our full backing and support and backing to Tommy, and in particular to Gail Sheridan and the family at this difficult time.

Well, with a name like Solidarity, you couldn't very well not, could you? Come back and say hello in three years, see where you are then.

Neither Tommy Sheridan nor Solidarity will be broken. We stand, as always, in solidarity.

Oooh, does that mean you're all going to get an arsehole like the Japanese flag as well?

Solidarity condemns as barbaric and draconian the sentence imposed today on Tommy Sheridan. We believe the lengthy jail term imposed by the judge is vindictive.

Possibly, but then for some reason judges take a dim view of people standing in their courtroom, promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and then committing perjury. It annoys them. It's a funny little thing, but that's just the way some people are.

It will reinforce the widespread view that this is the culmination of a brutal vendetta carried out by the rich and powerful against Scotland's most prominent socialist.

Widespread? Amongst whom? What's it like in the land of talking trees and chocolate bees? I was talking to a colleague who is as red as red can be, and even he was chuckling about it, saying how it had cheered him up.

Not all of his former mates are so keen though, there's the frantic sound of back pedaling here:

Today's proceedings finally end the ill-advised action Tommy Sheridan initiated six years ago in suing a tabloid over allegations he knew to be true.

He alone is responsible for where he sleeps tonight, no-one else. He pursued legal action full in the knowledge he would lie in court.

He asked his closest political allies and friends to join him in that crazy strategy and then turned on us because we refused.

He still shows no sign of taking responsibility for his own actions.

Quite. The most sensible thing that has been said from those around this ridiculous caricature of a man in a long, long time.

Seriously Tommy, give it up. You're starting to look properly mad here, real dressing up as Napoleon and persecution complex stuff. You gave it your best shot, I can't blame you for that. You've got through more briefs than Nick Faldo has had golf clubs, but you've lost, you deserved to lose, you were always going to lose. You're one step shy of being carted off to the McFunny Farm.

Why would they do that?

Tens of thousands of Belgians have staged a march to call for national unity and demand a government after seven months of political impasse.


About 50,00 people joined the "Shame: no government, great country" march in Brussels, organisers said. Police put the number at 34,000.

I went to Belgium for the day just before Christmas. It was bloody unbelievable, they'd had months of no government, and the roads were open, trains were running, cafes and shops were open for business, the busses worked, police were patrolling, streets were clean. It was a nightmare, the whole fabric of society had come crashing down because there wasn't a bunch of grey suited men and women sitting around telling everyone what they should do.

Oh, what am I thinking? That isn't the sign of a society in meltdown because there wasn't a government, that is the sign of the fact that not having a government made absolutely no difference to the lives of the ten million or so who live in the country, a country that, some people would have you believe, is so ridden with mistrust between the Flemish and French speakers that a repeat of Yugoslavia in the 90's, but with fewer hills and more chips, is just an offensive joke away.

I am amazed that the EU didn't come in and declare Belgium to be something along the lines of the District of Columbia, or the Australian Capital Territory and place it under direct EU control. They've missed a trick there.

Here's a newsflash kids, a lack of government doesn't mean living in Somalia. Here's a few stories I've lifted at random from Google with a three word search '[name of country]', 'government' and 'criticised'. Let's see what's been going on, shall we?

Canada's government has been criticised for spending huge sums to host G8 and G20 summits at the end of June, including two million dollars on a fake lake inside the media centre. (08/06/2010)

An Australian government proposal for a mandatory web filter has been criticised by key internet players Google and Yahoo as a heavy-handed measure that could restrict access to legal information. (24/03/2010)


South Korea has been heavily criticised for burying up to one million pigs alive as it grapples with a foot and mouth disease outbreak. (07/01/2011)

A well-known Nazi hunter criticized a Latvian court Tuesday for allowing a procession to commemorate the day in 1941 when Nazi troops entered the country's capital after ejecting the Soviet Union's Red Army. (29/06/2010)

The above stories make you wonder how we cope without governments. I really feel for the Belgians, having to live without a proper government. It must be really hard for them. [/sarcasm]

My mind goes back to the election when both the Tories and Labour were warning about the disatisfaction of a coalition government. We needed, by all accounts, a strong government. That would have been best.

Best for whom? Those forming the government, without doubt. For the rest of us? Belgium would suggest it doesn't make a great deal of difference. Indeed, not having the endless initiatives, policies, back tracking, u-turns, arguments, waste and everything else that goes with a 'strong' government, looks like a marked improvement to me.

I reckon we've got enough laws to be getting on with thank-you very much. Once you've covered the biggies, the rest is farting about on the margins, and politicians are too caught up in the notion of 'legacy' for my liking.

No, not having a government didn't seem to bother the good people of Bruges one bit as far as I could see.

Dropping the bomb.

The bomb has finally been dropped in the department and the job losses are coming. It'll make the papers, when it does, the Daily Mail may very well explode. There's going to be some fairly large job losses at a number of sites. As fas as I can tell it is the front line, those sat in the comfy chairs seem to be unaffected.

I'm unsure how many will actually be kicked out, they're giving the opportunity for those who want to walk, to walk with some dignity. Morale is so low that I'd be surprised if the offer wasn't over-subscribed. It's been coming, it's been expected and yes, it does suck. But that's life. It is unfortunate that there will be a number of people who I respect who will be lost. These people are worth their salary, and I'll miss them.

By lucky hap, it looks like Wolfers unwittingly moved himself into a bomb shelter a couple of years ago, I'm glad about it. I've had some plans in case the worst happens, but I'd rather stay in at the moment, I enjoy my job and in the last couple of months it has become very interesting and delivered a steep learning curve, one that I'm finding challenging. This is most welcome, my worst nightmare is becoming an automaton, marking time.

We've a new manager of my unit, he isn't quite God, but he's enough nous and political capital in the office to safeguard his staff. Looks like I've a 3 year reprive until the next swoosh of the axe. He's blunt, direct and has upset people. Some of those people didn't deserve to be upset, and it could have been handled better, but I don't blame him completely, he's been handed a unit in a department (but not an area of work) which is alien to him, with no knowledge of the people working there and a number of cherry bombs with fizzing fuses around him.

He's given us a degree of insulation, but I have no doubt that his protection comes with the expectation that we actually deliver in a meaningful sense, rather than in a nebulous, fuzzy management speak sense. This is uncommon in the civil service. I actually find it quite refreshing. I like the idea of having to figure out how in the hell I'm going to do something, it is infinitely preferable to working down a list and ensuring every box is ticked. More responsibility, more flexibility and more freedom. Excellent. More pressure, higher expectations and not as much money. Well, them's the breaks. I know a good thing when I see one, so I'm going to make sure I roll my sleeves up and do my damndest to ensure that this new regime is a success. The short term future is dodgy, ride this storm out and who knows where I could be in ten year's time. It is exciting, but it won't be a free ride.

I hope you'll forgive this departure into the personal. I try to avoid blogging about work, because it could get messy, however I always try to be objective and balanced when I do. It isn't all bad, although it could be better and some managers do their best to make it worse, they actually seem to relish the prospect of telling good staff that they're surplus to requirements, when their performance should leave them on shaky ground themselves.

I just want to let you know that the civil service isn't all about box tickers, diversity officers, outreach coordinators and the feckless and incompetent. Although God knows they exist in big enough number. There are staff who do care about their work, and completely understand that we work for you. It is a shame that this attitude seems to become less common the further up the foodchain you go. Then they think they work for the ministers and secs of state. They're wrong.

On the day when the bomb is dropped a new toy appears, on the wall of the foyer of the building there has appeared a monitor; it details the amounts of energy used, CO2 expelled and electricity bill for the building for a rolling 24hr period. I don't know where it gets its data from, probably some wonk sat in an office typing in numbers at random. The Ecoloons have broken through into the world of Sir Humphrey. The best bit? It isn't just a monitor, it is a top of the range touch screen computer, almost like a wall mounted I-Pad. The device is locked though, the only application it will run is the green deity's counter of guilt and doom. God knows how much it cost. I'm sure the irony of the expenditure on it won't be lost on the staff who are ruminating on their future.

The fat remains to be trimmed, unfortunately the butcher is careless and he's hacking off a lump of fillet steak.

Laugh? I almost did.

Got a few things to talk about, but seem to be having problems pulling my finger out.

Many thanks to a Twitter correspondent who pointed me in the direction of this website, which has caused me a degree of mirth this evening.

The best efforts thus far (with captions):

The full body search left Ed shocked and unable to walk properly for several hours.

 

*Giggle*

As the minute silence falls around Whitehall and the Cenotaph, Ed realises he forgot to turn his phone on silent.

*Guffaw*

After years of frustration and fantasies, Ed finally got his chance to make the move on Harriet Harman.

*Roffle*

Ooooh, actually, no. That last one made me feel a little queasy.

I'm errm, I'm just going out to get some air.

Revolution or coup? What's the difference?

Events in Tunisia are certainly interesting. I've a good deal of admiration for the Tunisians, they've decided that enough is enough and they've had all they're going to take, thank-you very much.

But. . .

What's really going on here?

The BBC are talking this evening of shock as one of the most 'stable' (in the words of the BBC) regimes in North Africa and the Middle East has evaporated right in front of our eyes. Talk of stability unsettles me, it was almost as if stability is the most desirable quality in a country, even if that means that the regime in question is a hateful and oppressive authoritarian one.

The Beeb is also talking of concern about a domino effect running through similar regimes in the region, or perhaps concern from within those regimes, I shouldn't imagine the population are concerned about their current president heading for Saudi at short notice at all.

But what have we actually seen in Tunisia?

A number of commentators and media outlets are rejoicing in a glorious, and in the grand scheme of things, bloodless revolution. I'm not so sure. This is a president who has been in power for 23 years, he has gone back on his promises to limit his number of terms in office, he has put the police in his pocket and his family in top jobs. He has put in a successful tourism programme, and, from what I can work out, diverted most of the funds into his own bank account. This is not a man who will abandon ship without good cause.

An afternoon or two of protests do not bring down regimes, otherwise we would be looking at very different regimes in Thailand and Iran right now. It would appear we've seen the aftermath of a private Ceacescu moment here. Ben Ali has obviously turned round to check that the army were behind him. Unfortunately for him, they were, with weapons drawn, loaded, cocked and pointed at him.

This is no revolution, this a coup. Revolutions are far from being a panacea. Whilst there's initial joy at the toppling of an old regime, you can never be sure what you're going to get to replace it. Iran is a fine example, the Shah was a bloody disaster, but who really wanted the alternative? That is the problem, you replace one lot of catastrophic, power-hungry, ruthless maniacs and substitute them for another set. At the start, everyone is very happy, then the grumbling starts. The grumblers get clamped down on, denounced as counter-revolutionaries bent on the reinstatement of the old regime, whether it is true or not. The majority go along with it, no-one wants them back, it may taste a little nasty, but these are dangerous times. As the dust settles more people get locked up. Things don't improve, and the new regime start locking up or killing more people, after all there's nothing wrong with the system, it's the new one, the one they've brought in, so it must be the people who are the problem.

Before you know it, the new regime is just as bad as the old.

A coup is seldom any better, as in Tunisia, the military step in because someone has to fill the vacuum, and we don't want the nutters coming in. Elections are promised in a number of weeks, once the dust has settled, once things become stable. Weeks turn into months, months into years. The dust never settles sufficiently for the Generals to be certain things are safe, or the public seem to support someone that the Generals don't consider appropriate to run the country.

The military in Tunisia, stood behind a prime minister who seems to have spent most of his career being nothing more than an ornamental rubber stamp for Ben Ali's presidential regime, have declared that there will be elections in six weeks or so.

Hmmm, we'll see. History suggests that Generals get a taste for running countries, especially as they have such a large and well trained staff to ensure things are just so.

This is why I'm so concerned with how the EU is going. The bigger and more invasive the EU becomes, the larger the vacuum that will be left when it falls apart will be and if we don't get out before that point, then things could get very nasty for us. When it happens there will be a mad power rush (depending on how much national sovereignty is left) to fill the empty space, and it will be filled by swivel eyed revolutionaries declaring enemies of state and undesirables or by Generals who always seem to go a bit loopy when it becomes their job to sit in a palace, rather than guard it.

Either way, it is bad news. The EU will fall apart, history tells us this. We've seen empires of antiquity, we've seen Oriental dynastic empires, we've seen Catholic and Muslim empires, we've seen Francophone empires, we've seen empires where the sun never sets, we've seen empires which we were told will last a thouand years, we've seen empires of the proletariat, they've all fallen and it has always ended in disaster to a lesser or greater extent. The EU is just another empire. A little different to the rest, but an empire nonetheless. All empires fall.

What we have seen in Tunisia is what happens when an unthinking, unfeeling, unpopular regime crosses a line the population will not tolerate. How long before the empire we find ourselves in reaches that point? What happens in the weeks and months after the army take their cue from the population remanins to be seen, I just hope the Tunisians don't find themselves going from the frying pan into the fire.

Ignorance.

I will admit that my attention has been lying elsewhere this week, so my thanks to 'Bill' in the comments in the article below for drawing my attention to it.

It does indeed sound like as heroic a rescue attempt as that of the Chilean miners, but we've heard nothing about it. I'll resist the urge to get my tin-foil hat out and speculate as to why that is.

Anyhow, I give you the Okhotsk Sea Crisis:

Yesterday, the Russians were talking about the rescue operation moving into the final, crucial stage, as the combined force of the two biggest icebreakers in the region moved in to try to extract the 32,000-ton Sodruzhestvo (pictured) from ice captivity in the Okhotsk Sea.

The latest report informs us that the icebreakers Krasin and the Admiral Makarov have in fact reached the Sodruzhestvo, now confirmed with 348 crew members on board, and have started to lead her out to free waters. The route has been carefully planned, after extensive reconnaissance by helicopter. The pressure is on for a number of reasons, not least because meteorologists are predicting  that the weather will worsen sharply in the next two days. Winds are expected to strengthen and visibility to drop.

Do go over, read the whole thing, and ask yourself the same questions I am asking myself.