Hello,
I had intended to write a post about this but I really can't add much to this fine article, except to ask why heads are not rolling and why people have not taken to the street in protest? I can only conclude that we as a society don't care much much for the elderly, which apart from being heartless is somewhat short sighted. And you wonder why the promise of a long life doesn't make me want to give up smoking. Fuck being left at the mercy of these monsters.
Cheers
4/28/2009
4/25/2009
Scotland The Pathetic
Hello,
As Irvine Welsh once rightly pointed out, it's shite being Scottish. How in God's name did I end up in the world's most thin skinned nation? Well I exaggerate slightly Turkey is worse with it's absurd law against insulting Turkishness. Quite frankly having spent a week in the place it'd be more in their line to pass a law preventing the harassment of women and enforcing it.
I am of course referring to Margaret Curran getting all huffy because some TV presenter or another made a few snide remarks about the Scots on Question Time. This isn't the first time something like this has happened I dimly recall a minor controversy because David Beckham said he wouldn't support the Scottish football team if they were playing a team other than England and why should he? Then there was that ironing board on GMTV who kept whining on about the Scots, presumably projecting her dissatisfaction with her Scottish husband onto an entire nation.
If I were to write a book in which the nations of the world were represented as people Scotland would be a whiny neurotic woman worrying about the size of her arse. For God's sake grow a skin who gives a fuck? I must admit I'm not immune to this myself, many years ago I worked in a call centre dealing with mainly English customers and was driven mental by English callers submitting complaints because a Scot had the temerity to answer the phone, was stealing their jobs, existed and so on.
Eventually I worked out how to rig my phone up to prevent my calls being recorded and came to enjoy these calls for the opportunity it gave me to wind the fuckers up. My favourite involving telling someone we'd emptied their account to fund a free bar at a caber tossing event. For someone who couldn't understand my 'stupid accent' they seemed to understand the loss of their life savings well enough. I should stress that their savings were perfectly safe and earning interest at the rate of 6.5%, like I say it was a very long time ago. My other favourite was to offer to put objectors to the accent through to a Pakistani colleague at which point they'd go insane say something appallingly rude and racist allowing me to smugly explain that I was cutting them off due to their 'unacceptable language'.
Based on my highly scientific research of having worked in a call centre I can reveal that 90% of the English population couldn't care less about Scotland, 3% are genuinely surprised that we actually exist, 4% love the accent/scenery or had a whale of a time up here during WW2 and the remainder would like to see every last Scottish man, woman and child exterminated.
As something of an anglophile it should pain me and much as it used to it's just gob dripping down the window to me these days. For the love of God you don't die because people don't like you. Thirteen years of being tormented at school for being ugly taught me that. Rejection shouldn't affect you other than to make you stronger and revel in the very thing that makes folk reject you. Sign of a healthy brain.
People like Margaret Curran whining just make me despair. It's in her interests for Scotland to be a whiny, needy little backwater consumed with bitterness towards any enemy other the real one -the Labour Party. People like her thrive in an ocean of stupidity. If she really felt that strongly about people running down Scotland or Robert Burns she'd have a go at Terry Kelly who is at least open in his hatred and derision for Scotland, it's people and culture. But she doesn't. Why? Because she's quite happy to exploit they halfwit tendency amongst us who'll regard her remarks as sticking it to the English, though not sticking it so far that they stop allowing us to ponce off them. Funny that.
If she were any sort of patriot she might regard it as an embarrassment that after about a million years of Labour rule in Scotland all we have is a nation that over reacts to any slight but leeches of the neighbours all the same and is too thick and skint to govern itself. If she really cared about Scotland she'd be too busy addressing our real problems to notice the odd flea bite. Still any distraction rather than derail the gravy train eh? To think I felt a bit bad when she overheard me refer to her as having 'no breeding'. Pah I was too soft of should have just called her a whining, parasitic cunt and had done with it.
Cheerio
As Irvine Welsh once rightly pointed out, it's shite being Scottish. How in God's name did I end up in the world's most thin skinned nation? Well I exaggerate slightly Turkey is worse with it's absurd law against insulting Turkishness. Quite frankly having spent a week in the place it'd be more in their line to pass a law preventing the harassment of women and enforcing it.
I am of course referring to Margaret Curran getting all huffy because some TV presenter or another made a few snide remarks about the Scots on Question Time. This isn't the first time something like this has happened I dimly recall a minor controversy because David Beckham said he wouldn't support the Scottish football team if they were playing a team other than England and why should he? Then there was that ironing board on GMTV who kept whining on about the Scots, presumably projecting her dissatisfaction with her Scottish husband onto an entire nation.
If I were to write a book in which the nations of the world were represented as people Scotland would be a whiny neurotic woman worrying about the size of her arse. For God's sake grow a skin who gives a fuck? I must admit I'm not immune to this myself, many years ago I worked in a call centre dealing with mainly English customers and was driven mental by English callers submitting complaints because a Scot had the temerity to answer the phone, was stealing their jobs, existed and so on.
Eventually I worked out how to rig my phone up to prevent my calls being recorded and came to enjoy these calls for the opportunity it gave me to wind the fuckers up. My favourite involving telling someone we'd emptied their account to fund a free bar at a caber tossing event. For someone who couldn't understand my 'stupid accent' they seemed to understand the loss of their life savings well enough. I should stress that their savings were perfectly safe and earning interest at the rate of 6.5%, like I say it was a very long time ago. My other favourite was to offer to put objectors to the accent through to a Pakistani colleague at which point they'd go insane say something appallingly rude and racist allowing me to smugly explain that I was cutting them off due to their 'unacceptable language'.
Based on my highly scientific research of having worked in a call centre I can reveal that 90% of the English population couldn't care less about Scotland, 3% are genuinely surprised that we actually exist, 4% love the accent/scenery or had a whale of a time up here during WW2 and the remainder would like to see every last Scottish man, woman and child exterminated.
As something of an anglophile it should pain me and much as it used to it's just gob dripping down the window to me these days. For the love of God you don't die because people don't like you. Thirteen years of being tormented at school for being ugly taught me that. Rejection shouldn't affect you other than to make you stronger and revel in the very thing that makes folk reject you. Sign of a healthy brain.
People like Margaret Curran whining just make me despair. It's in her interests for Scotland to be a whiny, needy little backwater consumed with bitterness towards any enemy other the real one -the Labour Party. People like her thrive in an ocean of stupidity. If she really felt that strongly about people running down Scotland or Robert Burns she'd have a go at Terry Kelly who is at least open in his hatred and derision for Scotland, it's people and culture. But she doesn't. Why? Because she's quite happy to exploit they halfwit tendency amongst us who'll regard her remarks as sticking it to the English, though not sticking it so far that they stop allowing us to ponce off them. Funny that.
If she were any sort of patriot she might regard it as an embarrassment that after about a million years of Labour rule in Scotland all we have is a nation that over reacts to any slight but leeches of the neighbours all the same and is too thick and skint to govern itself. If she really cared about Scotland she'd be too busy addressing our real problems to notice the odd flea bite. Still any distraction rather than derail the gravy train eh? To think I felt a bit bad when she overheard me refer to her as having 'no breeding'. Pah I was too soft of should have just called her a whining, parasitic cunt and had done with it.
Cheerio
4/24/2009
Why Bother?
Hello,
As long term readers will be aware I'm a jolly spinster, having resolved at an early age not to get married or breed. Oh I did rather like the idea of a big frock, attention and lots of presents until the realisation hit me that a wedding is essentially a hugely expensive party to which one is compelled to invite one's parents. My parent's are nice enough people but they haven't been welcome at one of my parties since I left primary school. They would be an enormous wet blanket at a wedding party the last thing a bride wants is her mother catching her inviting the best man and the bridesmaids to a post reception orgy in the honeymoon suite.
If the subject of sex comes up at family gatherings I affect a slightly bewildered look and mutter 'oh that sex yes I think I read something about it once in a medical journal, what a silly business' , then swiftly change the subject. The last thing I need is my parents seeing me drunk at a party where I'm the centre of attention and getting the right idea about me. I have disappointed mother enough.
Then there is the frankly appalling way married people speak to each other, always trying to invite a third party into their petty disputes -bloody perverted squabble swingers the lot of them. I'd prefer not to end up like that. At present if anyone makes a disparaging remark about Mr Clairwil I want to kill them. Only the other day I brought tears to someone's eyes for failing to talk about him in suitably deferential tones. Of course if I were married to him I'd merely have laughed, denounced him as a twat and started chatting folk up at the office photocopier with a view to starting several affairs.
Anyway let's meander towards the point here. Today The Guardian published an article written by a very pleasant feminist lady who's having an awful time of it getting married. For a start she's got to contend with some buffoon who reads her blog sniping that she's failed to find a way 'to bring [the patriarchy] down'. Like I say I can't see the point in getting married but to each her own.
As a result of wanky comments like the above and making the terrible error of not wanting to offend people who are determined to be offended she's forced herself to jump through all sorts of ethical hoops: using her engagement to promote the fight for same sex marriages, buying an 'off white' dress from a charity shop, keeping her last name and the like. None of which I object to. I just think it's a shame that she has been made to feel that what should be a private matter and hopefully a happy one is something that requires justification.
Normally I want to shove folk like her down the stairs. Normally I'd sneer that's she's merely exchanged chasing male approval for chasing approval from an unrepresentative group of women but she seems like a rather earnest but decent, well intentioned egg so I shall refrain from doing so, in the hope that one day she grows a sturdier backbone and sticks up a jolly two fingers to the snipers.
In that spirit I'd like to invite her to Glasgow for her hen night. It'll be top hole stuff and we promise to keep it free from ethical considerations because even feminist bloggers deserve a day off. There will be a decent curry, booze, raucous laughter, bad dancing and the promise that what happens in Glasgow stays in Glasgow*. C'mon Jessie you won't be able to enjoy your wedding day for worrying what po-faced inadequate you've upset by enjoying yourself so make your hen night a night to remember. We'll even make the first bottle fairtrade. Let your hair down and fuck the bores for one night of your life.
Cheerio
* Alternatively she could write about it on her blog and alienate the duller readership.
As long term readers will be aware I'm a jolly spinster, having resolved at an early age not to get married or breed. Oh I did rather like the idea of a big frock, attention and lots of presents until the realisation hit me that a wedding is essentially a hugely expensive party to which one is compelled to invite one's parents. My parent's are nice enough people but they haven't been welcome at one of my parties since I left primary school. They would be an enormous wet blanket at a wedding party the last thing a bride wants is her mother catching her inviting the best man and the bridesmaids to a post reception orgy in the honeymoon suite.
If the subject of sex comes up at family gatherings I affect a slightly bewildered look and mutter 'oh that sex yes I think I read something about it once in a medical journal, what a silly business' , then swiftly change the subject. The last thing I need is my parents seeing me drunk at a party where I'm the centre of attention and getting the right idea about me. I have disappointed mother enough.
Then there is the frankly appalling way married people speak to each other, always trying to invite a third party into their petty disputes -bloody perverted squabble swingers the lot of them. I'd prefer not to end up like that. At present if anyone makes a disparaging remark about Mr Clairwil I want to kill them. Only the other day I brought tears to someone's eyes for failing to talk about him in suitably deferential tones. Of course if I were married to him I'd merely have laughed, denounced him as a twat and started chatting folk up at the office photocopier with a view to starting several affairs.
Anyway let's meander towards the point here. Today The Guardian published an article written by a very pleasant feminist lady who's having an awful time of it getting married. For a start she's got to contend with some buffoon who reads her blog sniping that she's failed to find a way 'to bring [the patriarchy] down'. Like I say I can't see the point in getting married but to each her own.
As a result of wanky comments like the above and making the terrible error of not wanting to offend people who are determined to be offended she's forced herself to jump through all sorts of ethical hoops: using her engagement to promote the fight for same sex marriages, buying an 'off white' dress from a charity shop, keeping her last name and the like. None of which I object to. I just think it's a shame that she has been made to feel that what should be a private matter and hopefully a happy one is something that requires justification.
Normally I want to shove folk like her down the stairs. Normally I'd sneer that's she's merely exchanged chasing male approval for chasing approval from an unrepresentative group of women but she seems like a rather earnest but decent, well intentioned egg so I shall refrain from doing so, in the hope that one day she grows a sturdier backbone and sticks up a jolly two fingers to the snipers.
In that spirit I'd like to invite her to Glasgow for her hen night. It'll be top hole stuff and we promise to keep it free from ethical considerations because even feminist bloggers deserve a day off. There will be a decent curry, booze, raucous laughter, bad dancing and the promise that what happens in Glasgow stays in Glasgow*. C'mon Jessie you won't be able to enjoy your wedding day for worrying what po-faced inadequate you've upset by enjoying yourself so make your hen night a night to remember. We'll even make the first bottle fairtrade. Let your hair down and fuck the bores for one night of your life.
Cheerio
* Alternatively she could write about it on her blog and alienate the duller readership.
4/17/2009
Oh God! Not Rupert!
Hello,
I'm not one of those folk who pore over pictures of the rich and famous guffawing at bad plastic surgery or worse looking for cellulite and the like. One of my favourite pastimes is looking at things and I'd far rather look at a beautiful thing than a ropey one. I'm funny like that.
There are few things I enjoy looking at more than Rupert Everett which is why stumbling upon this act of vandalism tortures me. Who is responsible for this outrage? He was aging rather nicely-what on earth possessed him? The surgeon responsible must be strung up before he reoffends.
I'm honestly devastated at the loss of one of the world's great beauties so much so that I'm considering having my stationery edged in black. Is surgery a bit like hairdye in that it settles down a bit after a time? Please answer yes.
Cheerio
I'm not one of those folk who pore over pictures of the rich and famous guffawing at bad plastic surgery or worse looking for cellulite and the like. One of my favourite pastimes is looking at things and I'd far rather look at a beautiful thing than a ropey one. I'm funny like that.
There are few things I enjoy looking at more than Rupert Everett which is why stumbling upon this act of vandalism tortures me. Who is responsible for this outrage? He was aging rather nicely-what on earth possessed him? The surgeon responsible must be strung up before he reoffends.
I'm honestly devastated at the loss of one of the world's great beauties so much so that I'm considering having my stationery edged in black. Is surgery a bit like hairdye in that it settles down a bit after a time? Please answer yes.
Cheerio
4/15/2009
Benefit Scrounging Scum!
Hello,
Is there nothing an MP wouldn't claim on expenses? Is there no point where they think they might be able to manage to buy something out of their wages?
I merely ask because the loathsome James Purnell has been claiming £400 per month, roughly double what an unemployed 20 year old get's a month with with to buy food, pay their utility bills, water and sewerage charge, clothe themselves and travel to and from job interviews. He was trying to claim £475 per month but apparently that breaks the rules. Thank God there are some rules otherwise the claims of these scrounging scumbags would run into billions.
However our generosity to scrounger James does not end there, we the tax payer also splashed out £145,000 since 2001 to pay for cleaning (!!!!), utility bills and his second home in Islington. No doubt James reckons all these are essential costs.
The thing is all the people that Jamesey would cross the road to avoid, that he's happily tossing off Employment and Support Allowance regard their double figure pittance as essential, whilst James regards it as an incentive to be idle. I'm sure James is right -they couldn't possibly be paying a buffoon all that money could they? So with that in mind I suggest a national whipround to pay James the sum of £64:50 per week from now until he retires on the strict condition he stays out of the workplace, lest he cause any further damage to the country.
Before we pay James off though I'd be delighted if he'd pop in to my workplace and help us out with a couple of benefit gluttons we've been dealing with because we're having a bit of trouble. First up is a fellow, also called James, a lovely man, very polite, reeks of piss, wears a dressing gown as an overcoat, can't go anywhere without his mother, talks about his cat all the time and would like to join the police force. For some reason employers seem to be reluctant to employ him. I'd love Jamesey to tell us where we've gone wrong and identify exactly what sort of work this man is fit for because his department declared him fit for work despite him suffering a wee touch of Paranoid Schizophrenia. He scored zero points on the Incapacity Benefit Descriptors. If you've ever wondered what a benefit medical is like -this is a pretty good description. Very unfortunate but we simply must protect the public purse from scroungers.
Another chap I'd like to find work for is a charming, personable, clean young fellow who's hit hard times. He's twenty-three years old and was made redundant in October last year but got temporary Christmas work in November before being paid off again in January. He's applied for ninety-three jobs since December 2008, attended twelve interviews since January and doesn't seem to be having much luck. His weekly income is £50:75 from which he pays £5.00 per week towards water and sewerage, £ 10.00 per week to electricity, £7.00 per week to gas , £8.00 per week rent, £5.00 per week to his pay as you go mobile and the rest to food, housekeeping, clothing, travelling to interviews and stamps. Still with incentives like £50:75 per week is at any wonder he's not working? Perhaps James could set him to the righteous path of toil.
When Labour came to power unemployment was just short of two million. It is now much the same despite the 'New Deal', Tax Credits and various other carrots and sticks to prevent idleness being introduced over the years. Is it possible that unemployment might be influenced by something outwith the claimants control? Or are we just too generous to incompetent ministers who, when presented with an expenses claim form do nothing but take this piss? Perhaps it's time the benefit system was looked at by people who don't labour under the misapprehension that we're all as low as they are.
Cheerio
Is there nothing an MP wouldn't claim on expenses? Is there no point where they think they might be able to manage to buy something out of their wages?
I merely ask because the loathsome James Purnell has been claiming £400 per month, roughly double what an unemployed 20 year old get's a month with with to buy food, pay their utility bills, water and sewerage charge, clothe themselves and travel to and from job interviews. He was trying to claim £475 per month but apparently that breaks the rules. Thank God there are some rules otherwise the claims of these scrounging scumbags would run into billions.
However our generosity to scrounger James does not end there, we the tax payer also splashed out £145,000 since 2001 to pay for cleaning (!!!!), utility bills and his second home in Islington. No doubt James reckons all these are essential costs.
The thing is all the people that Jamesey would cross the road to avoid, that he's happily tossing off Employment and Support Allowance regard their double figure pittance as essential, whilst James regards it as an incentive to be idle. I'm sure James is right -they couldn't possibly be paying a buffoon all that money could they? So with that in mind I suggest a national whipround to pay James the sum of £64:50 per week from now until he retires on the strict condition he stays out of the workplace, lest he cause any further damage to the country.
Before we pay James off though I'd be delighted if he'd pop in to my workplace and help us out with a couple of benefit gluttons we've been dealing with because we're having a bit of trouble. First up is a fellow, also called James, a lovely man, very polite, reeks of piss, wears a dressing gown as an overcoat, can't go anywhere without his mother, talks about his cat all the time and would like to join the police force. For some reason employers seem to be reluctant to employ him. I'd love Jamesey to tell us where we've gone wrong and identify exactly what sort of work this man is fit for because his department declared him fit for work despite him suffering a wee touch of Paranoid Schizophrenia. He scored zero points on the Incapacity Benefit Descriptors. If you've ever wondered what a benefit medical is like -this is a pretty good description. Very unfortunate but we simply must protect the public purse from scroungers.
Another chap I'd like to find work for is a charming, personable, clean young fellow who's hit hard times. He's twenty-three years old and was made redundant in October last year but got temporary Christmas work in November before being paid off again in January. He's applied for ninety-three jobs since December 2008, attended twelve interviews since January and doesn't seem to be having much luck. His weekly income is £50:75 from which he pays £5.00 per week towards water and sewerage, £ 10.00 per week to electricity, £7.00 per week to gas , £8.00 per week rent, £5.00 per week to his pay as you go mobile and the rest to food, housekeeping, clothing, travelling to interviews and stamps. Still with incentives like £50:75 per week is at any wonder he's not working? Perhaps James could set him to the righteous path of toil.
When Labour came to power unemployment was just short of two million. It is now much the same despite the 'New Deal', Tax Credits and various other carrots and sticks to prevent idleness being introduced over the years. Is it possible that unemployment might be influenced by something outwith the claimants control? Or are we just too generous to incompetent ministers who, when presented with an expenses claim form do nothing but take this piss? Perhaps it's time the benefit system was looked at by people who don't labour under the misapprehension that we're all as low as they are.
Cheerio
4/13/2009
4/12/2009
Day Tripping
Hello,
I've been making the most of the fantastic weather today, firstly by scattering a few seeds and picking up litter from my Wilson Street flower bed, or my garden as I like to think of it, at the unholy hour of 8:30am. Then it was back to Clairwil towers for a spot of breakfast a play about on the internet before being swept off to the countryside by mummy and daddy for a belated birthday lunch.
As some of you may know I don't drive. I tried it once and nearly drove into a wall -though in fairness I was drunk at the time. After that I thought that it might be best for all concerned if I were to avoid cars. Naturally mummy sensing that I was perfectly happy not driving has leant on me to change that, so much so that I was thinking of having a go whilst sober.
Today changed all that. My parents are good people but never in my whole life have I seen two human beings more ruined by the automobile than them. Firstly they took me to the Lomond Shores retail outlet which has a marvellous view and mediocre shops including a branch of popular confectioners Thorntons. Can anyone tell me what the point of that wretched place is? A sweet shop should be a place of joy but it's so beige. If I had the money I'd open a proper fucking sweet shop and drive them out of business.
Now had we stayed at Lomond Shores we could have gone for a walk in the national park or even visited the Loch Lomond Aquarium but since we had a car we could leave and be elsewhere in a flash. Elsewhere, after speeding through beautiful scenery at an alarming rate, turned out to be Luss but we couldn't get parked so carried on flying along in the car until we reached The Drovers Inn, I was perfectly happy, there was a rooster, several chickens, a tit, stuffed animals and a beer garden. However Mummy didn't like the menu so we left and drove to the Ben Lomond Restaurant but again the menu didn't meet Mummy's exacting standards. So we got in the car again and eventually had lunch at The Tickled Trout in Milngavie.
Now imagine how much better that would have been without a car. We'd have hopped on a train at Queen Street, hopped off at Ardlui, gone for a walk and been so hungry we'd have been delighted with the fare on offer at The Drovers Inn (which was better than what we ended up with). In other words we'd have got by. We wouldn't have allowed a bit of snootiness to send us scurrying back to a pub barely outside Glasgow for a mediocre lunch. Cars make people soft and unable to cope with even something as trivial as a country pub's limited menu.
All of the above explains why my parents hated Port Logan whilst I and it would appear the anglers of England know it to be heaven on earth. We took the time to look at it, mum and dad drove in, saw the pub had a tartan carpet and drove back out. Cars have their uses but appreciating the land is not one of them.
Still on the plus side the whole pointless experience has got me plotting train journey's both great and small for the summer. The sooner speed bumps and vehicle tolls are erected in the countryside the better as far as I'm concerned. The countryside was made to be taken slowly with a smattering of public transport for the tricky bits. So for all the delays, aching muscles and bad food endured by the walker and passenger I'm happier on my feet taking the world at a natural pace and really seeing it. As someone who loathes the idea of roughing it, getting by and making do it's not easy to admit but sometimes the easy way is not the best way.
Cheerio
I've been making the most of the fantastic weather today, firstly by scattering a few seeds and picking up litter from my Wilson Street flower bed, or my garden as I like to think of it, at the unholy hour of 8:30am. Then it was back to Clairwil towers for a spot of breakfast a play about on the internet before being swept off to the countryside by mummy and daddy for a belated birthday lunch.
As some of you may know I don't drive. I tried it once and nearly drove into a wall -though in fairness I was drunk at the time. After that I thought that it might be best for all concerned if I were to avoid cars. Naturally mummy sensing that I was perfectly happy not driving has leant on me to change that, so much so that I was thinking of having a go whilst sober.
Today changed all that. My parents are good people but never in my whole life have I seen two human beings more ruined by the automobile than them. Firstly they took me to the Lomond Shores retail outlet which has a marvellous view and mediocre shops including a branch of popular confectioners Thorntons. Can anyone tell me what the point of that wretched place is? A sweet shop should be a place of joy but it's so beige. If I had the money I'd open a proper fucking sweet shop and drive them out of business.
Now had we stayed at Lomond Shores we could have gone for a walk in the national park or even visited the Loch Lomond Aquarium but since we had a car we could leave and be elsewhere in a flash. Elsewhere, after speeding through beautiful scenery at an alarming rate, turned out to be Luss but we couldn't get parked so carried on flying along in the car until we reached The Drovers Inn, I was perfectly happy, there was a rooster, several chickens, a tit, stuffed animals and a beer garden. However Mummy didn't like the menu so we left and drove to the Ben Lomond Restaurant but again the menu didn't meet Mummy's exacting standards. So we got in the car again and eventually had lunch at The Tickled Trout in Milngavie.
Now imagine how much better that would have been without a car. We'd have hopped on a train at Queen Street, hopped off at Ardlui, gone for a walk and been so hungry we'd have been delighted with the fare on offer at The Drovers Inn (which was better than what we ended up with). In other words we'd have got by. We wouldn't have allowed a bit of snootiness to send us scurrying back to a pub barely outside Glasgow for a mediocre lunch. Cars make people soft and unable to cope with even something as trivial as a country pub's limited menu.
All of the above explains why my parents hated Port Logan whilst I and it would appear the anglers of England know it to be heaven on earth. We took the time to look at it, mum and dad drove in, saw the pub had a tartan carpet and drove back out. Cars have their uses but appreciating the land is not one of them.
Still on the plus side the whole pointless experience has got me plotting train journey's both great and small for the summer. The sooner speed bumps and vehicle tolls are erected in the countryside the better as far as I'm concerned. The countryside was made to be taken slowly with a smattering of public transport for the tricky bits. So for all the delays, aching muscles and bad food endured by the walker and passenger I'm happier on my feet taking the world at a natural pace and really seeing it. As someone who loathes the idea of roughing it, getting by and making do it's not easy to admit but sometimes the easy way is not the best way.
Cheerio
4/11/2009
Meet The New Messiah!
Hello,
It had to happen. The minute I heard from an anguished Mr Clairwil that Tony Blair had taken up Catholicism I knew he wouldn't be able to resist reforming it. Not content with reforming the Labour Party by putting together a programme based in all the horrid bits of the right and the creepy bits of the left, now he's taken up Rome meddling.
I'm quite certain that old Tony chops imagines future historians writing unfavourably of pre-Blair Catholicism and marvelling at the wonderful world of post-Blair Catholicism. Perhaps we'll all have to get used to writing BB and AB in history papers. I wouldn't raise so much as an eyebrow. I firmly believe that God shot himself following the broadcast of the first episode of Gladiators on UK television so barring a miracle he isn't going to save the world from St Tony -The Reformer. Nature help us!
It's his entire way of thinking that alarms me. For example he thinks the church should change it's view on homosexuality not because it's wrong, not because they ignore all sorts of inconvenient stuff from the good book so might as well add homosexuality to the list but because things have to keep 'evolving'. Good old Tony he's all about change isn't he? He doesn't of course go on to say why things should keep evolving as long as they are that's good enough for Tony. I'll bet it was a struggle to stop himself saying 'a bit like me really' when he referred to Jesus and Mohammed as aiming to 'change the way people thought traditionally'.
Not that he wants to offend the Pope by being really controversial because the Pope stands for 'some fantastic things'. He's not going to tell us what he believes these fantastic things are because that would y'know mean expressing a firm opinion in a situation where he wants everyone to like him. If you look back at Tony's career the only time he ever stuck to his guns was when he was pissing off the left of his party because that allowed him to delude himself that he was effective and experience the thrill of martyrdom without really being at any any serious risk. It's very telling that he attributes the Pope's opinions on homosexuality not to his sincerely held beliefs or principles but to a concern that he might have to give ground on other issues. In other words it's a purely practical management issue not a principle.
Make no mistake the only reason Blair ever championed gay rights was because opposing them would have made him look old fashioned. If in some parallel universe the last Tory government had been all for gay rights every last known homosexual in the country would now be attending 'family values workshops' having been made the subject of an ASBO. It's not that Tony hates gays it's just that he doesn't believe in anything that doesn't fit the personal advancement of Tony Blair. In the interview he describes feeling frustrated by Ken Livingstone's comparatively early championing of gay rights believing 'we had to get into government' , of course being a pretty straight sort of guy Tony is big enough to admit he got it wrong . Had gay rights cost him an election he'd be the first to condemn loony lefty Ken and the poofs.
It all begs the question why Tony became a Catholic? His voting record would suggest he's pro-choice, pro-gay rights and doesn't mind a war or two -even when the Pope himself condemns it. After all it's perfectly possible to believe in God and be a Christian without aligning oneself to a particular church. He's such a snivelling little opportunist I can't help but think there's more to it than pressure from Cherie. What is he up to?
It had to happen. The minute I heard from an anguished Mr Clairwil that Tony Blair had taken up Catholicism I knew he wouldn't be able to resist reforming it. Not content with reforming the Labour Party by putting together a programme based in all the horrid bits of the right and the creepy bits of the left, now he's taken up Rome meddling.
I'm quite certain that old Tony chops imagines future historians writing unfavourably of pre-Blair Catholicism and marvelling at the wonderful world of post-Blair Catholicism. Perhaps we'll all have to get used to writing BB and AB in history papers. I wouldn't raise so much as an eyebrow. I firmly believe that God shot himself following the broadcast of the first episode of Gladiators on UK television so barring a miracle he isn't going to save the world from St Tony -The Reformer. Nature help us!
It's his entire way of thinking that alarms me. For example he thinks the church should change it's view on homosexuality not because it's wrong, not because they ignore all sorts of inconvenient stuff from the good book so might as well add homosexuality to the list but because things have to keep 'evolving'. Good old Tony he's all about change isn't he? He doesn't of course go on to say why things should keep evolving as long as they are that's good enough for Tony. I'll bet it was a struggle to stop himself saying 'a bit like me really' when he referred to Jesus and Mohammed as aiming to 'change the way people thought traditionally'.
Not that he wants to offend the Pope by being really controversial because the Pope stands for 'some fantastic things'. He's not going to tell us what he believes these fantastic things are because that would y'know mean expressing a firm opinion in a situation where he wants everyone to like him. If you look back at Tony's career the only time he ever stuck to his guns was when he was pissing off the left of his party because that allowed him to delude himself that he was effective and experience the thrill of martyrdom without really being at any any serious risk. It's very telling that he attributes the Pope's opinions on homosexuality not to his sincerely held beliefs or principles but to a concern that he might have to give ground on other issues. In other words it's a purely practical management issue not a principle.
Make no mistake the only reason Blair ever championed gay rights was because opposing them would have made him look old fashioned. If in some parallel universe the last Tory government had been all for gay rights every last known homosexual in the country would now be attending 'family values workshops' having been made the subject of an ASBO. It's not that Tony hates gays it's just that he doesn't believe in anything that doesn't fit the personal advancement of Tony Blair. In the interview he describes feeling frustrated by Ken Livingstone's comparatively early championing of gay rights believing 'we had to get into government' , of course being a pretty straight sort of guy Tony is big enough to admit he got it wrong . Had gay rights cost him an election he'd be the first to condemn loony lefty Ken and the poofs.
It all begs the question why Tony became a Catholic? His voting record would suggest he's pro-choice, pro-gay rights and doesn't mind a war or two -even when the Pope himself condemns it. After all it's perfectly possible to believe in God and be a Christian without aligning oneself to a particular church. He's such a snivelling little opportunist I can't help but think there's more to it than pressure from Cherie. What is he up to?
Un PC Gone Mad!
Hello,
Mummy obviously in one of her mischeivous moments sent me a link to an article in the Daily Mail. The queer thing is it's actually bloody brilliant, more alarming still the comments below are with a few exceptions in argreement with the article.
What in God's name is going on?
Mummy obviously in one of her mischeivous moments sent me a link to an article in the Daily Mail. The queer thing is it's actually bloody brilliant, more alarming still the comments below are with a few exceptions in argreement with the article.
What in God's name is going on?
4/09/2009
PC Gone Mad!
Hello,
It is with great regret that I confess I have become rather too interested in online comments. Hours of my life have vanished gazing in slack jawed astonishment at the remarkable comments on various newspaper websites.
The Guardian comments in particular are a source of constant bemusement. Take for example their reaction to the assault on Ian Tomlinson.
One has to wade through the comments claiming the police officer concerned is clearly guilty of murder or that we are now living in Nazi Germany and so on which are as predictable as they are absurd, to get to the real belters. It's all there -the outrage at the general concensus, the more in sorrow than anger tone, the air of superiority of the folk who are defending the police officer involved.
So to save you the job of ploughing through hundreds of comments I shall tackle the case for the defence of PC Push by making snide comments in the usual style.
One of the most tireless defenders of the policeman concerned asks us all to remember that the man was under stress. I have no doubt that he was and have a degree of sympathy for him in that respect but I am also led to understand that police get training in that sort of thing to help them cope in stressful situations. Furthermore I'd suggest that someone who has difficulty controlling their violent urges when their job causes them stress might be better suited to lighthouse keeping than police work. One wonders if it was also 'stress' that prevented his colleagues from restraining him? Of course I'm sure those who are defending him on the grounds of stress would be quite happy to be assaulted by anyone under stress.
The same tireless defender goes on to argue that the policeman will have to live with what happened for the rest of his life which is punishment enough. Christ I thought I was liberal! On that basis why punish anyone at all? Gosh what a beastly society we are -locking up poor old Mareck Harcar for twenty-five years when the poor lamb will have to live with being a nasty, murdering, rapist scumbag for the rest of his days. God I feel such a crumb for hoping a few of his fellow inmates beat him to death, ideally having sodomised him with a broken bottle first. Still I'll have to live with having thought that for the rest of my life. Pity my anguish.
I'm also quite intrigued by the notion that PC Push may have thought the fellow was drunk or stoned and responded to this by pushing him over. Honestly I've thought about this one all day and I remain puzzled. Why in the name of all that is sacred and holy would anyone let alone a police officer push someone over because they were intoxicated. If the man was causing a problem would it not have been more appropriate to arrest him?
Similarly I'm baffled as to why people keep implying rightly or wrongly that Mr Tomlinson was homeless or sneering at his occupation as a newspaper seller. I do realise that for some folk anyone earning less than them is inherently worthless but they could at least try and hide it. Of course I think what they're trying to say that the police only attack people not like us therefore it doesn't matter.
Then there is the hoary, old chestnut that all the protesters were middle class/ dirty/ stupid/ left-wing/anarchists/students/benefit claimants so therefore deserve everything that's coming to them. Isn't it remarkable that such lovers of the police have exactly the same outlook as the average Glasgow ned? I expect I'm alone for being terrified that people with the mental capacity to use a keyboard are still so alarmed that there are people that are different from them.
I could go on, there are other belters in there -the demonstrators as good as killed him, he wasn't dressed like someone coming home from work, he walked to slowly, the police abroad are worse, you can't criticise the police unless you're prepared to join the force and so on. And increasingly on. I warn you click the article link at your peril -days of my life have been lost forever.
Anyway I shall leave you with a prediction from my loony left perspective. PC Push will be hung out to dry and we shall all move on. Meanwhile his superiors who allowed officers to conceal their numbers, wear balaclavas (why?) and contributed to a general atmosphere of agression by issuing inflammatory statements to the press about being 'up for it' ahead of the protests will get off scot-free. If there's one thing Push can do to at least partially redeem himself it's to refuse to be the only one carrying the can.
Cheerio
It is with great regret that I confess I have become rather too interested in online comments. Hours of my life have vanished gazing in slack jawed astonishment at the remarkable comments on various newspaper websites.
The Guardian comments in particular are a source of constant bemusement. Take for example their reaction to the assault on Ian Tomlinson.
One has to wade through the comments claiming the police officer concerned is clearly guilty of murder or that we are now living in Nazi Germany and so on which are as predictable as they are absurd, to get to the real belters. It's all there -the outrage at the general concensus, the more in sorrow than anger tone, the air of superiority of the folk who are defending the police officer involved.
So to save you the job of ploughing through hundreds of comments I shall tackle the case for the defence of PC Push by making snide comments in the usual style.
One of the most tireless defenders of the policeman concerned asks us all to remember that the man was under stress. I have no doubt that he was and have a degree of sympathy for him in that respect but I am also led to understand that police get training in that sort of thing to help them cope in stressful situations. Furthermore I'd suggest that someone who has difficulty controlling their violent urges when their job causes them stress might be better suited to lighthouse keeping than police work. One wonders if it was also 'stress' that prevented his colleagues from restraining him? Of course I'm sure those who are defending him on the grounds of stress would be quite happy to be assaulted by anyone under stress.
The same tireless defender goes on to argue that the policeman will have to live with what happened for the rest of his life which is punishment enough. Christ I thought I was liberal! On that basis why punish anyone at all? Gosh what a beastly society we are -locking up poor old Mareck Harcar for twenty-five years when the poor lamb will have to live with being a nasty, murdering, rapist scumbag for the rest of his days. God I feel such a crumb for hoping a few of his fellow inmates beat him to death, ideally having sodomised him with a broken bottle first. Still I'll have to live with having thought that for the rest of my life. Pity my anguish.
I'm also quite intrigued by the notion that PC Push may have thought the fellow was drunk or stoned and responded to this by pushing him over. Honestly I've thought about this one all day and I remain puzzled. Why in the name of all that is sacred and holy would anyone let alone a police officer push someone over because they were intoxicated. If the man was causing a problem would it not have been more appropriate to arrest him?
Similarly I'm baffled as to why people keep implying rightly or wrongly that Mr Tomlinson was homeless or sneering at his occupation as a newspaper seller. I do realise that for some folk anyone earning less than them is inherently worthless but they could at least try and hide it. Of course I think what they're trying to say that the police only attack people not like us therefore it doesn't matter.
Then there is the hoary, old chestnut that all the protesters were middle class/ dirty/ stupid/ left-wing/anarchists/students/benefit claimants so therefore deserve everything that's coming to them. Isn't it remarkable that such lovers of the police have exactly the same outlook as the average Glasgow ned? I expect I'm alone for being terrified that people with the mental capacity to use a keyboard are still so alarmed that there are people that are different from them.
I could go on, there are other belters in there -the demonstrators as good as killed him, he wasn't dressed like someone coming home from work, he walked to slowly, the police abroad are worse, you can't criticise the police unless you're prepared to join the force and so on. And increasingly on. I warn you click the article link at your peril -days of my life have been lost forever.
Anyway I shall leave you with a prediction from my loony left perspective. PC Push will be hung out to dry and we shall all move on. Meanwhile his superiors who allowed officers to conceal their numbers, wear balaclavas (why?) and contributed to a general atmosphere of agression by issuing inflammatory statements to the press about being 'up for it' ahead of the protests will get off scot-free. If there's one thing Push can do to at least partially redeem himself it's to refuse to be the only one carrying the can.
Cheerio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)