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?
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
4/11/2009
12/08/2008
An Unenforceable System
Hello,
I see the conviction of Karen Matthews has given birth to a new panic about benefits. Having just entered my seventh year in the welfare rights racket I have amassed a bit of knowledge about these things. I do support the idea of state provision for those that need as opposed to merely desire it but have a number of concerns about the way the system makes it needlessly hard for people doing their best to support themselves and their families.
For some reason I am currently surrounded by people who think that because I can explain benefit entitlement I have a bit of influence over the system. Sadly I don't and rest assured if I did it would be very different from the one we have at present.
Still for some reason or another I am surrounded by people demanding that benefits to support children are scrapped. When pressed, of course, one discovers that like Karen Matthews used to they receive child benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit, use the health service and send their children to state school. Oh and before someone explodes the working tax credit would have been paid in respect of Ms Matthews partner's earnings. I calculate her weekly entitlement based on what facts are available to be £290.72 rather than the £400 reported in the press -though the actual figure could be nearer £400 if any of the children were disabled or she was on the fiddle.
When I explain all this to people, it emerges that they want to keep their child benefit and tax credits, state health care and education but change the law so bad parents don't get any. Whilst it is in some ways a tempting idea I'm not sure how it would be enforced. Presumably the state would need to define what a good parent is and assess every parent in receipt of child benefit in the country accordingly. In order to be effective such assessment would need to be ongoing. I'm quite sure even the worst parent in the world could run a comb through their hair and act the doting mother or father for a one off inspection. I'm also unclear as to how children unfortunate enough to be born in household deemed bad would benefit from being denied healthcare and education. There are times when muttering vaguely that 'something must be done' and that 'they' should do something is the best course of action.
Wafting about the internet as I do of an evening. I've seen it suggested that all unmarried mothers should be denied benefits and their children taken into care. Unmarried and absent fathers are of course to be exempt from any such penalty. Truly there is no crime like being a woman. It should also be remembered that 'care' cannot boast a particularly impressive track record in producing happy and healthy children. It also occurs to me that in the highly unlikely event such a law were introduced my perfectly well brought up niece would rounded up and taken into care because her parents only co-habit. As indeed would the equally well brought up offspring of my separated and divorced friends and acquaintances.
I have my doubts about the theory that Karen Matthews only had children for benefits in part because it appears to have been put forward by one of her exes. One hates to sound snooty but I question the judgement of any man who thought it was a good idea to start a family with her. I very much doubt she put much thought into having children. If the kidnap plot was any indication of how she thinks then my overwhelming impression is of a childish, emotionally unstable, self-indulgent liar of more than unusually low intelligence. I expect boredom, the attention routinely given to pregnant woman and new mothers would have been a factor as indeed would have been a temporary desire to hang on to the man of the moment. In truth I'd be amazed if she approached family life with much more thought than a five year old playing 'houses'.
Having worked on various schemes for almost the best part of a decade I can't say I've noticed many large families. Most families seemed to stop at one or two children. I did once deal with a woman who had six children but three of them belonged to her deceased sisters. Other than the odd three and very rare four child family I genuinely don't recall any visible evidence of a higher birth rate in less affluent areas. The only noticeable difference was that women tended to start families younger and only a minority of them in their teens with most having their first child in their early twenties. The notion that vast swathes of the country are populated by walking 'baby factories' (unless Glasgow is the exception) strikes me as wide of the mark. Oh and can I also ask those who insist on using the term 'get themselves pregnant' about single mothers please consider taking an evening class in basic biology? I won't spoil the surprise but they usually have a bit of help getting in the family way.
Demanding the scrapping of an entire benefits system because of Karen Matthews gives her way more importance than she warrants. People and cases like hers are mercifully rare and I'd no more base legislation round it than I would ban alcohol because a minority of drinkers develop alcohol problems. I remain unconvinced that benefits are the sole cause of what occurred in the Matthews household. Greed, stupidity, wickedness and an unimaginitive laziness all played a part. In addition it appears social services have some explaining to do. To me the amount of benefits claimed in that household was not the most distressing aspect of the case and I must own up to wondering about the priorities of those who seem to think it is.
I have personally encountered more decent benefit claimants than I have chancers in my life. That is not to deny fraud and laziness aren't a problem but is intended as a reminder that a lot of deserving and decent people will be the victims in any kneejerk bit of reform in response to this case. It is also worth remembering that there are also children involved and we all know what we think of folk neglecting them for a bit of cash don't we?
Cheerio
I see the conviction of Karen Matthews has given birth to a new panic about benefits. Having just entered my seventh year in the welfare rights racket I have amassed a bit of knowledge about these things. I do support the idea of state provision for those that need as opposed to merely desire it but have a number of concerns about the way the system makes it needlessly hard for people doing their best to support themselves and their families.
For some reason I am currently surrounded by people who think that because I can explain benefit entitlement I have a bit of influence over the system. Sadly I don't and rest assured if I did it would be very different from the one we have at present.
Still for some reason or another I am surrounded by people demanding that benefits to support children are scrapped. When pressed, of course, one discovers that like Karen Matthews used to they receive child benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit, use the health service and send their children to state school. Oh and before someone explodes the working tax credit would have been paid in respect of Ms Matthews partner's earnings. I calculate her weekly entitlement based on what facts are available to be £290.72 rather than the £400 reported in the press -though the actual figure could be nearer £400 if any of the children were disabled or she was on the fiddle.
When I explain all this to people, it emerges that they want to keep their child benefit and tax credits, state health care and education but change the law so bad parents don't get any. Whilst it is in some ways a tempting idea I'm not sure how it would be enforced. Presumably the state would need to define what a good parent is and assess every parent in receipt of child benefit in the country accordingly. In order to be effective such assessment would need to be ongoing. I'm quite sure even the worst parent in the world could run a comb through their hair and act the doting mother or father for a one off inspection. I'm also unclear as to how children unfortunate enough to be born in household deemed bad would benefit from being denied healthcare and education. There are times when muttering vaguely that 'something must be done' and that 'they' should do something is the best course of action.
Wafting about the internet as I do of an evening. I've seen it suggested that all unmarried mothers should be denied benefits and their children taken into care. Unmarried and absent fathers are of course to be exempt from any such penalty. Truly there is no crime like being a woman. It should also be remembered that 'care' cannot boast a particularly impressive track record in producing happy and healthy children. It also occurs to me that in the highly unlikely event such a law were introduced my perfectly well brought up niece would rounded up and taken into care because her parents only co-habit. As indeed would the equally well brought up offspring of my separated and divorced friends and acquaintances.
I have my doubts about the theory that Karen Matthews only had children for benefits in part because it appears to have been put forward by one of her exes. One hates to sound snooty but I question the judgement of any man who thought it was a good idea to start a family with her. I very much doubt she put much thought into having children. If the kidnap plot was any indication of how she thinks then my overwhelming impression is of a childish, emotionally unstable, self-indulgent liar of more than unusually low intelligence. I expect boredom, the attention routinely given to pregnant woman and new mothers would have been a factor as indeed would have been a temporary desire to hang on to the man of the moment. In truth I'd be amazed if she approached family life with much more thought than a five year old playing 'houses'.
Having worked on various schemes for almost the best part of a decade I can't say I've noticed many large families. Most families seemed to stop at one or two children. I did once deal with a woman who had six children but three of them belonged to her deceased sisters. Other than the odd three and very rare four child family I genuinely don't recall any visible evidence of a higher birth rate in less affluent areas. The only noticeable difference was that women tended to start families younger and only a minority of them in their teens with most having their first child in their early twenties. The notion that vast swathes of the country are populated by walking 'baby factories' (unless Glasgow is the exception) strikes me as wide of the mark. Oh and can I also ask those who insist on using the term 'get themselves pregnant' about single mothers please consider taking an evening class in basic biology? I won't spoil the surprise but they usually have a bit of help getting in the family way.
Demanding the scrapping of an entire benefits system because of Karen Matthews gives her way more importance than she warrants. People and cases like hers are mercifully rare and I'd no more base legislation round it than I would ban alcohol because a minority of drinkers develop alcohol problems. I remain unconvinced that benefits are the sole cause of what occurred in the Matthews household. Greed, stupidity, wickedness and an unimaginitive laziness all played a part. In addition it appears social services have some explaining to do. To me the amount of benefits claimed in that household was not the most distressing aspect of the case and I must own up to wondering about the priorities of those who seem to think it is.
I have personally encountered more decent benefit claimants than I have chancers in my life. That is not to deny fraud and laziness aren't a problem but is intended as a reminder that a lot of deserving and decent people will be the victims in any kneejerk bit of reform in response to this case. It is also worth remembering that there are also children involved and we all know what we think of folk neglecting them for a bit of cash don't we?
Cheerio
11/19/2008
God Help Me I'm An Addict!
Hello,
I'm not proud of it but I've become addicted to perusing the BNP membership list. I merely had a peep to make sure my mother wasn't on it (she isn't) and before I knew it I was obsessed.
Once I'd established that only one near neighbour was a member and resolved to hang about outside his close in a burkha cackling (worse if I find out it's him that's been vandalising my garden), I lost interest in tormenting the Nazis. Instead I became obsessed with the hobbies of the members. Far from being a Who's Who of the professional classes most of the list appear to be idle hobbyists. My favourite thus far is the chap who's hobby is making 'kites with BNP logos etc'. How I long to know what lurks behind that intriguing 'etc'.
Caravaning seems to be a popular pastime amongst the Nazis which only confirms my belief that one should remain aloof from one's fellow tourists on holiday. There is a fellow on the list who likes model trains. I think that is a charming, restful hobby and the sort of thing I'd do if I had more space. It also means that if anyone harms him I shall be most upset. Most upset indeed.
I am puzzled by the number of foreign addresses on their mailing list. If you're upset by the foreigners don't live abroad -they'll only outnumber you and speak better English than you behind your back. In any case shouldn't the ex-pat Nazis be setting a good example and fucking off back where they came from?
Leaving nosiness and my amusement at the monstering of people who either actively or by their silence supported the intimidation of their political opponents in the form of Redwatch aside, I can't claim to be happy about this leak or it's likely consequences.
Well in truth my lynch mob loving, savage instincts are doing a jig but the nice civilised bit cannot bring itself to condone the harassment or intimidation of people for their beliefs -even if they are loathsome. Either you believe in freedom of conscience or you don't and if you don't then I'm afraid that's where we part company.
I'm also a little perturbed at the prospect of folk losing their jobs over this. Though I personally cannot see how anyone who felt that strongly about race could serve the police force and the teaching profession well. Both jobs require an ability to think objectively and if one is going to get all upset at the sight of a brown face then they have no real grounds to complain if their employer makes a more realistic assessment of their career prospects than they have themselves. I'm also concerned that otherwise sound convictions could end up being overturned if they turn out to be based on evidence from a racist police officer.
When I was in the bank and a keen as mustard member of the SSP I was pulled up by the management over my politics. They'd been poking into my bank account and clocked my political contributions. I certainly didn't beg for my job or pretend my beliefs were other than they were. I merely confirmed that I thought the bank should be nationalised. They looked at me like I was mental but as ever I'm having the last laugh. I can't say I was pleased at being interrogated about my politics by those buffoons but I could see their point and resigned a week later.
To me a BNP supporting police officer should do the same unless of course they're an unprincipled baby who wants to have their cake and eat it. Oh come on police forces the length of the British Isles are falling over themselves to show how anti-racist they are. Why would any dedicated, principled racist wish to be part of such an organisation? If it's to subvert from within, I'll just point out what a dismal failure thats been. Police racism has hardly been an effective deterrent against immigration has it? Similarly I can't say I've heard anyone claim to have been forced out the country due to the behaviour of the police.
Other than the occupations mentioned above I don't think it is an employers business what their employees politics are, unless the employee chooses to make it so. In which case they should be prepared to take the consequences on the chin.
In hiding behind the human rights act and continuing their failure to condemn the antics of their chums at Redwatch the BNP have exposed themselves for the clownish hypocrites they are -a far better hatchet job than anything the keenest anti-Nazi could have dreamt up. Anyone harassing individuals on the membership list is just handing loathsome characters a lot more public sympathy than they deserve, achieving nothing and giving the Nazis the impression they're a hell of a lot more important than they actually are. Not to mention being a teensy bit hypocritical themselves unless of course they'd support a similar BNP attack on a left wing target. If you're too thick to defeat that filth with reason then for God's sake find something else to do and don't endow them with the asset of minor league martyrdom. In short leave the list alone.
Cheerio
I'm not proud of it but I've become addicted to perusing the BNP membership list. I merely had a peep to make sure my mother wasn't on it (she isn't) and before I knew it I was obsessed.
Once I'd established that only one near neighbour was a member and resolved to hang about outside his close in a burkha cackling (worse if I find out it's him that's been vandalising my garden), I lost interest in tormenting the Nazis. Instead I became obsessed with the hobbies of the members. Far from being a Who's Who of the professional classes most of the list appear to be idle hobbyists. My favourite thus far is the chap who's hobby is making 'kites with BNP logos etc'. How I long to know what lurks behind that intriguing 'etc'.
Caravaning seems to be a popular pastime amongst the Nazis which only confirms my belief that one should remain aloof from one's fellow tourists on holiday. There is a fellow on the list who likes model trains. I think that is a charming, restful hobby and the sort of thing I'd do if I had more space. It also means that if anyone harms him I shall be most upset. Most upset indeed.
I am puzzled by the number of foreign addresses on their mailing list. If you're upset by the foreigners don't live abroad -they'll only outnumber you and speak better English than you behind your back. In any case shouldn't the ex-pat Nazis be setting a good example and fucking off back where they came from?
Leaving nosiness and my amusement at the monstering of people who either actively or by their silence supported the intimidation of their political opponents in the form of Redwatch aside, I can't claim to be happy about this leak or it's likely consequences.
Well in truth my lynch mob loving, savage instincts are doing a jig but the nice civilised bit cannot bring itself to condone the harassment or intimidation of people for their beliefs -even if they are loathsome. Either you believe in freedom of conscience or you don't and if you don't then I'm afraid that's where we part company.
I'm also a little perturbed at the prospect of folk losing their jobs over this. Though I personally cannot see how anyone who felt that strongly about race could serve the police force and the teaching profession well. Both jobs require an ability to think objectively and if one is going to get all upset at the sight of a brown face then they have no real grounds to complain if their employer makes a more realistic assessment of their career prospects than they have themselves. I'm also concerned that otherwise sound convictions could end up being overturned if they turn out to be based on evidence from a racist police officer.
When I was in the bank and a keen as mustard member of the SSP I was pulled up by the management over my politics. They'd been poking into my bank account and clocked my political contributions. I certainly didn't beg for my job or pretend my beliefs were other than they were. I merely confirmed that I thought the bank should be nationalised. They looked at me like I was mental but as ever I'm having the last laugh. I can't say I was pleased at being interrogated about my politics by those buffoons but I could see their point and resigned a week later.
To me a BNP supporting police officer should do the same unless of course they're an unprincipled baby who wants to have their cake and eat it. Oh come on police forces the length of the British Isles are falling over themselves to show how anti-racist they are. Why would any dedicated, principled racist wish to be part of such an organisation? If it's to subvert from within, I'll just point out what a dismal failure thats been. Police racism has hardly been an effective deterrent against immigration has it? Similarly I can't say I've heard anyone claim to have been forced out the country due to the behaviour of the police.
Other than the occupations mentioned above I don't think it is an employers business what their employees politics are, unless the employee chooses to make it so. In which case they should be prepared to take the consequences on the chin.
In hiding behind the human rights act and continuing their failure to condemn the antics of their chums at Redwatch the BNP have exposed themselves for the clownish hypocrites they are -a far better hatchet job than anything the keenest anti-Nazi could have dreamt up. Anyone harassing individuals on the membership list is just handing loathsome characters a lot more public sympathy than they deserve, achieving nothing and giving the Nazis the impression they're a hell of a lot more important than they actually are. Not to mention being a teensy bit hypocritical themselves unless of course they'd support a similar BNP attack on a left wing target. If you're too thick to defeat that filth with reason then for God's sake find something else to do and don't endow them with the asset of minor league martyrdom. In short leave the list alone.
Cheerio
3/30/2008
Is This Real?
Hello,
It has to be said I have very mixed feelings about vandalism. On the one hand I disapprove of destroying public or private property for one's personal amusement but on the other it can on occasion be quite funny. Nevertheless it is illegal so I accept that when little Toby of Whitecraigs finds himself before the beak for his 'ghetto' antics he's got to be punished.
However I was surprised to read in today's Herald that one Gary Shields of Crookston was sentenced to 28 months in prison for his artistic endevours. He'd have been better stabbing someone really. If ever there was an offence crying out for community service or a bit of electronic tagging and a stiff fine it's this one. Oh if only I were a beak I'd have had Gary and his chums in the 'Eazy Riders' crew shackled together scrubbing walls and dislodging chewing gum for a year. I'd have fined the lot of them five grand each on top of requiring them to repay the cost of clearing up the mess they've already made and ordered them to attend literacy classes -'Eazy' indeed! In my court the little buggers would also be tagged and given a curfew to prevent them operating undercover of darkness. Oh and if they're responsible for the graffiti art pictured beside the report in the paper I'd chuck in some compulsory art classes. Honestly it's woeful.
At no point would it have occurred to me to send young Gary to Barlinnie to share a sell with a fellow sentenced to 28 months for trafficking £130,000 worth of cannabis. It's particularly absurd in this case given that trainee structural engineer Gary is an otherwise respectable fellow who was about to be be sent to university by his employer before 28 months of morning shower nerves entered the picture.
I shall spare you all my full prison reform rant suffice to say I'm on the harsh but fair wing that gets drowned out between the stick pins in their eyes and feed them gruel and the teach them to paint cats and fluff up their pillows brigades. My main beef with unduly harsh sentences is that it's taking up a place that could go to a kiddie fiddler or a proper thug. It's not fair that these people who work so hard to cause misery and distress wherever they go should be deprived of a place in prison just because some spray painting amateur is cluttering up a cell. If we as a society stop rewarding effort and hard work we'll grind to a halt and as no-one else is prepared to speak for the hard working criminal outcast the burden has fallen on my shoulders.
My other concern is that putting folk in prison who shouldn't really be there adds weight to the argument that regimes should become softer. Indeed it was the harsh treatment received by many well educated conscientious objectors during the first world war that led to the relaxation of many unduly harsh rules -not that I'm placing Gary in such illustrious company. That was fine back then because the treatment of prisoners was utterly appalling, however we're starting from a much more relaxed position these days. Quite apart from anything else the opinions of prisoners on their treatment should be an irrelevance. Unless they are calling attention to serious abuse of their basic and I emphasise basic human rights I have little interest in how they think or feel about anything. It is far easier to dismiss the bleating of a murderer about prison, an otherwise respectable vandal commands a great deal more sympathy.
As a deterrent his sentence is useless because it's too atypical to have any real impact. Making it typical does not serve the interests of society in any way. In any case how many vandals are caught in the act -judging by the epidemic of bus shelter destruction in the east end I'd guess very few. As far as I can tell efforts to clean up the city are directed at easy targets -city centre office workers dropping fag ends whilst out for a fly fag and so on. The truth is Gary was very unfortunate to be caught.
I accept that for many people graffiti creates an intimidating atmosphere but the we cannot start handing out jail sentences on the basis of people's feelings. In any case if the public regularly saw offenders cleaning up they would draw comfort from the knowledge that something is being done. Gary's sentence is a waste of public money that will achieve little but give those with an understandable desire for vengeance a few seconds victory, until of course they turn the page of their paper and see someone out on parole to ease overcrowding on trial for rape.
Cheerio
It has to be said I have very mixed feelings about vandalism. On the one hand I disapprove of destroying public or private property for one's personal amusement but on the other it can on occasion be quite funny. Nevertheless it is illegal so I accept that when little Toby of Whitecraigs finds himself before the beak for his 'ghetto' antics he's got to be punished.
However I was surprised to read in today's Herald that one Gary Shields of Crookston was sentenced to 28 months in prison for his artistic endevours. He'd have been better stabbing someone really. If ever there was an offence crying out for community service or a bit of electronic tagging and a stiff fine it's this one. Oh if only I were a beak I'd have had Gary and his chums in the 'Eazy Riders' crew shackled together scrubbing walls and dislodging chewing gum for a year. I'd have fined the lot of them five grand each on top of requiring them to repay the cost of clearing up the mess they've already made and ordered them to attend literacy classes -'Eazy' indeed! In my court the little buggers would also be tagged and given a curfew to prevent them operating undercover of darkness. Oh and if they're responsible for the graffiti art pictured beside the report in the paper I'd chuck in some compulsory art classes. Honestly it's woeful.
At no point would it have occurred to me to send young Gary to Barlinnie to share a sell with a fellow sentenced to 28 months for trafficking £130,000 worth of cannabis. It's particularly absurd in this case given that trainee structural engineer Gary is an otherwise respectable fellow who was about to be be sent to university by his employer before 28 months of morning shower nerves entered the picture.
I shall spare you all my full prison reform rant suffice to say I'm on the harsh but fair wing that gets drowned out between the stick pins in their eyes and feed them gruel and the teach them to paint cats and fluff up their pillows brigades. My main beef with unduly harsh sentences is that it's taking up a place that could go to a kiddie fiddler or a proper thug. It's not fair that these people who work so hard to cause misery and distress wherever they go should be deprived of a place in prison just because some spray painting amateur is cluttering up a cell. If we as a society stop rewarding effort and hard work we'll grind to a halt and as no-one else is prepared to speak for the hard working criminal outcast the burden has fallen on my shoulders.
My other concern is that putting folk in prison who shouldn't really be there adds weight to the argument that regimes should become softer. Indeed it was the harsh treatment received by many well educated conscientious objectors during the first world war that led to the relaxation of many unduly harsh rules -not that I'm placing Gary in such illustrious company. That was fine back then because the treatment of prisoners was utterly appalling, however we're starting from a much more relaxed position these days. Quite apart from anything else the opinions of prisoners on their treatment should be an irrelevance. Unless they are calling attention to serious abuse of their basic and I emphasise basic human rights I have little interest in how they think or feel about anything. It is far easier to dismiss the bleating of a murderer about prison, an otherwise respectable vandal commands a great deal more sympathy.
As a deterrent his sentence is useless because it's too atypical to have any real impact. Making it typical does not serve the interests of society in any way. In any case how many vandals are caught in the act -judging by the epidemic of bus shelter destruction in the east end I'd guess very few. As far as I can tell efforts to clean up the city are directed at easy targets -city centre office workers dropping fag ends whilst out for a fly fag and so on. The truth is Gary was very unfortunate to be caught.
I accept that for many people graffiti creates an intimidating atmosphere but the we cannot start handing out jail sentences on the basis of people's feelings. In any case if the public regularly saw offenders cleaning up they would draw comfort from the knowledge that something is being done. Gary's sentence is a waste of public money that will achieve little but give those with an understandable desire for vengeance a few seconds victory, until of course they turn the page of their paper and see someone out on parole to ease overcrowding on trial for rape.
Cheerio
9/28/2007
Going about things the wrong way........
Hello,
I see we have had another small victory in The War Against Terror in that this rather unassuming chap has been arrested for trying to kill civil servants.
Whilst there can be few among us haven't at some point longed to kill a civil servant I'm afraid our Mr Cooper has gone about things the wrong way. Some time ago Flying Rodent gave the world a handy post full of advice and tips on sending civil servants mad and I would refer anyone contemplating killing a civil servant to read it and reconsider. Had Mr Cooper taken the time to do a spot of research he wouldn't be in the mess he's in today. To think people think blogs are just a load of oafs writing drivel!
Anyway the whole letter-bomb thing is a waste of time, they never get to anyone who really deserves a face full of rusty nails instead some poor New Deal office monkey cops it. Apparently it was some sort of protest about I-D cards which will probably make their introduction more likely than ever knowing the way our rulers minds work.
That's it from me I'm a way to huff impotently at events in Burma and feast on vegetarian haggis and mashed potatoes.
Cheerio
I see we have had another small victory in The War Against Terror in that this rather unassuming chap has been arrested for trying to kill civil servants.
Whilst there can be few among us haven't at some point longed to kill a civil servant I'm afraid our Mr Cooper has gone about things the wrong way. Some time ago Flying Rodent gave the world a handy post full of advice and tips on sending civil servants mad and I would refer anyone contemplating killing a civil servant to read it and reconsider. Had Mr Cooper taken the time to do a spot of research he wouldn't be in the mess he's in today. To think people think blogs are just a load of oafs writing drivel!
Anyway the whole letter-bomb thing is a waste of time, they never get to anyone who really deserves a face full of rusty nails instead some poor New Deal office monkey cops it. Apparently it was some sort of protest about I-D cards which will probably make their introduction more likely than ever knowing the way our rulers minds work.
That's it from me I'm a way to huff impotently at events in Burma and feast on vegetarian haggis and mashed potatoes.
Cheerio
8/04/2007
The News and Other Tales Of Woe.
Hello,
Excuse my long absence but I've been a bit on the busy side with a lot of dull things. It's obvious to me that I require three wives and an army of servants to even begin to keep on top of things.
Moving on to the big bad world, I see the Devil has beaten me to it in splendid style on the subject of patio heaters. I was going to suggest that all that is required is to get rid of the smoking ban. The smokers can go back indoors and reduce the need for heaters in the first place. I realise that would be controversial but if I'm honest I'd relish the prospect seeing the look on all the anti-smoking tosser's faces as I and my chums sparked up a pack of Kensitas each. God I hate health nazis. If only there was some way of finding out how many of them I've killed with my naughty smoking habit. I've so little to boast about in life, the elimination of a few thin lipped bores would give me such a sense of achievement. In a similar vein this is rather good too.
It's not a popular opinion but I rather like George Bush. Not for his policies or anything but because he's such a buffoon. Oh c'mon admit it. I don't know why people start getting hysterical at that one. It's not like the Democrats would have been any better. I mean Al Gore for fucks sake! He's a vast tedious wardrobe of hot air. What a pity he didn't know about all that environmental catastrophe stuff when he was vice-president and in a position to do something about it. I don't want to get all 'Class War' on you but I resent being lectured about carbon by some rich arsehole that's never off a bloody plane. I can't afford a car, I don't drive, I take the bus or walk and I take about two aeroplane flights a year to go on holiday, yet I have to get all anxious about my carbon footprint. When that prick gives up his cars, stops flying round the world boring everyone's arse off and encouraging witless pop stars to put on stupid, hectoring concerts then I might think about recycling a few bottles or planting some trees.
Good God! That wasn't really what I wanted to talk about at all. Forgive me I'm in one of my strops. So anyway George Bush has bought Gordon Brown a present. Instead of playing it safe with a book token like I would have he's taken a risk and ha ha ha.....bought him a leather bomber jacket. That could only have been funnier if he'd bought the Queen a PVC catsuit! I demand to see Brown in the jacket. Hilariously Brown retaliated by giving Bush a book of all things. I realise most men a crap at gifts but could they not have got their wives involved? I'd have got Bush one of those pens with a lady on it who sheds her clothes when it's turned upside down, a couple of snowstorms, a few Carry On DVDs and a bag of pretzels. For Brown I'd have gone for some socks, a nice tie and a book token or some Marks vouchers. You can't go wrong with a Marks voucher. Honestly it's no wonder the world is in the mess it's in if our rulers can't even do something a simple as an exchange of gifts without cocking it up. I despair.
I was hoping to end on something cheery but the news has been rather depressing of late, happily the weather today is far from depressing so I'm off out to enjoy that instead.
Cheerio
Excuse my long absence but I've been a bit on the busy side with a lot of dull things. It's obvious to me that I require three wives and an army of servants to even begin to keep on top of things.
Moving on to the big bad world, I see the Devil has beaten me to it in splendid style on the subject of patio heaters. I was going to suggest that all that is required is to get rid of the smoking ban. The smokers can go back indoors and reduce the need for heaters in the first place. I realise that would be controversial but if I'm honest I'd relish the prospect seeing the look on all the anti-smoking tosser's faces as I and my chums sparked up a pack of Kensitas each. God I hate health nazis. If only there was some way of finding out how many of them I've killed with my naughty smoking habit. I've so little to boast about in life, the elimination of a few thin lipped bores would give me such a sense of achievement. In a similar vein this is rather good too.
It's not a popular opinion but I rather like George Bush. Not for his policies or anything but because he's such a buffoon. Oh c'mon admit it. I don't know why people start getting hysterical at that one. It's not like the Democrats would have been any better. I mean Al Gore for fucks sake! He's a vast tedious wardrobe of hot air. What a pity he didn't know about all that environmental catastrophe stuff when he was vice-president and in a position to do something about it. I don't want to get all 'Class War' on you but I resent being lectured about carbon by some rich arsehole that's never off a bloody plane. I can't afford a car, I don't drive, I take the bus or walk and I take about two aeroplane flights a year to go on holiday, yet I have to get all anxious about my carbon footprint. When that prick gives up his cars, stops flying round the world boring everyone's arse off and encouraging witless pop stars to put on stupid, hectoring concerts then I might think about recycling a few bottles or planting some trees.
Good God! That wasn't really what I wanted to talk about at all. Forgive me I'm in one of my strops. So anyway George Bush has bought Gordon Brown a present. Instead of playing it safe with a book token like I would have he's taken a risk and ha ha ha.....bought him a leather bomber jacket. That could only have been funnier if he'd bought the Queen a PVC catsuit! I demand to see Brown in the jacket. Hilariously Brown retaliated by giving Bush a book of all things. I realise most men a crap at gifts but could they not have got their wives involved? I'd have got Bush one of those pens with a lady on it who sheds her clothes when it's turned upside down, a couple of snowstorms, a few Carry On DVDs and a bag of pretzels. For Brown I'd have gone for some socks, a nice tie and a book token or some Marks vouchers. You can't go wrong with a Marks voucher. Honestly it's no wonder the world is in the mess it's in if our rulers can't even do something a simple as an exchange of gifts without cocking it up. I despair.
I was hoping to end on something cheery but the news has been rather depressing of late, happily the weather today is far from depressing so I'm off out to enjoy that instead.
Cheerio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)