Wednesday, 30 December 2009

Something this country's citizens appear to have forgotten




You DO NOT have a right to not be offended.



The latest "offence" people have taken, and presumably "demanded something was done about it" was a Birmingham Radio DJ's fairly reasonable response to the Queen's Speech, which he cut off halfway through with the comment "Bor-ing!".

Fair enough. The Queen's Speech is fucking boring. Exactly like church leaders, she likes to cling onto a belief that she holds some sort of relevance in today's society, when in truth many, many people simply couldn't give a fuck. She loses credibility points in my opinion for speaking with RP.

That's not the point though, the point is this:

The stations' owner Orion Media said a number of listeners had complained.

Mr Binns, who has previously been on BBC Radio 2 under the guise of spoof hospital DJ Ivan Brackenbury, said he had received a death threat following what he did.


A private radio station, funded by adverts, broadcasted something people found objectionable. So instead of just deciding to change the channel, resolve to never listen to it again, yada yada, what did they do? They put pen to paper, or picked up the phone, and complained about it. Why? Because they, like so many others now, firmly believed they had a right not to be offended.

Just like this lot.

Where on earth did this belief come from? It seems to be the latest fad reason as to why you can't say and do things now, not because of any damage you might do to yourself, or because it's a stupid idea, but because it might "offend someone".

So fucking what? I couldn't give a monkey's fuck if someone is offended, and I fail to see why anyone else should. Be offended! What the fucking hell does it matter? You don't suffer any permenant damage. Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones"?

I'm offended by the fact I can't say or do certain things in case somebody "takes offence", but does that matter? Apparently not.

Fuck me, what have we become?

Monday, 28 December 2009

Oh joy - Bristol aims to become a "city of sanctuary"

What's this then? Something to do with Donkeys? Nope.

Bristol is aiming to become only the second 'City of Sanctuary' in the UK.

If successful, it would join Sheffield as having a reputation of good support for asylum seekers and refugees.

Faith and community groups and charities are working towards attaining the status in the New Year.


Bristol already has a very high level of asylum seekers and refugees - if you take a walk through Lawrence Hill or Easton as an indigenous citizen of the UK (of any colour) you're definitely in the minority.

The obvious things that are glossed over in this article are 1) the cost, especially to Bristol's taxpayers and 2) the projected increase in asylum seekers/refuges as a direct result of promoting the city as welcoming them.

The only mention of any cost at all is the rather laughable quote from the Lib Dem councillor:

Lawrence Hill Liberal Democrat councillor Sue O'Donnell said: "If the investment is targeted correctly


What investment? Paid for by whom? Agreed by whom? And spent on what? I can't fucking believe this could be agreed to by the council when the details are so woolly (read: don't exist)

and we take guidance from the professionals


Who might they be? A charity that helps asylum seekers? Because of course they'll be so fucking impartial, won't they?

then we can get real tangible benefits for everyone in the community out of this."


What the fuck? Benefits? I don't suppose you'd care to list them, would you? As far as I'm aware, asylum seekers and refugees aren't allowed to work (and therefore contribute to society) by law, not that this really makes an awful lot of difference since (taking the example of Somlians) the women are forbidden to work by their husbands, who themselves have no intention of working anyway, preferring to stand on street corners chewing khat all day. Oh, but don't tell me, "multiculturalism" is all the benefit we need, right?

It's already hard enough to get onto the council housing list, there is a real shortage especially in Bristol.

Just wait until this dire economic situation really bites. Wait until the indigenous population can't get social housing because half of Mogadishu have been told how welcome they are here. This is going to do fucking wonders for the BNP's vote share here. You fucking cretins.

City of sanctuary? City of fucking hand-wringers more like.

I'd love to see how many supporters would still support it if they housed the refugees and asylum seekers in Redland/Bishopston/Cotham/Southville/Clifton rather than Easton/Lawrence Hill/St Pauls.

Wednesday, 23 December 2009

Southville Snobbery

With the latest Ashton Gate Supermarket developments, as detailed by The Evening Post:

Details of the plans for the Sainsbury's store proposed for Ashton Gate have emerged for the first time.

The new store, which would be the chain's biggest in the south west with a floorspace of about 96,800sq ft (9,000sq m), is bigger than the one originally planned by Tesco at Bristol City FC's current ground – but less in size than the combined shop space of two stores in the area.


So presumably the people who were against a Tesco opening up there for reasons of congestion and damage to local shops will be against a Sainsburys as well? Well no, it turns out it's not quite simple.

Some people are maintaining a credible stance, such as Charlie Bolton, who states

"I am likely to oppose it. I think the proposed size will mean the same problems as if it had been a Tesco store."


Exactly. But then Labour councillor Sean Beynon states

"When the Tesco plan was suggested, most people were opposed to it because they didn't want to see another supermarket in the area.

"In my view, therefore, this is potentially a good solution for the club and the community."


Which is typical of the kind of hypocrisy that many BERATE supporters were showing. They were totally against a Tesco opening, but not a Sainsburys, but they didn't have the bollocks to admit to being so snobby and to reveal their true anti-globalist colours, so instead they dressed it up to be a protest against a supermarket, when in fact it seems it was a protest against Tesco all along.

Of course, they'll try and gloss over this fact by stating that it's a replacement store rather than a new one but this is frankly irrelevant as Charlie correctly points out above, as it will still bring exactly the same problems (congestion, "damage" to local shops) as they claimed a Tesco would, replacement store or not.

Just admit it, BERATE supporters, you will never form a BERASE because it's not a supermarket you're against, it's a Tesco.

You fucking anti-capitalist snobs.

With an election coming...

...I imagine it'll soon be time for MPs to do the doorstep challenege to canvas votes.

I can't wait, I hope the local Labour MP calls round, I really do. The Jehovas will feel they were let off lightly in comparison.

Monday, 21 December 2009

Jandroid's propaganda department spins into action

With this press release.

Despite everyone here in Bristol I've spoken to complaining that none of the roads have been gritted (as it was blatantly obvious this morning that they hadn't been), in a manner worthy of Chinese State Television the Council are claiming that no, we're all wrong, and in fact:

All major routes were gritted three times overnight on Sunday and will be gritted again tonight. 80 tonnes of grit were used last night to deal with the freezing ice and snow conditions, compared to the 20 tonnes of grit we use on a normal night.


I'm sorry, but this is clearly bollocks. On the most major roads (which the council describes as "All 'A' roads, public transport routes and major residential roads" I've been on this morning like the A38 there wasn't a speck of grit, and it's clear that it hadn't been gritted since it started snowing about 10pm on Sunday. And what the fuck is all of this "4 times as much grit used" business? Presumably they only grit the roads at all if there's a chance of ice, and it's clear every road I drove on, and every road everyone I've spoken to has been on, was not gritted this morning.

Two vehicles are working in the day to deal with specific problems on the main routes.


I'd wager this is really the only gritting that's happened since this snow, and explains why some roads have since been gritted, although most have just turned slushy due to the volume of traffic, which will then freeze tonight, may not be gritted again, and then we'll really have carnage!

Exactly a week later...

...and it turns out the AA and I were both right.

Not a single fucking road in Bristol was gritted, and we've got a good 4-5cm of snow. It was carnage on the road this morning because people don't appear to know how to drive on ice or snow.

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Copenhagen conference showing it's true colours


Aptly demonstrated by Hilary Clinton:

The US Secretary of State said the science for climate change is now “undeniable” and the world must agree a deal in the next 48 hours.


Oh really. Prove it.

In a move that will widely be seen as a grand gesture to force developing countries to sign up to a deal, she said the US would be willing to pay into a global fund of $100 billion (£60bn) per year by 2020 to help the “most vulnerable” adapt to floods and droughts.


Here's the important bit. They want the richer nations of the world to give the poorer countries $100 billion a year. Basically redistribution of wealth.

Green truly is the new Red.

The $100 billion fund was first suggested by Gordon Brown in June this year


What a surprise

and America’s offer will boost the UK Prime Minister's credentials abroad.


He should be so fucking lucky.

It's quite amazing, the leaders of the world have pissed off both the AGW-sceptics and AGW-preachers alike. They've annoyed the sceptics by using an at best questionable theory to justify thinly-veiled redistribution of wealth, and they've annoyed the warmists by declaring the best way of dealing with the disasters they're all foretelling is by the redistribution of wealth.

Essentially they're saying that if you're rich enough, and can afford to pay for enough "carbon credits", you can emit as much CO2 as you like.

This was never about the environment.

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

My, Jandroid WILL be pleased

...as after all her desperation to get everyone on board and "marketing the city", Bristol has been shortlisted as a host city for the world cup.

Still, this still relies on FIFA including it as a final choice of venues, and more importantly, England winning the title of hosting country in the first place. Oh yeah, and BCFC have to win their appeal against North Somerset's planning decision.

When you consider these hurdles, it makes the effort of "marketing", and completely fabricating figures of supposed money being spent by the predicted tourists etc even less worth it. But yet, despite a lot of people simply not giving a fuck whether we host it or not, Jandroid ploughs on. I dread to think of the costs.

Way to go, Jandroid!

Jandroid, pleased

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Bet he was a fearsome sight

Ben Fogle has apparently "chased away burglars".

TV presenter Ben Fogle has described how he chased four burglars from his house as they were trying to break in.

He was in the kitchen of his home in Kensington, west London, when he spotted the men jumping over his fence.


I bet he was a fearsome sight, eh?


I say, you young ruffians! Begone, lest you see the wrong end of my garden hose!

Monday, 14 December 2009

Well, we'll see then, won't we

The AA has warned that half of the UK's local authorities only have enough road salt for six days of continuous freezing. And it turns out they're right:

But the Local Government Association said the suggestion councils were not ready was "ridiculous scaremongering".


...but didn't deny it. Also "scaremongering" implies that they'd prefer it wasn't reported at all.

The organisation added local authorities' reliance on "just in time" deliveries left too many of them vulnerable to a lengthy big freeze or major snowfall.


Like last winter?

He told the Today programme it was "ridiculous" for the AA to focus solely on the amount of salt, which could be increased within 48 hours and moved around the country.


Fucking didn't happen well enough last winter, though did it? Happily, the AA have a habit of doing this - pointing out things the government really wish they wouldn't, such as what percentage of fuel cost is duty. It looks like in this situation, they're going to be right again.

"If the AA thinks the only way councils can ensure they have enough salt is by stockpiling it, it is showing startling ignorance.

"Councils realise how important it is to keep roads clear. It's up to councils, not the AA, to decide whether it is a good use of their council taxpayers' money to stockpile more salt or have other plans in place to make sure they can get enough grit to keep Britain moving."


Well, we'll see, won't we. I bet the AA are right about this one as well.

Friday, 11 December 2009

War for Oil?

Remember the start of the Iraq invasion? Remember the reasons given by many, including this smarmy cunt?



Whilst we suspected Oil was high on the list, this was always strenuously denied, usually with bollocks like "It's not that simple".

But look...

A joint venture between the UK's Shell and Malaysia's Petronas oil companies has won the right to develop Iraq's giant Majnoon oil field.

A total of 44 companies are bidding for 10 fields in the second such auction since the invasion in 2003.


Well, what a fucking surprise.

Although Majnoon is a huge oil field, with reserves of 13 billion barrels of oil, it currently produces just 46,000 barrels per day.

Shell and Petronas have pledged to increase that output to 1.8 million barrels per day.

Their venture will receive a fee of $1.39 a barrel. In June this year, a winning bid to develop an Iraq oil field received $2 a barrel.


Would anyone who so confidently stated that oil wasn't the primary motivating factor like to rethink their position?

The most unlikely people

...have done a study in support of 20mph speed limits.

UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.

In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal reported.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates 20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in London alone.


Well, I can't think of anyone more qualified to do a study on 20mph zones.

The researchers compared data on road collisions, injuries and deaths in London between 1986 and 2006, with speed limits on roads.


Is it a quiet time for tropical disease research, then?

After adjusting for a general reduction in road injuries in recent years, they found that the introduction of 20mph zones were associated with a 41.9% drop in casualties.


What kind of adjustment? Why is any kind of adjustment needed? Either 20mph zones make a difference or they don't. Or maybe they've been attending the CRU's classes on data fiddling?

He estimated that 20mph zones in London save 200 lives a year, but this could increase to 700 if plans to extend the zones were implemented.


Is this using the "adjusted" figures, perchance? And I rather think this figure is calculated using the same method as the amount of money lost to music piracy each year (as in it's completely made up, because they have no idea if people would have bought the music if they couldn't otherwise download it - in this case they can't firmly state 200 lives have been saved because they've don't conclusively know that they would have been lost if the 20mph limit wasn't there).

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: "This research confirms that one of the most effective ways of protecting vulnerable road users, especially children, is the introduction of 20mph zones.


All very well. For the record, I think that 20mph zones in residential areas/around schools/high streets, etc are generally a good thing, provided we don't see "feature creep" of people then pushing for these limits in non-residential areas as well.

But I would ask: What the fuck has happened to this gentleman?



Surely, with the introduction of 20mph speed limits, education for pedestrians and cyclists should come with it? After all, leaving aside the extreme minority of cases where a car has mounted a pavement, if a pedestrian was hit in the road by a car, it's likely they weren't looking properly, a mistake which is exacerbated by a car travelling at excess speeds. Cars need to keep to the speed limit, but by the very same token, pedestrians need to be aware of how to look for traffic properly, and pick safe places to cross.

It's all very well having this plastered over every advert break:



But let's have a little balance, shall we?:

Thursday, 10 December 2009

Jandroid will not be happy

However, I think this is fucking hilarious.

Bristol City's chief executive Colin Sexstone has condemned North Somerset councillors after they dealt a potentially serious blow to plans for the football club's new £92-million stadium.

Although the decision to deny planning permission for a vital part of the scheme could yet be overturned at a further meeting or on appeal, by the time this happens the Football Association will have made up its mind whether to include Bristol as a host city for England's 2018 World Cup bid. The new stadium is central to Bristol's hopes.


They have rather successfully pissed over the border onto Jandroid's chips, haven't they? I don't give a fuck about football really so I'm not bothered - but she must be fucking livid. She's put all this effort and taxpayer's money into this bid, and now it could all have been a waste of time as this stadium was central to it.

It was a fucking shit location for the stadium anyway - Bristol just doesn't have the infrastructure in that area to cope. What ever happened to the stadium by Temple Meads idea, anyway?

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Won't somebody think of the children?

The cheeeeeeeeelllldren?

The campaign intends to encourage children to not give out personal information on the web, block unwanted messages on social networks and report any inappropriate behaviour to the appropriate bodies, which may include the website, teachers or even police.


Sounds like a good idea, right?

The measures were drawn up by the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS), which was set up following Dr Tanya Byron's review into inappropriate material on the internet and in video games.


Who?

Oh right. Nice to see our old friends the IWF on that list.

Thing is, I can't help feeling that these kind of campaigns always pave the way for simply more draconian measures, all in the name of "thinking of the children". It doesn't help when they (deliberately) use emotive language like:

One measure that has been discussed by the group is the use of a "panic button" on social network sites to flag up inappropriate content.


And how on earth will this panic button be monitored and acted on? If it's going to be there for everyone, people may just click it whilst viewing completely innocuous content just for a laugh. Then somebody, god knows who, will have to investigate the site that was reported, and make a completely fucking arbitrary decision, based on a combination of their own personal feelings and fuck all, on whether to block the site or not - this was illustrated perfectly with the IWF and the Scorpion's Album Cover. And since it's not possible for the ISP to know the age of the person browsing the internet, they'll block it for everyone.

I fear what this is just a pre-cursor for a Chinese-style firewall. The Wikipedia article on China's firewall doesn't state what justifications were used in the introduction of it, only the reasons (a fear of not being able to control the publications of the China Democracy Party).

However, I think the government know that the UK wouldn't accept a similar firewall without some pretty good justification - after all, look at the opposition to ID cards. I think they've realised pretty much the only justification is the cheeldren.

Monday, 7 December 2009

A sense of perspective is needed, I think

ITV have apologised because one of the contestants on their ridiculous fucking show cooked and ate a rat. According to the RSPCA in New South Wales,

it was "not acceptable" an animal had been killed as part of a performance.

I'm sorry, but It's a fucking rat.

How many people are tucking into chicken, or fish, or sausages, or steak tonight? I know I am. What's the difference?

Taxing the bankers

I was going to blog about this, but frankly CF has done a fantastic job already, so I'd recommend you read that, as I agree with every word.

Sunday, 6 December 2009

More thoughts on the MET Office, and climate marchers

Since the MET office are supposedly releasing temperature data to dampen the effect of the leaked CRU emails, one thing I can't stop thinking about:

The MET office has VAST amounts of computing power. Far more than most other companies or organisations in the UK. I expect they have some of the best Meteorologists working for them. They've been solely in the business of predicting the weather for over 150 years.

And yet, they can barely fucking tell me - accurately - what the weather is going to be like next week. Given this, can somebody tell me why the fuck should I trust their climate change alarmism?

And if I can't trust supposedly the experts, why on EARTH do the great unwashed and politicians - politicians, for fucks sake - think I'm going to believe what they say?

I don't understand the first thing about climate science - christ, it seems from the leaked emails that the CRU barely did - so how come these fucking Trustafarians are now self-declared fucking experts on the case? Not only can they tell me what's happening with the climate, they can tell me what's going to happen in the future, and more importantly, they can tell me - conclusively - what's causing it. How? I guarantee you that not a single fucking person on that "climate wave" march had even the first clue about actual climate science.

And another thing, why the fuck is everybody now falling over themselves to "Stop Climate Change". Why are we trying to stop the climate changing? That's what climate does, you fucking morons. It's done it, unaffected by man's actions, for 30 million years.

Get a fucking grip.

Saturday, 5 December 2009

MET Office to release climate data

The MET office are apparently going to release climate data early next week presumably to try and silence all the debate that has come from the CRU emails.

The Met Office has announced plans to release, early next week, station temperature records for over one thousand of the stations that make up the global land surface temperature record.


Oh really. And this will be the full data, incorporating all weather stations, without any of the "adjustments" that the CRU are so fond of? How will we know? I will be highly suspicious of the data if it does show the temperatures rising, simply because of what we've learnt so far from these emails. If they did apply "adjustments" to make the average temperatures rise to "hide the decline" how would we know that they had?

And let's say hypothetically that even if the data is legit, and it does show earth temperature's rising over the last 150 years, what will the MET office's opinion be on the fact that the Medieval Warming Period shows temperatures higher than they are now?

One thing I do know, the science is not fucking "decided". Let's hope that the so-far-biased press like the BBC don't use the release to claim that it is. They've already given as little coverage as possible to these emails, and even then, clearly reluctantly.

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

Squeal, piggies...

Squeal.

MPs will be allowed to appeal against repaying expenses judged to have been overclaimed, says a Commons committee.

Many MPs were angry that an audit of second home claims over five years imposed retrospective limits on claims for cleaning and gardening.


Millions of the people that voted you in were angry when you applied retrospective tax to cars, but you didn't give a fucking rats arse then, did you? Funny, then, when the same happens to you, you don't like it.

Fuck the lot of you, you grasping cunts.

Ain't that the truth

The Global Warming Flowchart, and how the warmists see it

How we should deal with the issues presented by Global Warming:



How the warmists actually see it:

The latest pointless crackdown

Evironment officers to prowl London's streets looking for people dropping cigarette butts.

Every day about 7,000 cigarette butts are dropped in the City. They are accompanied by lighters, matches and cellophane wrappers.

Now 10 environment officers will be prowling - and issuing the fines to irresponsible smokers. Those who give false details will be fined £1,000.


How do you propose to do that, shit-for-brains?

Darling: Hands off city (!)

According to the BBC,

Chancellor Alistair Darling has warned against more European Union regulation of the UK financial services industry.


Warned against? Fucking warned against? Listen, badger brows, we don't have the authority to do that any more, because our esteemed fuckwit signed all that away. That came into effect yesterday. Fancy thinking that today you can then send "warnings" to the EU. Can't you see how meek and pathetic this looks? Bit of a case of barn door and horse I think.

Mr Darling is expected to warn other EU finance ministers he will not accept new powers for European authorities to take decisions on future bail-outs for which British taxpayers might have to pick up the bill.


But do you have the authority to reject these powers, Darling? I bet you'll find that you don't. Welcome to the Lisbon Treaty.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

Anti-Tesco Protestors

Fed up with this now - they're at it again. This time protesting against a Tesco application in Hanham.

Do you think they would protest if it was a development application from Sainsburys or Waitrose?

Would they fuck. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Essentially, the people protesting against Tesco are the handwringing chattering classes who find Tesco opening stores at odds with their anti-globalist agenda, but won't admit it. It has nothing to do with "saving the shops on the local high street", or "increased congestion and pollution", but they don't have the gonads to say so, mainly because they realise it's not really a valid complaint.

This was demonstrated aptly with the recent BERATE campaign in Bedminster, who had no problems with Sainsburys building a store there - because somehow that wouldn't harm local shops or increase congestion like a Tesco would. They seemed strangely unable to justify why this was.

People moaned when Tesco built a store on Golden Hill - now even the snottiest of Westbury-On-Trym residents use it.

Julraj in the comments section of the above article sums it up perfectly:
Don't worry, the usual thing will happen...
1. Tesco want to build a new store.
2. Local NIMBYs get together and attempt to block building it for reasons like 'it will ruin our highstreet' and 'think of the environmental impact!'
3. Tesco run out of patience
4. NIMBYs announce victory and disband
5. Sainsburys/Waitrose strike a deal to build there instead
6. NIMBYs like the idea of Sainsburys/Waitrose (hypocritical prats) and instead talk nostalgically about how the will enjoy their new supermarket.
7. Everyone with any brain confused that their original points on why not to have a Tesco dont seem to apply to either a Sainsburys or a Waitrose.
...in the future...
8. Local highstreet dies?


As I've said before, if the opening of a Tesco "threatens" the highstreet shops, then the shops aren't fucking good enough. If they were, they'd stay open and retain their trade regardless of a supermarket close by. Especially in the case of North Street, where there was an overpriced and understocked Spar clone, a couple of run-down hardware and charity shops, and not much else.

Monday, 23 November 2009

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Or for those of us who speak a relevant language, Who watches the watchers?

A second member of the MPs' standards body is defending his expenses claims after reports he "flipped" two homes.

Labour's Andrew Dismore, who represents a north London seat about 10 miles from Parliament, claimed £34,000 on a second home in west London between 2001-2003.

The Daily Telegraph said he then made second home claims on his Hendon flat, amounting to £31,000 from 2003-2009.


What a fucking surprise. No, really.

The Daily Telegraph says he owned the Notting Hill flat with his partner, who ran her homeopathy surgery from the property, and designated it with the Commons fees office as his second home, on which he was allowed to claim expenses.


This really says it all. How can homeopathy, which has been proven as pseudoscience and quackery on occasions far too many to mention, have a "surgery"? By using this term the BBC are just giving it credibility.

He said: "It was the right thing to do to designate the Hendon property as the second home and the London property as the main home."


You can tell he's a Labour MP can't you - telling us what we should be thinking is the right thing. You're not allowed your own opinion under a Labour government, proles.

He added: "The Hendon property was cheaper to run, which was also an important consideration to me, and my claims progressively and rapidly reduced year on year since then.

"Although I could have claimed more I did not do so."


How very noble of you Andrew. You grasping cunt.

He looks like a cunt too:



You can almost smell the arrogance.

Friday, 20 November 2009

MASSIVE development on Climate Change - CRU emails & data hacked & leaked

See here. Initial analysis confirms this is legit.

It seems the Climate Science cat is out the bag. The scientists have been fiddling with data and models to attempt hide the Global Warming decline as well as all sorts of other shit.

Grab the .zip file while you still can here, read it, and weep.

There's simply too much here for it to be a forgery in my opinion.

Update: The BBC has reported the hack, but is not reporting the content of the emails. Typical.

Update 2: The excellent Bishop's Hill blog has provided summaries of the mails to save many of us wading through them. (Thanks to Banned in the comments)

Thursday, 19 November 2009

Fake Jan Ormondroyd Twitter feed

Saw it on a few people's twitter things on their blogs (I can't be arsed with Twitter) here.

Great idea, but a shame that they let the cat out of the bag so quickly with an admittedly amusing post:

Daydreaming & getting a little bit moist in the knickers at the thought of the next visit from all the fellas at the FA


Not an image anyone would wish to savour, I'm sure. I can't help thinking if they'd carried on the earlier tweets about Strategy and Leadership for a while they would have reeled quite a few people in on that one!

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

A seriously misguided gift

At a rather misguided hippyish online shop called the Good Gift Shop. It revolves around the principle that instead of buying someone a present like a nice bottle of wine, you buy them the "gift" of giving money to some shoeless Indian street kid.

All very noble, although the gift-giving is a bit imbalanced, with the person giving the gift left with a warm and fuzzy feeling, and the reciever getting....fuck all.

Still, whilst there are very worthy sounding causes like Supporting an Afghan Girl for £20 or A year's schooling for a pupil for £25, there's one that really takes the fucking biscuit.

For ordinary folk - reduce the National Debt.

In purchasing this, essentially you are just giving money, money intended to buy a friend or relative a present, straight to the government. The spiel is even worse:

Why lumber your descendants with a staggering debt burden? Now is the time to start reducing the National Debt in their names (and their interest). A wonderful present for children and grandchildren. If you think it´s futile, be more effective and increase your contribution. We even have a bonus for bankers.

Delivery through the Charities Advisory Trust to HM treasury


So this company of fucking clueless hippy hairshirt-wearers are advocating just giving the government money. They are advocating, as if enough isn't taken from us already, the people of the country bailing out the government from it's financial incompetence and mis-managment - which of course is what will happen, but these people are helping it along!

Even worse, this "gift" is placed in all seriousness on the same page as paying for a water pump in an African village or a bike for an Indian midwife.

But yet they think that an equally worthy cause is fucking giving money to the Treasury, because Gordon Brown has borrowed too much and spent it on nothing.

"Well Johnny, we were going to buy you a Playstation 3, but then we thought a far better use of the money was just to pay more tax".

Words fucking fail me. However, if they don't fail you, feel free to contact The Good Gift Shop to tell them what you think about this particular gift.

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

A brilliant letter

Over at Liberal Conspiracy a brilliant letter has been written to Baroness Buscombe in response to the PCC's idea of extending its remit to cover blogs as well:

Baroness Buscombe
Chair
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Cc. Rt. Hon. Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Cc. John Whittingdale MP, Culture, Media and Sport Committee

17 November 2009

Dear Lady Buscombe

Re: Extension of PCC regulation to UK Blogs/Blogging

We write in regards to your apparent proposal that the PCC should consider extending its remit to the ‘blogosphere’ as reported by Ian Burrell of the Independent on 16 November 2009 (1).

While we are grateful for your interest in our activities we must regretfully decline your kind offer of future PCC regulation. Frankly, we do not feel that the further development of blogging as an interactive medium that facilitates the free exchange of ideas and opinions will benefit from regulation by a body representing an industry with, in the main, substantially lower ethical standards and practices than those already practiced by the vast majority of established British bloggers.

Although we would not wish you believe that this criticism relates to all your members – The Guardian, in particular, has adopted a number of practices, not least the appointment of a Readers’ Editor to deal with complaints, which we consider to be the current gold standard in ethical journalistic practice amongst national newspapers – It is nevertheless the case that the vast majority of national newspaper titles routinely fall well short of both those, and our own, standards and that our direct experience of dealing with the Press Complaints Commission shows the organisation to be, in the main, complicit in those failings.

To give but one recent example of bad practice, of the many that bloggers have documented in over the last few years, an article published by the Tabloid Watch blog in October, covered documented, in some considerable detail, the tortuous process that one of its readers had to go through in order to get the News of the World to retract a manifestly untrue and inflammatory statement by one of its regular columnists, Carole Malone. In this particular column, published in July 2009, Malone made use of an all-too-common and utterly racist myth that ‘immigrants’ (meaning asylum seekers) receive free cars on arriving in the UK (2), a myth that is most closely associated with the propaganda output of the British National Party.

All you have to do to get everything Britain has to offer is to turn up illegally with some sob story of how your own country is too dangerous or that you’re a lesbian who’ll be shot if you stay there and Hey Presto, it’s like you’ve won the lottery! And, in effect, they HAVE.

Free houses, free cars, free healthcare and free money. Hell, they don’t even have to work or speak the language. Even the suggestion they should is seen as racist in Brown’s Britain.

They can just live as they did before, only with a whole heap more money and zero responsibility to the country providing it. (3)


What we find most striking about the process documented by Tabloid Watch is the extent to which the PCC actively sought to facilitate the News of the World’s efforts to avoid undertaking practices that we, as bloggers, take for granted as being standard practice in our corner of the Internet; i.e. the prominent publication of an honest and open correction of a factual error on the original article in which the error, itself, was made. Instead, as we invariably find to be standard practice amongst, particularly, tabloid newspapers; the correction and cursory apology (4)– when it was grudgingly issued after what Tabloid Watch described as ‘two months of wrangling’ – appeared in a location other than that of Malone’s column in the newspaper’s print edition and on its website on a page utterly divorced the article to which it relates, which was removed its entirely, and in such a way that only someone searching specifically for the retraction would ever be likely to find it. (5)

To all intents and purposes, the retraction might as well not have been issued, for all that it would apparent to visitors to the News of World’s website that it had ever been made.

This is but one clear example of a practice that would be unacceptable amongst established bloggers and one of many that bloggers who specialise in monitoring the national press for accuracy have documented in recent years. For a blogger to engage in such practices, which include ‘stealth editing’ of articles, after publication, to avoid owning up to factual errors and removing and/or refusing to publish critical comments from readers, especially those that highlight and correct factual errors.

For an established blogger to adopt such practices would do incalculable damage to their public reputation; this being, after all, all that we have to trade on.

To the vast majority of national newspapers such conduct is no more than standard operating practice.

Consequently we would suggest that before your even consider turning your attention to our activities, you should direct your energies towards putting your own house in proper order. Should you succeed in raising the ethical standards and practices of the majority of the national press, particularly the tabloids, to our level then we may be inclined to reconsider our position. Until that happens, any attempt by the Press Complaints Commission to regulate the activities of bloggers will be strenuously resisted at every possible turn.

Regards,

Unity – Ministry of Truth (6) and Liberal Conspiracy (7)


I suggest everyone signs it!

Private Parking Companies - Parking Eye, MET Parking Services, etc - the lowdown

Reading this story on the Evening Post Website reminded me of a post I've been meaning to do for a while on these fucking shysters.

A Bristol motorist has been fined after being accused of leaving her car in a McDonald's car park for 41 days.

Teresa Tremlett was stunned when she opened a letter to find a £100 fine from MET Parking Services claiming she had overstayed her welcome in the car park in Bedminster by 60,160 minutes.

The parking company enclosed CCTV images of Mrs Tremlett's Mercedes entering the car park in Sheene Road on September 24 and another one of her leaving the car park on November 5.

But Mrs Tremlett, 34, from Headley, says she had simply gone into McDonald's to buy food using the drive-through on both dates and had not parked her car in the car park on either occasion.

When she explained to MET Parking Services, she was told her fine would be waived.


OK, let's get a few things straight here.

1) The "fines" are not fines. They are (unenforceable) invoices for a civil contract they allege you have entered into. These companies are for all intents and purposes, fucking con-artists. They put up signs in car parks of selected companies such as B&Q, McDonalds, Pizza Hut etc which are sometimes easy to see, sometimes not, and then post you a letter demanding money if you overstay in the car park. They rely on two things: a) You not knowing the law and b) You being duped by their attempts to make their demand look official such as a chequered border round the edge of the letter, and using terms in the letter such as "Penalty Charge Notice" or "PCN" (it's not one), as well as attaching a tear-off cheque.

2) These companies are operating with the permission of the car park's owners (be that B&Q, McD's or whatever) but often the owner has no idea of what kind of shady business practices the companies get up to, with threatening letters, abusive phonecalls, etc.

3) These companies are private parking companies. They have no legal authority whatsoever to issue parking tickets. The only people that can are the Police and the Council, and only then on the public highway or publically owned land.

4) The "contract" that parking company claim exists between you and them (i.e. by parking in the car park you agree to their terms and conditions) only exists if you are aware of it. In order for you to be aware of it you need to have seen the sign. These signs need to be clearly placed and be reasonably visible from where you parked.

5) The "debt collectors" and "CCJs" threatened by the letters will not materialise. You may well be sent letters from a credit collection company, but miraculously they will have the same address and bank account details as the parking company. It's a front. Furthermore, they haven't yet taken anyone to court. Why do you suppose this might be? Because these invoices are unenforceable in law. They are in a clear breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 by charging a "fine" which is completely disproportionate to the loss incurred by the company (i.e. charging you £100 for overstaying in a free car park). These are the very same regulations used succesfully by many people fighting bank overdraft charges. As with overdraft charges, it doesn't even matter if you're made aware of these fine amounts and agree to them when you park (on the sign) - it's not relevant as far as the law is concerned. The only thing they are legally allowed to do is claim actual damages for breach of contract. (And even then they have to prove who was driving, and you have no obligation whatsoever to tell them as a private company). And since no damages have occurred (you have parked a bit too long in a free car park), there's nothing really they can claim for.

What should you do if you get a letter

My advice, based on extensive research, is just to ignore it. They will send another, maybe 2. You may then get (but not always) a letter from a "credit collection company". This is normally the same company as the private parking one, under a different guise. Ignore this like you have done the previous letters. Nothing will happen. If it does go to court (which it won't), you will win anyway. If you respond, you'll go onto a "potential fuckwit" list and they'll just pester you even more. Fuck them.

An interesting aside is that this also applies to paid car parks, e.g. NCP. They may try to charge you a similar amount for overstaying your paid-for parking ticket, but they can't, due to the same reasons as detailed above. All they can claim for in court is the loss that they have incurred, which would be how much it would have cost you to buy a ticket to cover the overstayed time.

Monday, 16 November 2009

Bristol 2018 Bid Bullshit

I haven't really got into this so far, primarily because I couldn't give a flying fuck about football. No, really I couldn't - even international matches.

That said, the Evening Post appears to have some interesting figures:

The cost of hosting 2018 World Cup football in Bristol could be as much as £17million – but that would be eclipsed almost 10-fold by the return to the local economy.

The cards are finally on the table for the costs and benefits of Bristol's bid to bring the most-watched tournament in the world to the West Country for the first time.

And the figures are staggering.

It is estimated that visitors will spend more than £150 million in Bristol during the World Cup, according to an independent economic forecast carried out for the Football Association.


But yet further down the article:

The FA was unable to provide a breakdown of how it arrived at a figure of £150 million, which is predicted will flood the local economy if Bristol was to become a host city.


Of course it wasn't able to provide a breakdown, because they've just plucked that figure out their fucking arse. I expect they used the same mathematical figures and concepts as the ones used by the film industry when calculating how much revenue is "lost" each year due to piracy.

Fuck the World Cup bid. We haven't got the infrastructure, and we can't rely on Bristol City Council to provide it.

To date, the council has spent just under £100,000 preparing the bid.


Hooray!

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Public Transport? Fuck public transport.

Proof, if it were needed, of how increasingly ridiculous public transport is.

The senior executive decided on coach travel after it was found that taking 200 of the company's staff from Reading to Coventry by rail could cost as much as £27,000.


Last week, the first £1,000 fare in the history of Britain's railways was revealed by a survey showing how long-distance prices have soared since privatisation in the mid-1990s.

The trip from Newquay, Cornwall, costs £1,002 if the ticket is bought on the day of travel, and has met with fierce criticism.


Why the fucking fuck would anyone spend a thousand pounds to travel by TRAIN, for gods sake - you can fly to Los Angeles for around £400. And that's for one person. Imagine if there are 4 of you.

How can the environmentalists expect us to give up car travel when it's better in every way compared to public transport? It hasn't even got the price going for it! If I am held up, I'd much rather sit in a traffic jam (which I'd point out to the environmentalists isn't anywhere near as prolific as they try to make out!) in a plush comfortable car than on a freezing cold platform at Birmingham New Street.

So, let's weigh it up:

Going by car:
* Is cheaper than public transport, especially if there's more than one of you
* It's often quicker
* You can travel whenever you want, at no notice
* You can go wherever you want
* You don't need to wait for your car to be ready
* You can listen to any music you want, or choose to travel in complete silence - not listening to someone else's stupid mobile phone conversation
* You can be cool on a hot day, and warm on a cold one
* You don't have to tolerate other passengers, especially smelly, noisy, or fat ones
* Delays can be avoided with re-routing
* You can stop when you want for food or drink, for the kind of food or drink YOU want

Remind me why I should take the train or the bus?

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Why is it always the munters?

A woman who was banned from making loud noises during sex has lost an appeal against her conviction.




They both must just be desperate to advertise to their neighbours the fact that they're getting it.

*Shudder*

Monday, 9 November 2009

Jeremy Clarkson on Mandelson [Censored]

Lifted from Old Holborn, a brilliant article on Mandy by Jeremy Clarkson in the times, which has since been pulled. Staggering. Who pulled it?

I’ve given the matter a great deal of thought all week, and I’m afraid I’ve decided that it’s no good putting Peter Mandelson in a prison. I’m afraid he will have to be tied to the front of a van and driven round the country until he isn’t alive any more.
He announced last week that middle-class children will simply not be allowed into the country’s top universities even if they have 4,000 A-levels, because all the places will be taken by Albanians and guillemots and whatever other stupid bandwagon the conniving idiot has leapt

I hate Peter Mandelson. I hate his fondness for extremely pale blue jeans and I hate that preposterous moustache he used to sport in the days when he didn’t bother trying to cover up his left-wing fanaticism. I hate the way he quite literally lords it over us even though he’s resigned in disgrace twice, and now holds an important decision-making job for which he was not elected. Mostly, though, I hate him because his one-man war on the bright and the witty and the successful means that half my friends now seem to be taking leave of their senses.

There’s talk of emigration in the air. It’s everywhere I go. Parties. Work. In the supermarket. My daughter is working herself half to death to get good grades at GSCE and can’t see the point because she won’t be going to university, because she doesn’t have a beak or flippers or a qualification in washing windscreens at the lights. She wonders, often, why we don’t live in America.

Then you have the chaps and chapesses who can’t stand the constant raids on their wallets and their privacy. They can’t understand why they are taxed at 50% on their income and then taxed again for driving into the nation’s capital. They can’t understand what happened to the hunt for the weapons of mass destruction. They can’t understand anything. They see the Highway Wombles in those brand new 4x4s that they paid for, and they see the M4 bus lane and they see the speed cameras and the community support officers and they see the Albanians stealing their wheelbarrows and nothing can be done because it’s racist.

And they see Alistair Darling handing over £4,350 of their money to not sort out the banking crisis that he doesn’t understand because he’s a small-town solicitor, and they see the stupid war on drugs and the war on drink and the war on smoking and the war on hunting and the war on fun and the war on scientists and the obsession with the climate and the price of train fares soaring past £1,000 and the Guardian power-brokers getting uppity about one shot baboon and not uppity at all about all the dead soldiers in Afghanistan, and how they got rid of Blair only to find the lying twerp is now going to come back even more powerful than ever, and they think, “I’ve had enough of this. I’m off.”

It’s a lovely idea, to get out of this stupid, Fairtrade, Brown-stained, Mandelson-skewed, equal-opportunities, multicultural, carbon-neutral, trendily left, regionally assembled, big-government, trilingual, mosque-drenched, all-the-pigs-are-equal, property-is-theft hellhole and set up shop somewhere else. But where?

You can’t go to France because you need to complete 17 forms in triplicate every time you want to build a greenhouse, and you can’t go to Switzerland because you will be reported to your neighbours by the police and subsequently shot in the head if you don’t sweep your lawn properly, and you can’t go to Italy because you’ll soon tire of waking up in the morning to find a horse’s head in your bed because you forgot to give a man called Don a bundle of used notes for “organising” a plumber.

You can’t go to Australia because it’s full of things that will eat you, you can’t go to New Zealand because they don’t accept anyone who is more than 40 and you can’t go to Monte Carlo because they don’t accept anyone who has less than 40 mill. And you can’t go to Spain because you’re not called Del and you weren’t involved in the Walthamstow blag. And you can’t go to Germany ... because you just can’t.

The Caribbean sounds tempting, but there is no work, which means that one day, whether you like it or not, you’ll end up like all the other expats, with a nose like a burst beetroot, wondering if it’s okay to have a small sharpener at 10 in the morning. And, as I keep explaining to my daughter, we can’t go to America because if you catch a cold over there, the health system is designed in such a way that you end up without a house. Or dead.

Canada’s full of people pretending to be French, South Africa’s too risky, Russia’s worse and everywhere else is too full of snow, too full of flies or too full of people who want to cut your head off on the internet. So you can dream all you like about upping sticks and moving to a country that doesn’t help itself to half of everything you earn and then spend the money it gets on bus lanes and advertisements about the dangers of salt. But wherever you go you’ll wind up an alcoholic or dead or bored or in a cellar, in an orange jumpsuit, gently wetting yourself on the web. All of these things are worse than being persecuted for eating a sandwich at the wheel.

I see no reason to be miserable. Yes, Britain now is worse than it’s been for decades, but the lunatics who’ve made it so ghastly are on their way out. Soon, they will be back in Hackney with their South African nuclear-free peace polenta. And instead the show will be run by a bloke whose dad has a wallpaper shop and possibly, terrifyingly, a twerp in Belgium whose fruitless game of hunt-the-WMD has netted him £15m on the lecture circuit.

So actually I do see a reason to be miserable. Which is why I think it’s a good idea to tie Peter Mandelson to a van. Such an act would be cruel and barbaric and inhuman. But it would at least cheer everyone up a bit. onto in the meantime.


UPDATE: Just in case anyone didn't believe it was there, it's still on Google (but not in Google Cache) if you search for the URL:



It's also still on the Times Website if you search for "rope" and "mandelson", though the link is dead.



UPDATE 2: Someone's put a screengrab of the article before they pulled it online.

UPDATE 3: It's back. Maybe a "technical" problem, but I'm inclined to think not.

Wednesday, 4 November 2009

Government responds to "Please Go" petition

Remember the petition calling for Gordon Brown to resign?

Glory be, the government have responded:

The Prime Minister is completely focussed on restoring the economy, getting people back to work and improving standards in public services. As the Prime Minister has consistently said, he is determined to build a stronger, fairer, better Britain for all.


Well, that's just fine then, isn't it. Over 72,000 people signed that petition (and since it was spread around the blogosphere but not much further, I expect many more would have) and that's the best response they can come up with.

Fuck me, it's like PMQs, isn't it?

Their arrogance knows no bounds

Yes, it's MP's expenses again.

The BBC are still reporting that MPs have got the utter cheek, the outright fucking mendacity to be absolutely furious they are losing the trough their snout is bolted to.

Some MPs have already made clear how concerned they were about the proposals from Sir Christopher Kelly's independent committee, leaked last week.

Tory MP Roger Gale suggested Sir Christopher was "not living in the real world" and said reports that MPs with constituency homes an hour from London would not be allowed to claim for a second home were "absolutely ludicrous".


So you find it unacceptable that you might have to commute an hour to work? Who do you think really is not living in the real world, you dispicable cunt? How fucking dare you show such arrogance and such disdain to the people who put you there? How dare you so personally insult the constituents that voted for you? Fuck you, Roger.

Labour's Sir Stuart Bell told the BBC existing mortgage arrangements "cannot be disturbed" and that he did not think MPs would "accept any enforced redundancies of present staff".


Why can't they be disturbed? Are they too much of a good thing to let go? And who the fuck are you to decide what MPs will and won't accept? You are our servants, not the other way around. Fuck you, Stuart.

Still they've got a plan to "fix" the problem:

Commons leader Harriet Harman has said MPs will not get a vote on the matter and it will go to the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA).


Independent eh? That sounds good. Oh, wait a minute...

The IPSA's chairman and board members will be approved by a new committee of MPs, headed by Speaker John Bercow, which includes three Labour MPs Sir Stuart Bell, Don Touhig and Liz Blackman, Conservative Sir George Young and Lib Dem Nick Harvey.


Independent my fucking arse. It's the same old shit with you cunts, isn't it?

Sir George said the IPSA would be independent and the MPs' committee would only oversee appointments but accepted that it would have to consult the committee, along with other bodies, when "preparing or revising" an expenses scheme.


Yeah yeah, usual shit. After all, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

But even if the IPSA decides to take on board all Sir Christopher's recommendations, it is not clear when that might happen.


Never, if the MPs can help it. You can guarantee they'll just find another way to get the cash.

That prompted Lib Dem frontbencher David Heath to tell MPs last week: "I have my doubts whether the timetable will be such as to see real and effective change before the expiry of this Parliament.


Well, we won't see any "real and effective change". That bit's simple.

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

Brown "opens up" to Men's Magazine

Ignoring the disgusting "Goatse" image that the title of this post brings to mind, if this is all his advisors think he needs to do to get voters "on side" then he may as well throw in the fucking towel now.

In it Mr Brown insisted Labour can win the next election

I rest my case.

but when Morgan asked how he would make himself "sexy", Mr Brown said: "I can't change in the way you're asking me to."

Replace "sexy" with "competent" and you're closer to the truth.

After Morgan claimed the public perceived him as miserable and dour, Mr Brown said: "I accept I have to do better in the presentation area. I've got my strengths and I've got my weaknesses."

Actually, nobody gives a fuck about his presentation, and the fact that we perceive him as miserable and dour should frankly be far less of concern than the fact we find him excruciating to tolerate as a woefully incompetent prime minister, leading a woefully incompetent party.

Mr Brown went on to say he had "very little money", adding: "It's very expensive being prime minister. I gave up my prime ministerial pension that would be worth around £2 million, but on my first day in office I gave it up.

No, Gordon. Factory workers on minimum wage who struggle to feed their family and loose sleep wondering how the next bill is going to be paid have "very little money". You're never going to have to worry about how the next bill is going to be paid, are you, you despicable revolting champagne socialist. You gave up your prime ministerial pension? How fucking noble of you. But you still have your MP's gold-plated index-linked pension, I guess?

When asked how he wanted history to judge him, Mr Brown said: "That he stood up for fairness, and tried to ensure that people got a fair deal."

Errrr-errrr!


On the subject of entertainment the PM talked of his preference for ITV's X Factor over the BBC's Strictly Come Dancing.

He said: "[Simon] Cowell accused me of wavering in my support for The X Factor, but I haven't. I'm an X Factor fan, and Peter Mandelson looks after Strictly Come Dancing."


Ooh, mince! Chase me Peter, chase me!

Saturday, 31 October 2009

Mandlesnake "leaking" Blair's EU President Intentions

...to the BBC.

But who gives a flying fuck whether Blair wants to be EU President or not? As far as the UK public and the rest of the EU is concerned, he's not fucking getting it.

How the fuck can he even contemplate it whilst families are still arriving at RAF Lineham to collect their dead sons?

And even worse, that fucking McDoom still thinks he has any clout at all, in the UK or abroad:

Gordon Brown is lobbying for Mr Blair but a lack of support from EU socialist leaders could scupper his chances.


I think Bliar has done a pretty fucking good job of scuppering his own chances.

Seriously, if Blair is installed as EU President, we're fucked.

Friday, 30 October 2009

Well, she won't have a job next week

Every day, a new idiot is discovered.

Watch at 0:22.

Councillors resign over blogger

Unfortunately not in Bristol, but in Somerton.

The blog looks very tame compared to some of my rantings about BCC. In fact, that blog's criticism of Somerton Council looks pretty tame compared to fairly reserved ones such as Green Bristol Blog, and certainly looks tame compared to The Bristol Blogger.

The bloggers of Bristol need to get some of this shit rolling here. If anyone has anything juicy they want published you can email me anonymously at bristoldave@hotmail.co.uk.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Kerry McCarthy on class

In the comments thread here, Kerry denied that she was an upper-middle class vegan barrister, simply a vegan.

Going on her expenses claims, I put it to her that she was upper-middle class because she shopped at Habitat.

Her response?

In whose world is Habitat upper-middle class?!


Well, many people's, given that the average price of a double bed frame (without mattress) is around £1000.

I guess it's not upper-middle class if the taxpayer is paying for it.

Fuck you, CWU

OK, this postal strike is really beginning to piss me off. Are they striking over terrrible pay? No, the average postie gets £21k a year. Are they striking over terrible working conditions? No, in fact after doing a bit of reading into this, it turns out:

At the heart of the latest dispute is the deal that the two sides signed to end the last national strike, the 2007 Pay and Modernisation Agreement.

The CWU says that Royal Mail has carried out three of the four planned phases of that agreement with full and frank dialogue. It claims the company is refusing to talk to it about the final phase, how the roll-out of its modernisation plans would affect job security.


So they're striking because some of them might be laid off?

Welcome to the real world, you cunts.

Nobody really has job security at the moment, why the fuck should you be guaranteed it? Excuse me for having no sympathy whatsoever with you, or your ridiculously out-of-date views of job entitlement, you lazy fucking plebs.

And do you really think that not turning up for work is the best way of proving how indespensible you are?

This bit made me laugh as well:

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) plans to go to the High Court to stop Royal Mail using agency staff to clear the post backlog caused by the strikes.

Royal Mail had planned on hiring 30,000 temporary workers to deal with the backlog of post and the Christmas rush.

The CWU has taken legal advice, said a spokesman. The union hopes to show that the company is breaking employment law.


Mad - so they're striking against their employer but then threatening legal action when their employer tries to do something about it?

They must be taking advice from this fucking cunt.



And why do all the representatives from the unions come across as bullying thugs? I suppose they're all trying to give the impression of being hard-up honest workers.

Even though the CWU's General Secretary is on £100k pa.

Saturday, 24 October 2009

The National Lottery



Why do people play this? Earlier on I went to the local shop to grab some milk and there was someone in front of me spending no less than £10 on scratchcards. They then proceeded to move to the side to let people pay, and scratch them all. All of them ended up in the bin. Well, fuck me, that was £10 well spent, wasn't it? Clearly they were thick as shit as anyone who is even half-educated these days surely realises that the National Lottery is an exceptional waste of money and is essentially a fucking fruit machine with slightly a more acceptable face, and worse odds.

But still people queue up in fucking Londis shops up and down the country, clutching their numbers form, firmly holding the belief it "could be them", and still the Lottery keeps going. The probability is that you won't win.

If you're so stupid you think that scratchcards is a good way to spend £10 on a Saturday night you're probably the kind of person who can't afford to throw away £10. Why not give it to me? There's a chance I'll give it straight back to you. Only a slim one though.

Friday, 23 October 2009

Nick Griffin claims he faced a "lynch mob"

BNP leader Nick Griffin is to complain to the BBC over his controversial appearance on Question Time, saying he had faced a "lynch mob".


How ironic, from someone who claimed the KKK were a non-violent organisation.

The mind boggles. What a fucking moron.

Thursday, 22 October 2009

The UAF are hypocritical cunts

That is all.

I cannot believe this

Bit late on this one, but still...

New regulations set to come into force later this month will see motorists forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not guilty or acquitted of motoring offences.


Can you believe this? It's not even "Hey, here's a new moronic idea we've been cooking up at Downing Street, bet you didn't think we could out-moron the last one, did you?" - this is set to come into force. It's already been agreed.

And is it every criminal, or just motorists?

When are they going to start fitting dildos to petrol pumps so we can fuck ourselves up the arse to save them the trouble?

BNP on Question Time

God, some people (in fact, many people) have got some stupid fucking views on this.

I will start out by saying I do not agree with the BNP, on any level, about anything. They are far too extreme left-wing (no, they're not right-wing, have a look at how much of their policies include state control, for goodness sake) for me and they are racist and ignorant to boot. Plus, Nick Griffin is an absolute cunt. And finally I think the British public could pick a far more deserving "protest vote" than the BNP (what better way to protest than vote for LPUK).

But does Peter Hain, and those hypocritical fascist cunts the UAF, really believe the best way to stop people voting for the BNP is to ban them? That's excruciatingly naiive. Let them on there! Let Nick Griffin slip up answering questions (and he will). Let the audience "boo" his answers. Fuck me, what better way to let everyone know what a bunch of twats they are than to broadcast the fact on national TV.

I've already given my views on the UAF before, and pointed out the staggering levels of hypocrisy in their beliefs (that requesting the banning of an organisation, however racist that organisation is, is incredibly fascist in itself) and that they should be given even less legitimacy than the BNP for this very reason, not least because they arrogantly believe it is up to them to decide who is and isn't allowed to broadcast their views to the British public.

I bet they get into the QT audience though.

No mention of Red Lights though....

In an article about "Anti-Social" cyclists on the BBC.

The government should do more to target "irresponsible behaviour" by cyclists - particularly when they break traffic laws, a committee of MPs has said.


Good. It's about time they stopped being deified by the media, which only adds to their arrogance and belief that "the rules do not apply to them". I'd like to take this opportunity to remind cyclists that the rules very much apply to you. That includes stopping at fucking red lights as well, something the BBC article neglects to mention.

The thing is, if when confronted about cycling through red lights, or on the pavement, cyclists were even the slightest fucking bit humble, and admitted that they knew it was wrong, and they were very sorry, but sometimes it's just easier and they do it if it's safe to do so. However, most I've come across do not do this - in fact, almost the opposite - they believe they have a god-given right to ignore red lights and cycle on the pavement, because their smugcycle is not fitted with an engine. They make no apology for the fact that they completely flout rules on the road on an hourly basis and even have the outright fucking temerity to get indignant when drivers don't show them the utmost courtesy even though they're not prepared to do the same (such as actually stopping at red lights, or pulling into the side of the road when it's safe to do to allow traffic to pass, or actually looking before they wobble out from a side street straight into traffic).

I've taken a personal resolution that the next arse who "buzzes" me whilst twatting through the pedestrianised area in Broadmead as fast as they can on their stupid fucking bike is going to get pushed off it.

Monday, 19 October 2009

We're not all like that

Just seen Panorama, where two Asian reporters rented a house in Southmead to see what kind of racial abuse they'd encouter.

For anyone who doesn't know Bristol, Southmead is for the most part (obviously) a fucking shithole full of the most lowlife chav scum. Not all areas are that shitty, although many are: Hartcliffe, Knowle West, Whitchurch, Withywood. There are also areas that they wouldn't suffer abuse, but I still wouldn't want to live there; Lawrence Hill, Easton, Barton Hill.

So pretty much the same as any city then.

But then if they'd moved to Clifton or Redland they wouldn't have much of a TV programme would they?

Just thought I'd let you know we're not all chavvy cunts.

UPDATE: You can watch the programme on iPlayer here.

Bristol City Council even treats its employees like idiots

Thanks to the person who mailed me the current front page of "The Source", BCC's intranet site for employees - they were indeed correct that I would find it amusing (or should that be bemusing?).



Have you ever seen anything so condescending in your life? I'd imagine the average age of the Bristol City Council employee is not that of Primary School children, so why on earth are they targetting their campaigns as such? Ooh, let me guess, it's to make it "fun". Fucking cretins. At least we know it's not just the public they treat with disdain, it's themselves as well.

The "dynamic digit". For fuck's sake.

Saturday, 17 October 2009

Carter Ruck still being cunts

As reported on wikileaks.

Following parliamentary condemnation, Carter Ruck agreed to amend the order so it would not apply to the parliamentary record, but would, in all other ways, continue to gag the press.

This updated variation was then faxed the Times on 16, October 2009.

The injuction, in all other respects, remains in effect.


Free press? My fucking arse.

Thursday, 15 October 2009

MPs want MANDATORY "Nanny" filters on mobiles & PCs

Reports El Reg:

An all-party group of MPs has recommended mandatory nanny filters for all mobile devices and data devices that can access the internet - and wants the UK's Internet Watch Foundation secretive censor system extended to the whole world.


God all mighty. God. All. Fucking. Mighty. I'm literally speechless at how brazenly statist and authoritarian these cunts are now.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Communications (Apcomms) today recommends: "A global 'notice and take-down' regime is required, and if the IWF cannot provide it then someone else should."


As the Reg quite rightly points out, the MPs might be getting a bit carried away here. Nevertheless, it shows how fucking terrifying their goals are.

And guess what the justification for this is? Have a guess. For me. Go on.

The reason for given for mandatory net filters is "that the default child protection settings are different on different mobile networks and different devices. This is unnecessarily confusing for parents, and so the report recommends that the industry move to a consistent, and 'safe', arrangement."


But of course. Think of the fucking children.

ISPs will be pleased to learn that they are expected to foot the bill for cleaning up all the malware on British PCs. ISPs should establish a voluntary code and if it fails to clean up our PCs, Ofcom should impose one anyway: "A reduction in compromised end user machines is essential to make the Internet a safer place," they write.


This is the start of forcing ISPs to limit access to certain sites.

You don't think the Chinese-style firewall is coming? Think again.

Yet another reason to join Old Holborn on his walk.

Bristol's Traffic Lights

I see the Evening Post have started a campaign about Bristol's traffic lights.

Fair play to them, frankly. I've always been of the opinion there are too many traffic lights in Bristol, and that many of them are deliberately set to cause maximum queues and congestion, firstly to garner public/media support for a congestion charge, and secondly to try and "tempt" people onto the busses.

It's clear to me that the council haven't got a clue what they're doing with traffic lights. Bristol City Council use a system called SCOOT which they use to manage the traffic light system. It is touted as being used for "Bus Priority" (which BCC definitely make use of) as well as "traffic gating" (ditto). However, is this automatic? Going on how poor the traffic light design and operation is in Bristol I'd wager it isn't. And if that's the case, and BCC are setting the timings etc themselves, then who's to say some random jobsworth Traffic Officer sitting in Wilder House has picked the most effective timings?

There are loads of traffic lights around Bristol that are implemented appallingly, and frankly the Traffic Signals department should be fucking ashamed. Take the area of the Temple Circus Gyratory roundabout - fuck me, it's a wonder any cars get through there at all. Why? Because not only are there traffic lights on the roundabout itself, but there are also lights set further back on most of the approach roads too! One of the worst for this is Redcliffe Way. There is a completely fucking pointless set of traffic lights halfway along this road between the Redcliffe Way roundabout by the church and the Temple Circus Gyratory. What these lights are supposed to do is divide the flow between the bus lane and the non-bus (normal) lane. However, instead of having a sensor in the bus lane which would allow the normal lane to be on green until a bus arrives and it is let through (the obvious choice), it is on a fucking timer, where it indescriminately changes the normal lane to red and the bus lane to green, even if there's no traffic in the bus lane. How fucking STUPID is that? Well, very, you might agree, but BCC haven't seen it, as they've gone ahead and implemented it.

There is nothing more fucking annoying than sitting on Redcliffe Way at a red light, when the lights 50 yards in front of you are on green, but you can't go because the bus lane next to you is on green, and no fucker is using it.

Whilst we're in the area, the pedestrian crossing RIGHT after the Temple Gyratory roundabout (can be seen here on Google Maps). What the fuck is the point, where there is another pedestrian crossing a matter of yards down the road, outside Temple Meads station? The ONLY thing this pedestrian crossing does is stop traffic leaving the roundabout, causing more congestion.

There are countless other examples of this, and there's no way anybody could be qualified to do a job of traffic signals designer, and fuck it up that badly, unless they're deliberately trying to make it worse for drivers.

Go figure.

Here is an excellent comment from Bob de Bilde on the evening post article, which pretty much sums up the situation:

Previously, in Bristol as much as possible was done to slow down traffic and generate congestion - this was done to justify a CONgestion Charge.

Now that CONgestion Charges outside of London have proved to be political suicide - look at the Manchester and Edinburgh CONgestion Charge debacles - the authorities now realise that they will have to reverse their congestion causing measures.

Notice that we've not had a peep from the council, the West of England Partnership, the Government Office of the South West, or any of the other multitude of quangos that rule us about CONgestion Charging or an application to the Government's Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). The TIF would have released additional funds for transport to councils prepared to implement CONgestion Charging.

It's all gone very quiet about Charging since Labour were booted out. The Lib Dems want power and they know that if they tried to introduce CONgestion Charging in Bristol, they'd be booted out of the Council House faster than you can say 'Demand Management'.

Back in 2006 we were told that CONgestion Charging would be implemented around 2013, after massive improvement in public transport. Obviously, we've not had our massive improvement in public transport (quelle surprise!) and we're not going to get it anytime soon - therefore it's now politically impossible to implement a CONgestion Charge.

I'm looking forward to the congestion causing measures being withdrawn - starting with all those extraneous traffic lights, so that traffic, both private and public can start to flow again.

However, none of this addresses the important question of when we will get a decent - non-FirstBus-based- mass transit system.

It's as far away as ever - to Bristol's and the Government's eternal shame.

Tuesday, 13 October 2009

What's going on? EDIT: Answered

Apparently The Grauniad have been gagged from reporting parliament.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.


Ye fucking Gods. Anyone know what's going on?

EDIT: Answered - just found this.

Monday, 12 October 2009

The latest example of greenwash

Here's yet another example of how companies are taking advantage of all the climate change alarmism, and believe me, this is only going to get worse.

Carrier bags.

Loads of shops now - Marks & Spencer, some Asda stores - fucking Halfords, I've noticed - are no longer giving out free plastic bags, due to the "environmental impact". What environmental impact? You can compress a carrier bag in your fist, it hardly takes up a lot of space. And what if I re-use that carrier bag for something else (which I frequently do, e.g. more shopping trips)? The "environmental impact" is so neglible it's not even worth devoting any precious time to thinking about it.

Let's be clear here - companies give about as much of a fuck about climate change as I do. Companies are charging for/refusing to give you a carrier bag

TO SAVE MONEY.

It has FUCK-ALL to do with the "enivronmental impact" (because there isn't really one). You might say that this is stating the bleeding obvious, which I'd agree, but look at where this could end up:

* Companies massively increasing delivery charges to cover the "cost of the carbon footprint". Like every other eco-charge, this would be an arbitrary amount pulled from their arse
* Supermarkets and other shops charging for parking (the ones that don't currently anyway) to cover the "environmental cost of you driving to the supermarket" (even though that's covered many times over by Fuel Duty if nothing else). Interestingly those people who condemn driving have never suggested how I get my shopping home from the supermarket - maybe I could float it home on a carpet of environmentalists hot air, or sail it home on a river of their bullshit?
* Supermarkets charging you more for non-recyclable packaging, but not providing goods without it so you're forced to pay

The list could go on and on and on. Their are countless fucking opportunities for companies to make extra money on the back of "climate change", and you're simply naiive if you think that in the future they won't grasp them with both hands - some are already doing so.

Fuck you, enviro-loons, for giving them this opportunity.