Hello,
I was wildly excited this morning when my polling card for next months European election landed on my doormat. I'm perfectly serious, I love voting. God alone knows why, as far as I can tell you'd have more influence if you locked yourself in a public convenience and wrote dirty words on a wall. For some reason by the time polling day comes I have worked myself into such a state that I come to believe that the whole election hangs on my vote. On wrong X and Labour could get in yet again!
Which brings me to my troubling dilemma. Having looked at the choice on offer I have whittled it down to two lucky finalists. I rather like the SNP candidate and think he would do a good job but that's a bit of a waste in Europe as it's a gigantic undemocratic, expenses scam. He seems like a nice chap but what if he got in with a bad crowd on the expenses scene? Think about it, he'd be the new boy, feeling a bit alone then the cool crowd take an interest in him. He feels great and bit flattered to have such exciting new friends and that's when they'll pounce! What if they corner him and tell him he's a pussy if he doesn't bump up his expenses. Of course he'd be the one caught and made an example of and no one would believe that the bullies made him do it and in real life he's a fellow brought up with the utmost care by respectable parents. All that's wrtong with him is that he's pro-EU.
It's a schoolyard classic used to happen all the time round the smokers during my days at secondary. I'll never forget the day poor Jatinder got booted out of school for grand larceny after being lured into leading role in a badly planned school equipment heist by the neds. I'm afraid it was partly my fault, he was a perfectly well behaved boy until a teacher made him my 'special responsibility' on account of what she felt was my 'calming influence'. Unfortunately he resented my authority and rebelled with disastrous consequences. With hindsight I could have handled the whole situation better. Instead of treating him like a person I acted like I'd been given a toy. If I wasn't threatening to debag him and spank his bare arse in front of the whole school I was trying to put baubles in his hair or lipstick on his face. Never underestimate the havoc that can be wrought by getting in with the wrong sort of folk. If you're reading Jatinder I really am very sorry.
God that was a wander wasn't it? Anyway the second lucky finalist is No2EU who will not be taking up their seat if elected and take a dim view of the European Union so the risks of them getting in with a bad crowd are minimal. Then there is also the opportunity of a European election to register a wee protest at that monstrous union of crooks and it does seem a shame to duck the issue by voting for a pro-EU candidate. In truth it's the haunting fear of splitting the anti-Labour vote that puts me off because my one piddly vote is so vastly important.
My question to you all is have you ever had a polling booth dilemma and how did you resolve it?
Honestly I'm like an alkie who doesn't know whether to tan the rum or the vodka first. I do not want your opinions on my choices, what I'm looking for is a good system to assist me weigh up the pros and cons.
Cheerio
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
5/08/2009
6/19/2008
Bloody EU/Council/Government Bastards
Hello,
I didn't intend to mention the EU again this week, in fact I felt a good deal lighter having got all it all of my chest.
You will therefore imagine just how surprised I was when it was announced it work this afternoon that there is to be a change in the way we get our council handout. It's all got very exciting the Scottish Government have ordered the council to offer contracts for various services and get all the charities and private companies competing with each other. I have no idea whether this in itself is a good idea or not. As the council are actually foolish enough to believe the statistics we submit I very much doubt this change will do anything at all for service quality.
What I did imagine it would do is cut costs. Ha Ha Ha Ha! Unfortunately the whole process must conform to EU rules. Naturally the management have looked at these and quickly become baffled. I had a quick peek and swiftly concluded that this was a job for the professionals -a rare moment of agreement between me and my manager.
As far as I can make out in order for the council to get value for money they are having to provide additional financial assistance to various charities so that someone can help them put in money saving bids. In other words money is being taken out of one budget and hidden in another. This is in addition to the full time member of staff we have who actually understands how lottery and charity funding works paid for by the council to allow us to seek alternative funding sources so that we would be less reliant on the council. Oh and the staff member the council paid for to help record the statistical reports required to see if we're worth funding or not.
Every time they change the funding structure another five pointless jobs are created. Given that the charity I work for does work which is currently the responsibility of the council -hence why we get a share of the saved council staffing costs. Would it not be easier and cheaper just to hand over the cash and let us get on with it. Or am I over simplifying things?
If I were in charge I'd tell them to shove it and raise the money through jumble sales, donations and sponsored things. An individual begging on the streets might feel demeaned but an organisation wasting its time and energy begging on forms for a measly £40,000* is pitiful.
Cheerio
*Plus the further £40,000 required to pay folk to record statistics and apply for grants. I'd imagine the EU funding consultant could trouser at the very least £25,000. If they'd just given us the £40,000 we wanted in the first place they could have saved at least £65,000 finding out if we were worth it.
I didn't intend to mention the EU again this week, in fact I felt a good deal lighter having got all it all of my chest.
You will therefore imagine just how surprised I was when it was announced it work this afternoon that there is to be a change in the way we get our council handout. It's all got very exciting the Scottish Government have ordered the council to offer contracts for various services and get all the charities and private companies competing with each other. I have no idea whether this in itself is a good idea or not. As the council are actually foolish enough to believe the statistics we submit I very much doubt this change will do anything at all for service quality.
What I did imagine it would do is cut costs. Ha Ha Ha Ha! Unfortunately the whole process must conform to EU rules. Naturally the management have looked at these and quickly become baffled. I had a quick peek and swiftly concluded that this was a job for the professionals -a rare moment of agreement between me and my manager.
As far as I can make out in order for the council to get value for money they are having to provide additional financial assistance to various charities so that someone can help them put in money saving bids. In other words money is being taken out of one budget and hidden in another. This is in addition to the full time member of staff we have who actually understands how lottery and charity funding works paid for by the council to allow us to seek alternative funding sources so that we would be less reliant on the council. Oh and the staff member the council paid for to help record the statistical reports required to see if we're worth funding or not.
Every time they change the funding structure another five pointless jobs are created. Given that the charity I work for does work which is currently the responsibility of the council -hence why we get a share of the saved council staffing costs. Would it not be easier and cheaper just to hand over the cash and let us get on with it. Or am I over simplifying things?
If I were in charge I'd tell them to shove it and raise the money through jumble sales, donations and sponsored things. An individual begging on the streets might feel demeaned but an organisation wasting its time and energy begging on forms for a measly £40,000* is pitiful.
Cheerio
*Plus the further £40,000 required to pay folk to record statistics and apply for grants. I'd imagine the EU funding consultant could trouser at the very least £25,000. If they'd just given us the £40,000 we wanted in the first place they could have saved at least £65,000 finding out if we were worth it.
6/17/2008
Please Tell Me This is A Prank
'Where public opinion is a mystery to itself, it is won over from the outset by every piece of writing that formally breaks through the mystical barriers. The censorship makes every forbidden work, whether good or bad, into an extraordinary document, whereas freedom of the press deprives every written work of an externally imposing effect.' -Karl Marx
Hello,
I was strolling round the internet when I came upon this on this post on The Devils Kitchen.
Being in one of my more optimistic moods I assumed the author had been at the sauce and got all delusional on us so went to investigate for myself. Oh how I wish I hadn't. Perhaps I've missed something but I've always found the happy world of blogging pootles along quite nicely still I expect that's why I'm not an MEP -not enough botherer genes.
Anyway it has come to the attention of one Marianne Mikko MEP that something must be done. According to Marrianne 'the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them.'
Oh God! I hate 'less principled' bloggers! But wait help is at hand;
'I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.'
Exactly who will be dishing out this 'quality mark' and what in Gods name has it to do with the European parliament who is blogging and why they choose to do so? What will being denied the 'quality mark' mean? What happens if you go ahead and blog without it? What relevance is why someone blogs to anyone let alone Marianne Mikko and chums? Why can't they mind their own bloody business? Does it not occur to them that blogs are seen as 'sincere' because they are by and large honest about their views unlike say self-serving politicians for example?
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, another of these nosy, interfering, wannabe totalitarian bastards had this to say 'any blogger representing or expressing more than their personal view should be affected by this report.' Eh? So charities, political parties, pressure groups, religions, clubs, businesses and societies will all need a quality mark to blog. It gets worse 'Blogs are powerful tools, they can represent an advance form of lobbyism, which in turn can be seen as a threat.'
A threat to who exactly? Since when did pressure groups and the like require permission to express their views. Do these clowns honestly believe that we automatically believe something because it's on a blog rather than say a badly photocopied leaflet or the front page of the Socialist Worker? And anyway so what if we do it's up to us what we believe and what we regard as a credible source or are they going to go after that next.
There is another way to read this, how about?;
'I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as non-threatening. And it should remain non-threatening to our interests. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why to ensure we have some control over it.'
Now before anyone gets too alarmed this isn't about to become law -yet. At the moment it's just a resolution but to me the fact they're even discussing restrictions on freedom of speech is sinister. Call me paranoid but people that I cannot vote out of office wishing to censor what I can and can't read and in what context I can express my opinions makes me very uneasy indeed. Oh and don't go thinking nothing will come of it. If I wanted to pass such a law regarding the internet I'd make something up about terrorists and pedophiles and it would sail through. Expect to see reports along these lines in the not too distant future.
This of course is only the beginning. Look how easily Google and Microsoft caved into Chinese government censorship. If the European Parliament get away with this how long before all blogs are subject to 'quality marks'. Then why not let the press and book publishers become part of the 'quality mark' scheme. After all it would stop publishers wasting their money on 'low quality' books and articles. Where does this road end? Mass book pulping (they're too subtle to risk a burning) and computer confiscation by which time it will be too late to do anything about it.
I intend to give my MEP, MP and MSPs a bit of earache over this. I want to know where all the British parties stand on this issue and how they intend to oppose it (if at all) should it become proposed legislation. It's not much but it's a start until I or someone else comes up with something better.
Cheerio
Hello,
I was strolling round the internet when I came upon this on this post on The Devils Kitchen.
Being in one of my more optimistic moods I assumed the author had been at the sauce and got all delusional on us so went to investigate for myself. Oh how I wish I hadn't. Perhaps I've missed something but I've always found the happy world of blogging pootles along quite nicely still I expect that's why I'm not an MEP -not enough botherer genes.
Anyway it has come to the attention of one Marianne Mikko MEP that something must be done. According to Marrianne 'the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them.'
Oh God! I hate 'less principled' bloggers! But wait help is at hand;
'I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.'
Exactly who will be dishing out this 'quality mark' and what in Gods name has it to do with the European parliament who is blogging and why they choose to do so? What will being denied the 'quality mark' mean? What happens if you go ahead and blog without it? What relevance is why someone blogs to anyone let alone Marianne Mikko and chums? Why can't they mind their own bloody business? Does it not occur to them that blogs are seen as 'sincere' because they are by and large honest about their views unlike say self-serving politicians for example?
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, another of these nosy, interfering, wannabe totalitarian bastards had this to say 'any blogger representing or expressing more than their personal view should be affected by this report.' Eh? So charities, political parties, pressure groups, religions, clubs, businesses and societies will all need a quality mark to blog. It gets worse 'Blogs are powerful tools, they can represent an advance form of lobbyism, which in turn can be seen as a threat.'
A threat to who exactly? Since when did pressure groups and the like require permission to express their views. Do these clowns honestly believe that we automatically believe something because it's on a blog rather than say a badly photocopied leaflet or the front page of the Socialist Worker? And anyway so what if we do it's up to us what we believe and what we regard as a credible source or are they going to go after that next.
There is another way to read this, how about?;
'I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as non-threatening. And it should remain non-threatening to our interests. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why to ensure we have some control over it.'
Now before anyone gets too alarmed this isn't about to become law -yet. At the moment it's just a resolution but to me the fact they're even discussing restrictions on freedom of speech is sinister. Call me paranoid but people that I cannot vote out of office wishing to censor what I can and can't read and in what context I can express my opinions makes me very uneasy indeed. Oh and don't go thinking nothing will come of it. If I wanted to pass such a law regarding the internet I'd make something up about terrorists and pedophiles and it would sail through. Expect to see reports along these lines in the not too distant future.
This of course is only the beginning. Look how easily Google and Microsoft caved into Chinese government censorship. If the European Parliament get away with this how long before all blogs are subject to 'quality marks'. Then why not let the press and book publishers become part of the 'quality mark' scheme. After all it would stop publishers wasting their money on 'low quality' books and articles. Where does this road end? Mass book pulping (they're too subtle to risk a burning) and computer confiscation by which time it will be too late to do anything about it.
I intend to give my MEP, MP and MSPs a bit of earache over this. I want to know where all the British parties stand on this issue and how they intend to oppose it (if at all) should it become proposed legislation. It's not much but it's a start until I or someone else comes up with something better.
Cheerio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)