Silas

2011-02-07T23:55:00.002Z

My Lucky Winning Streak Continues!

UK INTERNATIONAL DRAW HEADQUARTERS
NATIONAL LOTTERY TOWER
LIVERPOOL, L70 1NL
UNITED KINGDOM
Ref No: UK/9420X2/68
Batch No: 074/05/ZY369

Dear Lucky Winner,

This is to inform you that your email address was selected for a cash
prize of 1,500,000.00 Great British Pounds) held on the 4TH OF FEBUARY
2011 in London Uk Lottery Email Draw.

Claims Agent Name: Mr Jack Smith
Email: mrjacksmith@live.com

YOU ARE TO INDICATE THE OPTION SUITABLE FOR YOU IN RELEASING YOUR FUNDS.

1. BANK TO BANK TRANSFER.
2. DELIVERY BY CERTIFIED CHEQUE
Provide the information below;
1.NAMES: 2.ADDRESS: 3.SEX/AGE:
4.:COUNTRY: 5.OCCUPATION: 6.TELEPHONE NO:
7.RELEASE OPTION:
Regards
Mike Vilasma
Co-ordinator(Online Promo Programme)

Having checked the headers, this seemed to have been sent from Brazil. Still, £1.5m isn't to be sniffed at, so a reply was sent.

Hello Mr Smith,

Thank you for confirming my win. Before I send you any information, can you
explain to me why your mail was sent from Brazil?

And I'd like the money in cash or narcotics please.

Thanks

Much to my surprise, I got a reply this very evening.

Hello

I got your email,must winner this year have been complaining of similar problem.
The problem is from our network provider. you said you need your money in cash
this means that the money will be delivered to you by diplomat.
Note you will be responsible for all the expanses to deliver it to you
thanks

Delightful work there fella! Not sure what my expanses have got to do with anything, and why I need a diplomat from Liverpool (do they even do diplomacy in Liverpool?). Still, it did give me a chance to reply.

Good evening to you!

Thank you for your response.

I live in London, so I don't think it would be necessary for a diplomat to deliver my £1.5m. If it's more convenient, I could pop up to Liverpool and meet you at the National Lottery Tower? According to my sat nav, the National Lottery Tower is just off Prescot Road, so if you'd like, I could buy us lunch in the Frankie & Benny's just down the road from there. It would be my treat, seeing as I'm a millionaire and everything!

The reason I need my winnings in cash is due to me not having a bank account. I could probably borrow some money off someone to pay for me to get up to Liverpool, so please let me know whether that is suitable.

Hope to speak to you soon.

Fingers crossed, eh?

2011-01-26T12:28:00.003Z

419 Email Of The Day

Hello My Dear

I am Mrs Jeanette Ogasu, please I need your help in this lucrative business that I am about to present to you, since after the death of my late husband Mr. Abraham Ogasu of Niger Delta Area of Nigeria, who was the paramount leader of the Niger Delta Developing Communities and during his time, he did governs with sense of humanity and peace.

I know we have not met before but I am contacting you with due sense of humanity responsibility and the few awareness that you will give it a mutual understanding. I am soliciting for an assistance to move a secured consignment (trunk box) with the sum $2.5 million United States Dollars to your country for investment. These funds is presently in a security company in United Kingdom for safety since on the 12-2-2009. The real content of the consignment was not declared as it was kept as Family Legacy by my late husband, I need you as partner to assist in transferring the fund and provide good investment plans for it.

The fund will be under your investment control for three years during which only the profit will be shared annually 70% for me and 30% for you annually. I am a Christian with the fear of GOD in any thing I am doing, so please I want us to build trust to each other. I will appreciate your urgent response as soon as possible for further directives on how to achieve this transaction successfully.

Thanks in anticipation of your response.
Thanks
Best regards
Mrs. Jeanette Ogasu
NB
Please reply through {jeanetteogasu@ymail.com}

Dear Mrs Ogasu,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Unfortunately your email seems to have come through to the wrong person as I too was the wife of Mr. Abraham Ogasu - but I am having trouble getting his personal safety deposit box *out* of the country.

Perhaps we could meet up to swap boxes? I believe the one I have is also filled with US$2.5million. Or cats. It could be anything to be honest, as it's the deposit box Mr Ogasu used to share with that nice Dr Shrodinger and I won't know what's in it unless I open it.

I have no interest of investing the money, but instead will spend the money on a fine selection of hats and scarily loud shirts.

If you can forward your bank details to me, I would appreciate this greatly.

Many thanks for your time

Mrs Odette Ogasu

2011-01-25T22:37:00.003Z

Amusing Myself With Moben Kitchens.

I've decided to email every company that irritates me. Not people, for the moment, but I may expand my remit as and when I run out of companies I dislike.

This week, Moben Kitchens are up. If you haven't seen their advert, here's the one they broadcast before Xmas.

Now listen carefully to the woman 12 seconds in who gives out the telephone number. Hear it? Listen again if you didn't, as the sound quality isn't as good as the broadcast version on TV.

Right, that should explain this mail to Moben.

Why, in your current adverts, do you use an actress who can't say the word "three" to be the person to give out your telephone number?

While it is entertaining to hear your number as "oh eight hundred four won fwee four won fwee" it is beginning to grate somewhat.

How badly did the other actresses say it so that you felt she would be the best?

Any information would be gratefully received. Plus if you'd like me to do the voice over, I am incredibly cheap, but I do sound Northern.

Oddly enough I've not had a reply yet.

2011-01-24T15:00:00.004Z

Sainsbury's: The End Of The Love Affair.

Before we begin, I'd like to point out that I've been a loyal customer of Sainsbury's for about 15 years, maybe more. For the past few years my local branch has been Streatham Common, and up until mid-2010, I was delighted with the store. I'd even sent them an email telling them how much I enjoyed shopping there.

I used to be fairly happy with the prices that I paid, until last week when I noticed that some prices had increased by 15% or more pretty much overnight. Previous Friday, three cartons of 1 litre own brand juice were £2, by Tuesday this was £2.30. Previous Friday, Whiskas Katzini was 91p a pack, by Tuesday, £1.02. You'll see all of this in the email conversations below (if you can be bothered to read them) but thought you should be aware that I do pay attention to prices and can do math/maths.

So my first contact with Sainsbury's Customer Services (via their website form) was this;

We have been loyal customers of Sainsburys for over 10 years & have normally been very pleased with the prices charged. However, over the past three weeks, I have seen prices on items that I buy going up by over 15%.

While I did expect some prices to rise due to the increases in VAT & fuel duty, I am astounded that you can justify an increase of 11p on Katzini, 30p on three own-brand one litre juice cartons & over 10p on a loaf of instore bread.

When I asked about the increase in food prices, I was informed that this was due to "VAT increases" which is interesting as I was under the - perhaps misguided - impression that most of food was VAT free.

("VAT increases" was, by the way, also offered as the explanation at our local Streatham store for why there were four different prices of the same product on display in the vegetable section. I would include a picture of this, but there's no way of attaching it on your website.)

I asked the customer services department in Streatham Common if it was to them I should complain about the prices, but they tell me it is a national pricing decision and I should contact head office, hence this email. Can you please tell me why some of your prices have gone up by such a large amount? Are you trying to con the consumer into thinking that the price rise is due to VAT increases?

This is disgraceful behaviour by a supermarket which is currently advertising that there are 974 price cuts around the store. Can you send me a list of the products that have been reduced in price and their availability, as the majority of red shelf edge labels seem to refer to products that are not on the shelf.

Any response would be welcomed.

Okay, so my first mistake was that "any response" would be welcomed. I realise now that I should have been more specific. I'll save you the auto-responder thanking me for my feedback, and skip to the first reply I got from a human.

Thanks for your email about our recent price rises

We’re committed to offering great quality food at fair prices which is sourced with integrity. We regularly review our prices to make sure we offer value for money whilst remaining competitive. Although we try to keep our pricing as fair as possible sometime prices can go up as well as down.

There are lots of factors which can affect pricing, from rising costs of raw materials, to the production and packaging and even transportation. Whilst we try to absorb these increases for as long as possible, sometimes we eventually have to put the price up. I can’t be anymore specific why some of our products have become dearer, but I do hope that you’ll still find your overall cost of shopping at Sainsbury’s is good value.

I’m grateful to you for taking the time to contact us as your feedback helps us to improve our products and services. We look forward to seeing you again soon.

Maybe it's just me, but I was hoping for more of an actual reply to the points I'd raised than what felt like a cut & paste job of standard answers. So I replied to them.

Thanks for sending me a reply, of sorts.

As I mentioned in my email, I understand that VAT and fuel duty increases affect prices. I am also open to the idea that raw material costs have gone up and that this could affect prices in the future (such as the floods in Australia causing flour prices to increase worldwide due to the likely shortage). What I still don't understand is why some of your prices have gone up by more than 12% in a week.

If you were absorbing increases in costs over a long period of time, and now need to increase prices, can I suggest a phased increase, rather than suddenly lumping 12% on? As a shopper, if you put something up by 2p a week over 5 weeks, I'm less likely to notice and/or feel ripped off than by you suddenly pushing the price up by 10p overnight without any warning/explanation - while simultaneously seeing advertising designed to give me the impression that you have cut prices throughout the store.

Your methodology seems flawed, as you are now making me think my shopping is no longer good value as I am acutely aware that the prices have just shot up by 10-12%. Couple this with your instore customer service staff trying vainly to pass off every price rise as being due to the VAT increases - on items not even within the remit of VAT - and the whole shopping experience feels like a rip-off. You have essentially done the exact opposite of what you have set out to achieve.

I also note that despite me asking for a list of your 900+ half-price items (surely just a cut & paste from somewhere) and my comments about their apparent lack of availability in our local store, you have chosen to not respond to this part of my query. Could you possibly respond to it this time?

While I'm here, could you also confirm whether there are 100s or 1000s of products that have been reduced in price as your website shows both numbers on the same page. I've attached a screenshot so you can see what I'm talking about. (Click on the photo to embiggen)

And I've also attached a photo which shows the multiple prices on display for the same product that I mentioned in the previous email but couldn't attach via your website. (Click on the photo to embiggen)

Having previously commended the Streatham Common store, I was hoping that my comments in the previous mail regarding the price increases, the lack of staff knowledge about why the prices have increased, the lack of availability of your half-price items etc would possibly be mentioned in your reply. Or that you had passed them on to the store manager. I'm sorry that you didn't feel it necessary to do so.

Something I'd also intended including in the original email, but coincides nicely with my feelings of being ripped off, are when you keep prices on certain items the same, but reduce the amount of product. You used to do a circular goat cheese tart with six pieces of cheese on it. This then was reincarnated as a rectangular goat cheese tart with five pieces of cheese for exactly the same price. You used to do a fairly priced bag of basic brocolli. The bag shape changed, the amount of stalk increased and the amount of useable brocolli reduced. Price remained the same. The number of spring onions in a bunch went down. Price remained the same.

I noticed these things at the time and felt like Sainsbury's was trying to deceive me, but didn't bother mailing you. I'm beginning to suspect that I shouldn't have bothered mailing you this time either and should just take my business elsewhere.

Any comments or further information you can provide would be appreciated.

Which may seem harsh, but I was feeling like I was being brushed off. And I hate feeling like I'm being brushed off by companies that I actually like. Again, I'll save you the auto-response and go straight to the next mail I sent them, which includes their email to me. The bits in italic are their mail.

I have replied to this mail within the "reply" you sent me.

Thanks for your email. I’m sorry our response wasn’t satisfactory.

I'm beginning to expect it, to be honest. Which saddens me, as I try to make the mail I send to you very clear and do expect some level of actual answers in any response I receive.

I’ve passed your request for the list of products which are on sale at half price to our marketing team. I will email this to you as soon as I get it.

You know what, I suspect there's going to be no point as I can't actually see myself visiting Sainsbury's ever again.

The advert one the website states there are 100s of great offers at the moment, which there are. The statement of bringing you low prices on 1000s of products every week is basically stating we have many products at prices.

Well thanks for reading through what you'd written and checking it made sense before you bothered sending it. Surely all your products are "at prices", not just many of them? As you could see from the picture I attached last time, part of the problem is discovering just which of the prices on display are actually the correct one for the product. Did you see the picture I sent? I'm assuming that you didn't, or are ignoring it, as you haven't made mention of it in the reply.

Your comments on colleagues not being aware of prices increasing and stock availability have been fed back to the Streatham Common store. They will monitor the situation and ensure colleagues are fully trained in areas needed. Our colleagues won’t always be aware why some items have increased and may have to find out.

Yeah, or they could do what they've done repeatedly to me and just make up an answer and claim it's due to VAT. Thank you for passing my comments on to the store, although I won't be back in there to see if there's any improvement. Could you also mention to them that leaving out of date vegetables in the section right beneath the price label, while having the in date version of the same vegetable just a couple of feet further down isn't acceptable either? Could you also ask them why there's less people on the cigarette kiosk on a Saturday than there is on a Wednesday afternoon?

It's not just Streatham Common store I have issues with, I've tried shopping in the Wandsworth/Vauxhall branch and the one on Purley Way as I honestly did enjoy shopping at Sainsbury's. It made no difference, the problems seem endemic: no-one who works for you seems to care about the shop anymore. I personally think that there will be more customers who feel that if the staff don't care, then why should they - the customer - pay more for their products, get smaller portions, and "mis-informed" by staff when they could be getting the same level of service at Asda.

Hopefully you won't lose too many other shoppers or your shareholders - for whom you must need to increase your prices to maintain your profits - are going to get seriously unhappy when people stop shopping at Sainsbury's altogether. I cannot be the only shopper to complain about you increasing prices by over 15%, and I cannot be the only person who has contacted you and been unhappy at the non-reply I've had back. Is there anyone in charge of your Customer Service department? Do they know what mails are coming in and going out?

Our products are constantly reviewed and sometimes changed to try and improve them.

With the Basic brocolli you made the package smaller, the product worse and kept the price the same. With the tart I also mentioned in the previous email, you decreased the amount of goats cheese and kept the price the same. The only improvement made is in the profit margin as you've reduced the cost of manufacture. If you'd like to inform me of any products where you've increased the size of the portion, or added costlier ingredients without increasing the sale price, please enlighten me as I must have missed them.

We try our best to supply high quality products at fair prices whilst still remaining competitive.

You might want to try a bit harder then, as I can do a comparable shop for less at Waitrose. Would you like a copy of my receipt?

We would never intentionally deceive our customers and want you to be able to take advantage of the vast amount of products we have.

I'll ignore the non-sequitur in that sentence, but point out that by not telling the consumer that the product they're paying the same price for is now smaller than it used to be isn't exactly going to inspire trust and confidence, is it? Particularly when a fellow shopper points it out to them as I did the last time I was in Sainsbury's. I may well start doing it online as well, just to reach out and connect with as many people as possible.

We appreciate your patience.

What patience are you appreciating? Do you appreciate my sense of humour, my attire or my ability to juggle, none of which have been evident either?

If you'd like to get someone who can string a few words together that make sense, and maybe sit them next to someone who can answer any of my queries from any of my emails, please do reply. If that's beyond you, then please don't bother.

So that's where it stands. I'm waiting to see if I get a reply, but I'm not holding my breath.

2011-01-22T13:26:00.002Z

The Clear And Helpful Pricing Of Sainsbury's

In case you can't see it well enough there are three separate prices for the same product (loose cauliflower) varying from £1.39 to £1.49.

I mentioned this to Customer Services instore and was told that it might have been due to VAT changes. I pointed out that fresh vegetables were VAT exempt, and left.

2011-01-21T13:33:00.003Z

Complaining To Optimax About Their Advert

Dear Optimax

In your current advertising campaign, you suggest we should "wake up to laser eye surgery". Since I've heard this, I've been beseiged with nightmares of waking up to laser eye surgery.

I've now heard a woman in your advert say that she feels more awake. I can believe this, as I am now too terrified to sleep - in case I too wake up to laser eye surgery.

May I suggest you re-phrase the lines in your adverts? Or send me some sleeping tablets and a metal eye mask that I can lock. Or do you know of a way I can stop laser eye surgery from happening to me?

Any information you may have would be gratefully received as I haven't slept since 2009.

Received a reply from "Sarah Snowdon" at their Customer Services, dated 11 days ago.

So I replied with:

Dear Sarah,

I am living in some kind of Kafka-esque waking nightmare. I've just submitted a comment to your website, and I discover that you sent me a reply 11 days prior to me commenting.

Have I already woken up to laser eye surgery and am now living in the future? Or can I now see through time? If you are still living in 10th January, I'd advise you to put a bet on Alan Johnson resigning from the Shadow Cabinet. You can then retire from your job and move to the Bahamas.

I think you would enjoy that.

Many thanks

2011-01-21T10:22:00.004Z

Complaining To WH Smith, Is There Any Point?

Before Xmas our family flew to Barcelona, and we departed from Gatwick Airport. Normally this is quite straightforward, so we weren't expecting to discover that the Gatwick North WH Smith is so much worse a shopping experience than the ones in Gatwick South that we normally visit.

When we got back from Barcelona, we submitted the following complaint via the WH Smith website.

My partner is a wheelchair user and attempted to use your air-side shop at Gatwick's North terminal on Friday 3rd December at approximately 6am.

Having selected her items for purchase she queued for over 10 mins before getting to the entrance to the till area. At this point she was unable to proceed as the barriers were too narrow to allow wheelchair access and too heavy for her to move. Neither member of till staff offered her any assistance, and despite her attempts to get around the back of the barriers, she was unable to complete her purchase. When she then moved out of the shop to get my assistance, the staff member moving the newspaper trolleys towards the shop pushed them into her and pushed her backwards into the shop.

She was extremely upset and hurt by this. She finds leaving the house to be stressful enough and this was supposed to be the start of a relaxing trip to Barcelona. Suffice to say, this was not the way in which we wished it to proceed.

When I went back into the shop to ask why the barriers were not wide enough to allow wheelchair access, the "manager" said that she'd had no other complaints about them and told me that she "didn't design the layout" of the shop. Not exactly the ideal attitude for a representative of your organisation, I would suggest, nor particularly
aware of the present Disability legislation.

Could you please confirm whether the queue barriers in all of your stores are wide enough for a wheelchair to navigate easily, or is the Gatwick North store something of a novelty? Could you also please confirm whether your staff receive any training on how to deal with disabled customers or whether the "manager" I spoke to an aberration on an otherwise exemplary staff training policy?

Any information or comments you have would be gratefully received.

We received the obligatory auto-response thanking us for our email; "We appreciate the time you have taken to contact us. We take all of our customer comments seriously and want to make sure we fully investigate your concerns before responding to you."

Ominously, the last line said "Thank you for your patience."

So I waited three weeks, during which time we heard not a peep out of them, and then sent them this:

Any possibility of an actual response to my complaint? I feel three weeks would give you sufficient time to speak to any and all staff concerned, so I am disappointed not to receive anything from you apart from this auto response.

Quite surprisingly, I got a reply two days later, and not just an auto-response. Although they did thank me for my email.

"I'm sorry that you have not recived a reply from us. Please can you reply to this email, detailing your enquiry again, and we will endeavour to reply as quickly as possible."

So I replied with the text of the original mail and got this reply three days after that. Twenty-four days after the complaint was first submitted, if you're keeping count.

Thank you for your email of 28 December 2010, expressing your disappointment with the level of service you received at our Gatwick North store.

I sincerely regret this situation and can confirm that all aisles should be wide enough to be easily accessible for wheelchair users. I have immediately passed your feedback to the Gatwick site so this can be addressed

We are committed to offering excellent customer service so it is always a great disappointment when we hear that we are not achieving this. Rest assured our Store Manager has addressed this matter as an urgent training issue with all members of staff and we will take any steps necessary to ensure that this standard of service is never repeated.

I am very sorry that we have let you down on this occasion. I do, however, appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention and if I can be of any assistance to you in the future, please feel welcome to contact me.

You may note the lack of actual answers to my question about any training the staff receive on how to interact with disabled customers. And I'm delighted that the aisles are wide enough for a wheelchair. Unfortunately, I asked about the checkout queue barriers. And mentioning you'll "take any steps" to a wheelchair user is surely taking the piss, no?

I have replied to their email and if I get anything back, I'll post it here.

2011-01-10T15:24:00.003Z

Spam E-Mail Of The Day

Attn:Sir/Ma,

This is to bring to your notice that I am delegated from the United Nations To Central Bank to pay 150 scam victims $3,500,000.00 (THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED UNITED STATE DOLLAR) each.

You are listed and approved for this payment as one of the scammed victims to be paid this amount, get back to me as soon as possible for the immediate payments of your $3,500,000.00 compensations funds.

On this faithful recommendations, we want you to know that during the last U.N. meetings held at Abuja, Nigeria, it was alarmed so much by the world in the meetings on the lose of funds by various individuals to the scams artists operating in syndicates all over the world today.

In other to compensate victims, the U.N Body in conjunction with the Nigerian Government is now paying 150 victims of this operators $3,500,000.00 each in accordance with the U.N. recommendations.

Your particulars was mentioned by one of the Syndicates who was arrested as one of their victims of the operations, you are hereby warned not to communicate or duplicate this message to him for any reason what so ever as the U.S. security service is already on trace of the other criminals.

You are thereby advised to contact the payment officer in Nigeria through the following information. Name............. Mr.BEN KOJO E-mail: benkojo0222@gmail.com You will receive your compensations payments through CERTIFIED BANK DRAFT OR ATM PAYMENTS SYSTEM. You will be detailed with the modalities as you contact us for details.

Yours faithfully, Mr.Ben Kojo

Well that seems reasonable to me. Let me just get you my bank details.

2010-12-22T13:20:00.002Z

And A Merry Xmas To All Of You. Except You.

I may have mentioned this before, but I dislike Xmas a great deal. There's no trigger that I can recall. Never had someone die on Xmas day, never had a relationship fail then, no big fall out with relatives over tinsel arrangements; but I have never truly enjoyed Xmas since I was about three or four.

As you may have guessed, I'm not a religious man, so I don't celebrate December 25th as Jesus's birthday. And come on, if he was born then, why wasn't he called Noel or Chris? Now as I don't believe in God, I don't ever recall believing in Santa Claus either. Didn't believe the big lie, didn't believe the small one. Found it quite perplexing that children my age would queue to sit on an old man's knee and pay for a present that they didn't want. You want a decent present for sitting on an old man's knee? Go visit a paedophile. You don't pay, you get free stuff and you have enough to blackmail the bastard for the rest of his life.

Any way, I digress. Xmas. Presents are my main problem. You are obliged to get a present for people you are related to. This can be tricky. Particularly for parents as they seem to have everything they need when you're a kid, and your spending power is derived entirely from the pocket money they give you. Essentially they're paying you to buy them something they neither need nor want, and then pretend to be pleased with it.

In return, they then have to lavish you with gifts that you have to like. They've spent their hard earned cash on you, best you look grateful or your Xmas dinner is likely to have been licked by the dog before it gets to you. Plus, you're a kid and they're not. They will buy you something they think you'll like, rather than what you think you want. You wanted a Barbie, they get you a Sandy. You wanted a skateboard, they bought you rollerskates. Close, sadly no cigar this time, but do play again next year.

And why just at Xmas? If they can't afford to buy you something at Xmas, and have to get credit, why buy it then? You see something in August you think I'll like? Buy it and give it to me then. I'll do the same and we'll know all year round that we like each other. Don't try to work out in October what I might like 8 weeks later. I may have realised by then that my coordination and balance aren't good enough for a hula hoop. I'm 8, my interests change on a minute by minute basis.

Then we won't have to pay the hideous prices at Xmas and secretly compare how much your gift cost versus how much the one you recieved is worth. You could even just do it a couple of weeks later and buy all your presents in the sales. Crackers are unbelievably cheap then. And turkey? Practically giving it away.

Cards from people you don't hear from all year. Then they stop coming and you assume they've died. And two years later, remember that you haven't told them that you'd moved house. Cards from people you've never heard of, who, it turns out, your parents once met on holiday and vowed to keep in touch with. And the wonderful cards with signatures you can't read and no return address, which may not even be for you anyway. All these cards need displaying and again, compare how many you sent to how many you receive (your parents version of the followers:following ratio on Twitter).

The meal that takes two days to prepare and every pan in your house to cook it. It's never going to be as good as it is on Boxing Day when it's simply been re-heated, parts of it will be cold, and the burning holly on the Xmas pudding sets fire to the paper hat your grandmother is wearing. There are arguments about how to carve the roast, who gets first shot at the potatoes and why is it always me doing the washing up? And just how long after the mother of all lunches can you force down a sandwich and a slice of cake?

Is it acceptable to start drinking when you wake up? Or should you wait until you're out of bed? If Bucks Fizz is okay on Xmas Day why isn't a Bloody Mary fine on a Tuesday morning? Should you raise a toast to the Queen's speech or play drinking games based on how often she says "My husband and I" and throws in random bits of Latin? At what point during the Bond film will my mother deny ever having seen it and insist that next year "we're not doing anything for Xmas"?

I have had a quiet Xmas: frozen pizza for one and a Kylie DVD does not make the festive period particularly enjoyable. I've had lavish Xmases and spent the entire time fretting about how much of the food was going to end up getting thrown away. I've also had Xmases where I went to other people's houses and had to do Xmas their way. If you think your family have weird traditions, wait until you experience other people's.

You open one present on Xmas Eve and then save the rest until after lunch on Xmas Day? You are a freak. You have to wear all the clothes you get at once? Buffoons. It is compulsory that everyone takes part in your charades game is it? Guess what I'm miming, that's right, wanker. We have to go for a walk to burn off the calories from lunch? Well I fed the burned offerings you gave me to the dog, so I'll just stay here and eat this tin of Quality Street if that's okay. No drinking til Noon? I am leaving now and will never talk to you again.

This year, due to work commitments, our "family" will be celebrating Xmas on Dec 29th. If you're having yours on Dec 25th, have fun and remember when you have someone crying, someone angry and someone snoring, while you're making a resolution to not do anything next year, you're having the traditional Xmas.

2010-12-08T13:16:00.003Z

Mike Ashley, Derek Llambias And Alan Pardew

I used to be a life-long supporter of Newcastle United. I supported them through thin & thinner. Despite having put up with nearly being in the third division of English football, nearly winning the Premier League twice and being losing finalists in several cups, I kept supporting.

This is no longer the case.

Owner Mike Ashley and Chairman Derek Llambias have tried my patience previously: They hired Joe Kinnear. They installed Denis Wise as a "director of football". They contrived to get us relegated. They re-named the stadium. All of which irritated me and alienated yet more of the fan base. But I remained a supporter of NUFC until now.

When the decision was taken to sack Chris Hughton, I decided to switch my allegiances to Sunderland. This is not an easy decision for me, nor one I'd like to last any longer than is necessary, but I will not support NUFC while Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias remain in control of the club.

It seems that despite insisting in October that they'd be giving a new contract Chris Hughton (brought NUFC back out of the Championship after the relegation with the longest unbeaten run in NUFC history) they actually had no intention of doing so. Despite NUFC sitting in mid-table, winning away at Arsenal in the league and at Chelsea in the cup and hammering Sunderland 5-1, it seems they wanted someone "with more management experience".

So speculation was rife that NUFC would get Martin Jol, or Martin O'Neill. But it seemed unlikely, given that Jol had Hughton as Assistant Manager at Tottenham when he was Manager and isn't going to take a job at a club that had just sacked Hughton. And as O'Neill walked from Aston Villa when it became clear he wasn't going to be given complete control of the purchases and team selections, he surely wasn't going to a club where players have been bought and sold without the manager being informed.

And then today, the BBC report that Alan Pardew is going to be taking over at NUFC. If I supported NUFC, I would be really quite cross about that. Pardew has managed for more games than Hughton, but most of them weren't in the Premier League. He did bring West Ham up from the Championship, but when in the Prem, he decided to pick Marlon Harewood ahead of Carlos Tevez & Javier Mascherano. His most recent job - from which he was sacked in August, allegedly for having sex with a player's wife/girlfriend - was to manage Southampton, in Division One.

So why is he the man for the job? Well according to the BBC, he knows Ashley & Llambias because he frequents the same London casino as them. Which, as a *shudder* Sunderland fan, seems as good a reason as any to me. There's already a rumour that he'll be working for NUFC for free as he owes huge gambling debts to Ashley and/or Llambias, but I doubt that's true (for any lawyers reading). But it could be.

The worst part in the BBC's report is that Pardew was apparently in talks with NUFC about taking over the role of manager some ten days ago. Or 8 days BEFORE Hughton was sacked. If that is true, then even as a *cough* Mackem, I would be furious at Pardew and incandescent with rage at Ashley and Llambias.

If the League Manager's Association (LMA) has any clout whatsoever, it would be delightful to see Mike Ashley and/or Llambias being fined for the way they've acted over the sacking of Hughton. As is more likely, sod all will happen, except Carroll, Nolan, Jonas, Collocini & Krul will be sold in January, NUFC will get relegated at the end of the season, and Pardew will be sacked.

When Ashley leaves, I will return - regardless of what division NUFC are in.

2010-10-27T12:48:00.004Z

Smoking Related Deaths And Middlesbrough

I was just reading an article on the BBC about the perhaps surprising news that 33% of women in Blackpool smoke while pregnant. Then while I was wondering if that meant there were three pregnant women in Blackpool and one was a smoker (as there are no figures given in the piece), I read the following nugget;

Smoking related deaths from lung cancer were highest in Middlesbrough, with the illness claiming 71 victims per 100,000 in 2006-08.

Now how do you define smoking related deaths?

Is it that you were a heavy smoker all your life and then died of lung cancer? Is it you smoked 10 a day from the age of 12 until you were 30, then died of lung cancer? Or maybe you lived with a smoker for your entire adult life, then died of lung cancer?

The reason I suggest the last of those is, well, it's Middlesbrough. You could not smoke a day in your life and get lung cancer in Middlesbrough - as you could, in fact, anywhere in the UK - yet be classed as a "smoking related" death due to you having lived with a smoker (who may not have smoked in your presence at any point).

This isn't to deny the likelihood of smoking being a potential (or probable) cause of lung cancer, but does kinda lump everyone into one group.

In the post, Middlesbrough's ratio of "smoking related" lung cancer deaths is compared negatively to that of Guildford. The main thing that irks me about that is, I don't recall several major chemical plants in Guildford spewing fumes forth into the atmosphere, whereas the football team and supporters of Middlesbrough are known as Smoggies for that exact reason.

I'm not going to call Bad Science, but it does look like sloppy journalism.

2010-10-27T08:40:00.004Z

Most Important Invention Of The 21st Century?

According to confused.com the most important invention of the 21st Century has been decided already. So suck on that inventors! The next 90 years will have NOTHING that will compare to, wait for it, dah-dah-daaaaaaah, the internet.

Yes, that internet. The internet that I've been using since mid 1994; which has been in existence in one form or another since ARPANET, but for the sake of argument I will say 1989 (when CERN opened its first external TCP/IP connections). 1989 - according to confused.com at least - now part of the 21st Century, rather than the 20th as we'd been previously led to believe.

Anyway, this irritated me - and I know I'm not alone on this - so I mailed them about it, suggesting that by their criteria, I could suggest penicillin was the most important invention of the 21st Century.

Much to my surprise, I got this reply (suspiciously similar to those on the above link)

Thanks for taking the time to email us regarding our new TV Advert.

Cara (the character in our ad) is saying that the internet is the most important invention of the 21st century, in terms of impact and not that it was actually invented in the 21st century.

We do believe this to be correct, but we also value your opinion on this, so I will definitely pass your comments regarding penicillin onto our Advertising Team. It's always good to have customer feedback.

Thank you once again,

So, if you get easily bored, remember there is a "Contact Us" tab on confused.com's website and you can mail them your suggestion for the best invention of the 21st Century. I reckon if enough people do it, we can get them to admit that fire was the most important suggestion of the 21st Century.

Idiots.

2010-10-25T15:00:00.004Z

The Future Of The UK, Uneducated & Chav Populated

There's a Facebook group of this name, who say;

The key is two government policies which are totally messed up, namely the cut in child benefit and the cut in unviersity places and funding.

That would be "is that there are two government policies"

If you are not familiar with these cuts, they propose that families who earn over £44,000 per year will no longer receive Child Benefit where as lower income families will continue to receive it. University funding will also be cut forcing a reduction in the amount of available places for students wishing to go to university.

I was fairly certain the policy was if there was ONE person earning over £44k there'd be no Child Benefit, rather than families earning over £44k.

It seems that the fact some families can earn nearly £88k and still get Child Benefit when others - where say the mother stays at home and the father earns £45k - won't get Child Benefit is where the actual arguments have started.

So if you put this into reality this will create a society where people who are higher earners will think twice about having a child, as the cost of the upbringing will have to be covered solely be them, where as a lower income family will not think twice about having another child as the cost of its upbringing will be met by the government in the form of child benefit and tax credit payments.

I think that the latter part of your suggested future is already happening.

If a single woman has more than one child, she is moved higher up the Council Housing ladder. You may also be interested in reading about these women who get quite substantial amounts of Child Benefit.

Also, if I were part of a family of higher income tax payers, just how much difference would my £20.30 (for first or only child, £13.40 thereafter) really make in my decision to have a child?

So what does this mean for the future of the UK, simple. The UK will end up being an uneducated, underachieving nation.

As opposed to now?

I ask you has the government never here the term "spend money to make money", if you increase university places, you get more educated people, who in term get better jobs, earn money money and pay more taxes, likewise if higher earners continue to propogate they will, in most cases, produce children who will also go on to be high earners and again pay more taxes.

Hell of a sentence there fella, you might want to start using full stops. Oh and "here the term" should be "heard the term" and then put a question mark after "money", okay?

If you increase University places, you do not necessarily get more educated people. If you apply a reasonable entrance requirement, you could easily end up with less people doing degrees. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that increasing University places will increase the number of people with degrees.

If you increase the supply of something, without increasing the demand, the price of that object will fall. This is basic economic theory. If you increase the number of University graduates without increasing the number of jobs specifically aimed at University graduates, then the graduates will not get a higher salary than someone without a degree.

What you may do is make a degree a requirement for the most menial of jobs, as employers can pick and choose, meaning that graduates actually get paid less as a result of increasing University places. People without degrees - as people whose skill level is worth less than the minimum wage currently - will not be employed. The higher the entry requirements to work, the more people will be unemployed, the higher the tax burden on those with jobs to pay for them.

But I think the UK will end up being a CHAV populated benefit run society.

Which is, I think, where we were headed under Labour.

And I speak as someone who is unemployed, old enough to remember the horror of living under some of Thatcher's regime, and lived in the North of England when everything was shut down. I'm what was called a traditional Labour voter. Then NuLabour came in and frankly destroyed the country. While I don't agree with some of the Coalition's policies - nor the actual way in which this one is being rolled out - I do not agree with anything you have written. And I'm not going to join your Facebook group either.

2010-10-25T13:57:00.000Z

Educating Ritas, Bobs & Sues.

According to the Local Government Association Chair, Baroness Eaton, children need schools to be "safe, clean and attractive places in which they can learn."

Why? Okay, so I understand the safe bit as it can be distracting learning your times tables when someone is stabbing you - although there is research suggesting you learn things better when you are under stress - but do children really need clean and attractive places to learn?

We live in clean houses, with double glazing and central heating. Kids are kept inside to avoid them being raped and killed by paedophiles. They don't experience the dirt & germs of a normal childhood. A friend of mine used to lick the gravel in his garden as a kid, he's a healthy adult now. There was one kid with asthma in my entire school, the incidence has gone up a bit since then. Keeping kids in clean environements hasn't really helped them being healthy, I think a bit of dirt in their schools may actually help.

What point is there in making a school attractive? First of all, attractive to whom? The children, their parents or the staff? Because I doubt you're going to make anything attractive to all three of those groups. Something children find attractive - young children particularly - is likely to be life-threateningly gaudy for the teachers. Something parents find attractive is likely to be dull and disappointing to children. And something teachers find attractive is likely to be worrying to parents and scary to children.

If school is part of the way in which children are prepared for work, then schools should be dull. Classrooms lacking in stimulation should allow teachers to provide the only point of interest for children to focus on - education. You want to look at pretty walls? Go to an art gallery.

Perhaps it's my hatred of children leaking out again, but I do feel kids these days are mollycoddled and over stimulated. Part of my childhood was being bored, and I deal with being bored now much better because of it: I can make my own amusement. 13hr car trip? No worries, I can do something to amuse myself on the way. I don't need to watch a DVD or play handheld computer games to deal with the trip.

So Baroness Eaton, while I understand your attempt to grab money for schools, you may want to use a better argument.

2010-10-25T13:07:00.000Z

Spiralling Into Madness And The Death Of Others

It has been suggested to me that my depression is linked to the death of my father when I was 10. And it seemed quite plausible to me, until I saw photos taken from before he died, where I looked unbelievably miserable. Once I'd reflected on this I started remembering that I was a thoroughly depressed child from a very young age, well before my tenth birthday.

I have pictures of me looking frankly annoyed to be in Bergen, pissed off to be in North Cape, genuinely distressed to be in Norfolk, and many, many other places around the world. Despite the fact I had - as far as I recall - a fairly happy childhood. I was nurtured, encouraged, supported and taken to all these wonderful places and I was, for the most part, deeply depressed about it.

You may be thinking "the word you're looking for is ungrateful, not depressed" and I can understand why you'd think that. But I was genuinely grateful to have the opportunity to travel and spend time with people I loved and loved me. The problem was I just found everywhere a bit "meh". I was jaded and world weary before I was 8. There was nowhere I felt happy, not even at home. There were lots of nice places, wonderful views and experiences, but did I enjoy a single one of them? No.

And while I was annoyed at myself for not enjoying these things when they were happening, I was even more annoyed at myself when my Dad died and I realised I'd never do any of them again with him. Which made me more depressed and inward. And also began my hated of other children. To see them running around, blind to the worries and concerns that filled my head, made me bitter.

Again, it sounds like I'm an ungrateful bastard and I should just pull myself together and appreciate all the good things that have happened to me. I do appreciate all the things that have happened to me - good and bad - as they make me remember I am actually alive. My depression keeps me in such a state of almost suspended animation that when good or bad things happen I sometimes don't notice them. The date my mother died? Not a clue. It shames me to say that as I love her dearly, but I have no idea when she died.

So when the depression comes in and tells me that I could be in the most wonderful place in the world and not actually take pleasure from it, I believe it. That I could be doing the thing I most wanted to, and I'd just find it boring or I'd be useless at it, whatever you say my little black dog. I have analysed to death things that I have an interest in. I've made things I enjoyed so utterly unenjoyable that I take no further pleasure from them. I'm not sure if that's depression or me just being an idiot, but whatever light relief I had, I stopped it and got depressed about doing it.

And then annoyed at myself for being depressed when there were people who were much worse off than I was and had something to be genuinely depressed about.

My worst experience of depression so far (at least I think it was, others may have a different opinion) was in Exeter when I very nearly killed myself. I blame the anti-depressants I was on filling my head with serotonin when my head was not used to such happiness fuelled drugs. It could well have been the general unpleasantness of the shared house I was living in, who knows.

What I do know is that it was the murder of Tom Brown that made me snap out of it. Tom was one of my ex-staff from when I used to run a Students' Union bar in Enfield. Some mutual friends came round to tell me when it happened. I was utterly stunned. I was even more stunned when another friend of mine told me later that when she'd been phoned and told that there was some bad news, she assumed it was me killing myself.

I resolved to do something about my depression, my situation and my life.

I'm still trying to, and often still failing.

2010-10-19T12:48:00.004Z

Make Sixteen Percent Less Shit Then

According to the BBC Trust, they're going to have to start paying for the over 75s to have a TV licence.

At the moment, the cost of this - £556m - is paid for by the Department of Work & Pensions. I wasn't aware that the Government had to actually pay for the over 75s to have a TV licence, I had (stupidly) assumed that they would just send out a different piece of paper with "FREE TV LICENCE" written on it that pensioners could hang on their wall. Or maybe, put a tick in a box on a spreadsheet so that the TV Licensing people wouldn't go round and bother them. You know, something cost-effective like that.

Now I've just worked out that means there must be at least 3.8m people in the UK who are over 75 and receiving a free TV licence. This seems to be in line with the TV Licensing people who say; "At the end of March 2009 approximately 3.97 million free over 75 TV Licences were in issue at a cost of approximately £518.9 million to the Department for Work and Pensions."

According to this document there were 4.7 million people in the UK aged 75 and over in 2006. The number is projected to increase to 5.5 million by 2016 and to 8.2 million by 2031, a rise of 76 per cent over twenty-five years. So the amount of money the BBC is going to have to "pay" for the free licences is going to increase heartily.

Although I think the number of people over 75 getting a TV licence seems to be somewhat high. Given that a fair amount of over 75s live in sheltered accommodation or in residential care (400,000 according to this report) or are in hospital - and the TV Licence for those places are either at a reduced rate or paid for completely by the care home or hospital - and you'd think a fair number of over 75s live together as part of a couple, where are all these over 75s who are living alone?

It's almost as if there's some sort of scam going on. "Yeah, my mother lives with us, we need to have a free TV licence." Free TV Licence appears, mother gets carted off to a nursing home. The BBC/TV Licensing people check mother isn't dead, free TV licence continues for many more years at a place where she doesn't live.

For some reason, I thought the BBC also got some money from the Government on top of receiving the licence fee. I didn't think it was from the DWP, as previously admitted. No idea what I was thinking, but it seems they get the licence fee only. I say "only", that came to £3.45bn in 2009/10. Yes, £3.45 BILLION. I'm going to guess that that figure includes the contested half a billion from the DWP.

So this is, essentially, the BBC complaining about not getting the full amount of licence fee from the Government because the Government will no longer be paying for the over 75s to have a TV Licence. They'd still be getting £2.9bn from the rest of the licence payers, plus however much money they make from their various commerical arms (sales abroad, DVD sales, tie-in merchandise etc)

A BBC Trust spokeswoman said it would be "unacceptable" for licence fee payers to foot the bill. "Anything at this stage is speculation as we have yet to see the detail of the Spending Review. That said it would be unacceptable for licence fee payers to pick up the bill for what is a Department for Work and Pensions universal benefit," she added. Newsnight's Political Editor Michael Crick added increases in the licence fee were unlikely to cover the cost, which was the equivalent of a 16% cut in the BBC's present budget.

Dear BBC, I have some suggestions. Send 16% less people to Glastonbury/Olympics/"major news event abroad". Stop paying stupidly high salaries to presenters (you might lose more twunts like Adrian Chiles that way). Move out of London (side benefit, London regional news stops being presented as national news). Oh, and finally, make 16% less shit than you currently do.

2010-10-18T10:29:00.003Z

My Depression And Me: An Introduction

This was going to be one post, but I think it would have become too long and rambling, so I'm going to split it into parts.

This post is quite difficult for me to write. Firstly, it's talking about me and my feelings - rather than just ranting - and secondly, it's talking about what many people consider to be a mental illness. I am personally of the opinion that an abscence of depression is more indicative of mental illness and that if more people actually acknowledged that they too were sufferers, being depressed would be seen as the statistical norm.

Some of you who know me may be aware that I suffer from depression. I say "suffer", I'm not usually the one who suffers from my depression. In many ways I used to quite like being depressed. It is quite possible that you've known me for decades and not realised I had depression. This is either because I find your company so utterly exhilarating or you too have something akin to depression. Or you just thought I was moody.

This isn't a recent thing: I've been doing it all my life. I remember being told I used to scare the other kids at Primary school by telling them how we could die in a nuclear assault and have no warning whatsoever. To me, that threat of nuclear oblivion didn't seem scary, just inevitable. So I accepted it and didn't worry about it. The kids I told about my (to them) terrifying world view thought about how they'd never see their families again and started having panic attacks.

To me I was doing them a favour. I was explaining a situation they hadn't thought of and what would happen to them and the world they knew. That didn't terrify me. Not knowing - or at least not considering all the possibilities - terrified me. Once I knew about the likelihood and the potential outcome, I could accept it and not be bothered by it.

Leading up to my exams, I think I spent the best part of three months at home. It wasn't that I had any fear of going to school (or of the exams), it was just that I *couldn't* leave the house. And not in an agoraphobia way either. It was just a debilitating mental block made physical. And it's not like I did anything interesting or exciting while not being at school. I'd sit in almost perfect silence just thinking negative thoughts.

And once I'd thought all the negative things I could imagine, then I'd be able to progress and do something positive. This is kinda where being depressed appeared to be quite helpful. In my head, I'd think that the exams would concentrate entirely on parts of the syllabus I hadn't revised. So instead of revising everything, I revised nothing. Not a single thing. This would - in my head - increase the chance that I'd know the answers, as there wasn't any part of the syllabus I knew any worse than any other section.

Brilliant. Obviously I do not suggest this approach to anyone who isn't me.

Surprisingly, I did quite well at both O Level & A Level, despite never revising for anything. Driving test, didn't revise. First Aid qualifications, never revised. Degree finals, no revision whatsoever. Any other single exam I have ever taken in my entire life, not a minute of revision.

And I continue with the same level of madness in many other parts of my life. If I watch a game of football, the team I am supporting are more likely to lose than if I am not watching. In my mind, this is a fact. I haven't actually done an analysis of the results as I don't want to break my intricately constructed world view. But even as I type this, I still think that it's probably true.

The effect of me listening to the game on the radio would reduce my overall ability to cause the team I was supporting to lose, but it would still be there. Following the game via text updates or on Sky Sports News also counts as me watching it. The only guaranteed way of getting my team to win is to not have a team. I'm like a jinx; Newcastle United have never won anything since I was born specifically because I was born.

This does not lead, you will be unsurprised to learn, to me having a joyful life.

With the depression I have - not the sexy bi-polar one, sadly, there's no days of ecstatic highs for me - and the length of time I've had it (I think it's probably been with me for about 35 years) I've come to expect never feeling competely happy. Not in a pessimistic kind of way, it's actually more pervasive than that. I have come to believe - not suspect, believe - that if I am actually happy about something, that something will fall apart spectacularly.

If I am very happy about someone, that someone will leave me in some way (die, move, get abducted by aliens). If I am very pleased with something, that something will stop (break, get stolen, burn down, fall over and sink into the swamp). So I moderate my happiness to stop bad things happening (no, really, it's all down to me). Despite being incredibly pleased with my relationship and my home life, I try to not become happy about it so that it doesn't all come to a crashing halt.

Now there's obviously a problem doing this: I remain ambivalent and my partner doesn't think I'm happy with her. I end up in the same situation as I fear being in from being happy, and I've never had the benefit of unreservedly enjoying any of it.

And I am fully aware of this. And yet I still do it.

This will continue. Probably tomorrow. Maybe not. I'll see how I feel.

2010-10-15T13:21:00.003Z

Empty Vessels And Posting Anonymously

And it is so nice to be back blogging. I've been back for two days and I get a nice bit of anonymous feedback to my Let's Start Throwing Things post.

Empty Vessels make the most noise. Why didn't you do something YOURSELF when working to get the qualifications you now seem to believe are your god given right?
Page Up/ Page Down... don't make me laugh. You’re the typical "world owes me a living" bod that enjoys trying to show how much cleverer you are than the Jobcentre staff.

Good Luck in your job search. Your attitude to your previous job seems to carry over into your dealings with people who are trying to help you. as for you implied threat of violence... hmmmm.

Where to start.

First up, "Hi". Nice of you to read my rant and decide to reply. Always pleasant to get feedback of any nature. Shame you couldn't be bothered to make up a name.

"Empty Vessels make the most noise."

Really? Are you sure about that? Because as I recall from Physics (although I did do this when Pluto was still a planet), noise doesn't travel across a vacuum, and there's nowt emptier than a vacuum. I'm sure Plato wasn't aware of that when he allegedly came up with the original phrase, but let's not have facts get in the way, eh?

If you are asserting that I am the empty vessel because I make the most noise, please note the fact that this was my SECOND post in over 18 months. This was also my first post about being unemployed. If I was somehow revelling in my situation, I'd have been on TV about it complaining about how this world was not working out in the way God had intended and that I'd like my money back. As it is, I think I'm perfectly entitled to complain once in 6 months about having to go to a Jobcentre.

"Why didn't you do something YOURSELF when working to get the qualifications you now seem to believe are your god given right?"

Firstly, I don't think they're my God given right. Employers now seem to insist upon them for nearly all of the positions I've seen advertised. I personally don't think there's much point in doing ITiL, as it's supposed to be a "best practice" thing and I'm old school enough to remember when you tried to do things properly. MCSE & CCNA have been devalued by the huge number of "Pay us and we will guarantee you'll pass this" courses available.

I've recently worked with someone who had a CCNA. He was by far the stupidest person I've ever had the misfortune to work with - and my God that is a highly contested title. He had virtually no knowledge of anything to do with IT, yet managed to get the job purely because he had a piece of paper saying he had a CCNA.

The person who employed him - my ex employer - wouldn't pay for me to go on courses as he saw no point in them. I knew what I was doing, he knew I knew what I was doing. Plus what I was doing was so specialist in the extreme that there were no relevant courses. As I was working 10 hour days and had a three hour round trip, there wasn't really much time to fit a course in. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to do a course, specifically for when that employment ended, but you know what, I was too busy working.

Plus, and here's the kicker, I'm not the one who puts up posters in the Jobcentre telling me to retrain; I'm not the one who puts up posters in the Jobcentre telling me to get qualifications. I am the one who goes in asking about doing retraining and getting certification, and gets told that there's no budget for it and no real courses above basic computer skills.

"Page Up/ Page Down... don't make me laugh. You’re the typical "world owes me a living" bod that enjoys trying to show how much cleverer you are than the Jobcentre staff."

Difficult to believe, I know, but I did actually have to explain to the person doing my jobseekers interview that they could use the PG UP, PG DOWN buttons to go up and down the list of jobs, rather than scrolling way past the one they were aiming for.

I didn't go on to explain what the other buttons in the block of six did as that would have been unnecessary. I explained something that made the job of the person who was talking to me easier. That's not showing how clever I am, that's spreading knowledge.

And how dare you suggest I'm a "world owes me a living" bod! I was out of work for six weeks before I even went to the Jobcentre. This is the first or second time in my entire life I've even bothered to claim any benefits, and I was hoping that having paid so much tax I might be able to get some assistance in getting back to work, so I could pay more tax.

Despite the posters and the requirement to attend, there is nothing the Jobcentre can do to get me a job.

"Good Luck in your job search."

Thanks. I'm sure I'm going to need it.

"Your attitude to your previous job seems to carry over into your dealings with people who are trying to help you."

My previous job was dull, repetitive and involved dealing with people who were so stupid it was a constant surprise that they remembered to put on trousers. I believe a lot of jobs are like this. Mind you, a lot of people seem to like The X-Factor, so perhaps it's just me who is wrong and has a negative view of life.

The "people who are trying to help" I'm guessing are the Jobcentre staff who have told me that there's not really anything they can do for me? The same staff who have told me that there's no budget for courses? The same people who told me that they don't get many advertisements for jobs in my field, "whatever it is that you do"? Those people? Yeah, I may have some issues with them.

Not them per se, you understand, but inter alia. They know they can't do anything for me, I know they can't do anything for me. We both know this. We both keep up the pretence that it's for my good that I go and see them. I see the same guy every week and every week he apologises (quietly) that we have to go through this charade.

I've applied for over 100 jobs since I left my previous employment. I've had three offers of interviews, which is apparently quite a high percentage of replies. One of the positions was mis-advertised and paid £11k. They told me they were looking for someone a little less experienced. I'll keep plodding on with it, but it is a depressing experience.

So you'll forgive me my little rant at having to go through the whole belittling experience on a weekly basis with an organisation who can, by their own admission, do nothing to help.

"as for you implied threat of violence... hmmmm"

Capital A, missing r, incorrect use of implied.

2010-10-14T21:33:00.002Z

Renault, Have A Word With Yourselves

The current advert for the Renault Clio - featuring Chesney Hawkes's "The One & Only" - has irritated me for some time now.

In case you are fortunate enough to have been living in a hole for the past year, this is the advert I'm talking about.

Right. Couple of things.

Firstly, why is the main character of the advert - who already owns a Renault, so I'm guessing we're supposed to empathise with in order to want one ourselves - such a complete twunt? He's rude, he's, er, metrosexual, and then there's the hair.

Secondly, how does the person later identified as the father of idiot boy's love get back to his house so quickly? They're at the same traffic lights. Idiot boy is in the SPORT option of the Clio. Idiot boy is still singing the song as he pulls up at the house. Yet the father has beaten him home, had time to put the car away and get into the house before having to go back out to meet him!

I want the car he's driving, not the one idiot boy has. Dad's is obviously much faster.

Oh, and see if you can spot the mother. She's there. She's just very very well hidden.

Renault, please sort out the narrative of this advert. It offends me.

2010-10-13T22:50:00.000Z

Let's Start Throwing Things

I am currently unemployed. Have been for six months now, since I was kinda sacked from my previous job. I haven't actually been told that I was sacked, but I took the "give me your keys back" as enough proof and I haven't been back since.

To be honest, I was sick of the job, sick of the three hour round trip, sick of the stupidity of the customers and the management and sick of the boring repetitive nature of the work. So in many ways it was a relief. Okay so being unemployed doesn't pay as well, and is just as boring in many ways, but at least I get the joy of going to the jobcentre.

Which is where my problems really began.

They have no real clue what it is I do. Which is fair enough, as I can't actually work out what exactly they're supposed to do either. Although I did hear one of the staff complaining about being the purchaser of stationery and then discovering that she wasn't supposed to order blue pens.

Despite me working in IT for many years, I don't actually have any qualifications in IT - apart from an IT O Level I took in 1986. So I hoped - foolishly in retrospect - that I would be able to get some kind of qualification via the Jobcentre. Oh dearie me no. There's posters telling you to retrain. There's posters telling you to get qualifications. But there's no actual courses or budget for anyone who wants to do a specific course.

CCNA? No. MCSE? No. ECDL? No. ITiL? No. Learning how to use a mouse? You betcha!

I even went on a course to see if I could set up my own business - possibly training people who didn't know how to use a computer (like some of the staff in the Jobcentre, none of whom seemed to know what the PG UP or PG DOWN buttons do) - and went to a training place in Clapham.

First day there was probably 26 - 30 people. Second day, half that. Third day, maybe ten of us. And we learned nothing. I learned more about setting up a business in my Commerce O Level and Economics AO & A Levels than I was ever going to do at that place. And that irritated me. They're getting paid by the Government (read taxpayers) to provide training and yet they provide nothing of the sort.

Yet actual courses that could enable people to get back into work and paying higher rate tax (you'd hope to be getting £40k plus with a nice selection of Cisco courses and maybe some Microsoft certified stuff) are not available. There's not even funding for teacher training courses, or for anyone wanting to teach adults basic skills that they might be lacking - which again would hopefully lead to more tax receipts.

What is exactly the point of the Jobcentre? They can't train you in anything worthwhile, they told me that I would be better off looking on industry specific websites as they "don't get many job adverts for IT positions" so they're not really helping me get back into work, and they won't pay for me to be CRB checked.

I kinda despair at the pointlessness of having to go to see them every single week. But I do have to go, or they stop giving me the princely sum of £65 a week.

I wonder sometimes if the whole demotivational process is designed to weed out people who are actually working on the side and persuade them that they'd be better off not going in. Or possibly it's to drag down motivated people so that they become entirely reliant on the state. Who can tell.

All I know is, I think I'm going to go postal in there soon, and given the amount of IT equipment lying around, I think I could do quite a lot of damage. That's the benefit of having worked in IT, you know what's going to hurt the most when you throw it at someone.

2010-10-13T22:05:00.002Z

Did I Miss Anything?

*blinks twice*

Wow. It's been about 18 months since I last blogged. That is quite incredible. There are many reasons why I've not blogged - some of which I may go into at a later date - although I think it can be summed up with "Meh".

I've spent most of my life wondering what the hell is going on with everybody and why no-one else is doing anything about the sheer stupidity of Government/business/cyclists and I'm sure you're delighted to learn I've spent the past 18 months doing pretty much the same thing with Government/business/NHS/cyclists/taxis etc.

Here's something. If you live in London and have the misfortune to be a car driver you will already be aware of the utter idiocy that is Cycle Superhighways. There's one on a road I travel down twice a day. Since its introduction, the lane width for cars, buses and trucks has gone down. Doesn't stop cyclists from still being in the middle of the road, you understand, but does increase the chance of people in vehicles having to swerve to avoid crashing into other vehicles. So I am now MORE likely to drive into a cyclist. Yay!

I say more likely, given the number of them who seem to think red lights don't apply to them, go straight through the junction then look daggers at me when they nearly drive into me (and I'm the one going through on green rememeber), then my chances of killing them hasn't gone up too much.

And they don't like it when you open your door when they're going past, do they? Some of them have even stopped talking on their phones or changing their iPod track to gesticulate at me. Probably. Not that I've even bothered looking.

So yeah, cyclists. Bastards. Taxi drivers however, utter utter bastards. My contempt for them has gone up now I see so many of them driving round with sat navs. What's the point of doing the knowledge if you're just going to use a fucking sat nav? Grr. Bus drivers, I will kill one of you very very soon. And you know the reason why.

But my main gripe is the complete morons who ring me up at all hours of the day and night to tell me there is now legislation in place that means I can get money back on all my debts. Or that my PC is apparently sending them messages telling them how slowly it's running. Or that they're not based in India (despite the accent and dialling code). I will definitely be killing each and every single one of those motherfuckers.

Still angry, still Silas. And now blogging again.

Peace, I'm out.

2009-05-29T08:35:00.005Z

To My Darling Valentine

Perhaps not the exact sentiments that you'd like to display on your mantelpiece.

Although I suspect that's why he's marrying you.

From FAILblog - putting semen into amusement.

2009-05-22T11:40:00.002Z

Arrested For Having A Pale Document

Quite simply stunned by this story on the BBC where a man attempting to renew his car tax was arrested. Staff at the DVLA in Newcastle thought his two-week-old MOT certificate was a forgery because it was a lighter shade than his previous one, and the police were called.

Mr Cook, a 49-year-old roofer, was arrested, questioned and held for three hours before being released. He said:

"They read me my rights, then I was put in another room, fingerprinted, photographed and had a DNA swab taken."

Good luck with getting that removed from the DNA database, fella.

To add insult to injury, he then had to return to the DVLA where he had to go to the back of the queue.

2009-04-21T08:20:00.006Z

Things To Do When You Are Bored

There are a lot of websites in the world. Mine is just one of them. I don't read mine every day, as I tend to remember what I wrote. I do, however, read a lot of other people's websites every single day - including some that I refresh repeatedly throughout the day.

These are mostly political blogging sites and technology sites, although I have recently started to check out more and more amusing picture sites. There's the classic LOLCats and the spin-off LOLDogs. There's also the sometimes weird Picture Is Unrelated and the wonderful look at everyday life letting you down FAILblog.

And it is from that last one that I discovered Photobombing. Photobombing is basically where you hijack someone else's photograph. The person taking the photo is (usually) aware that there's some hijacking going on, but the people in it almost definitely aren't. Like this, for example.

However, with the advent of compact digital cameras, there's a pretty good chance that one of the people in the photo will actually be taking the photo, and the photobomber has a great opportunity for hijacking without anyone being the wiser until after the photo has been taken. Like this, for example.

There's also the possibility of an accidental bit of photobombing, where something going on in the background that you weren't aware of at the time, only becomes obvious once the picture is seen in a much larger format than the back of the camera. Like the following two fine examples.

So the next time you see someone taking a photo, bomb it. You know it makes sense.

2009-04-17T08:49:00.003Z

An Open Letter To Roskilde Festival

I'm sorry I have to write this, but I need to tell you how unhappy I am with your line-up this year.

Firstly, let me explain my background. I was introduced to Roskilde by The Devil, she rated it as the best festival in the world, and raved about the time she had at the 2006 event (headliners Bob Dylan, Guns & Roses, The Strokes, Franz Ferdinand, sub-headliners Primal Scream, Kaizer Chiefs, Deftones, Placebo, Scissor Sisters among others)

I went and was soaked in 2007, but amazed by the acts provided. Pretty much everyone on the main stage and the Arena stage were people I'd heard of and were interested in seeing. Okay, so there were a lot of American and British bands, but they were, for the most part, rock acts. While I stood in the horizontal rain patiently waiting for my wristband, I heard the Killers. From the leaking tent you provided, I heard The Who, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Queens of the Stone Age. I dragged myself through mud to watch My Chemical Romance and Machinehead in the tent. I stood all day in front of the main stage watching Muse, Arctic Monkeys, Flaming Lips and Basement Jaxx.

Despite the soaking, despite the mud, despite the leaky tents, we came back for 2008. We bought our tickets before the headliners were announced. We were delighted with your free Get-A-Tent tickets to make up for the debacle of the previous year's tents. We waited with bated breath to see what delights were in store for us.

And you announced Grinderman, Slayer, My Bloody Valentine and Neil Young. We didn't complain as we felt sure there would be other acts added to make the journey worthwhile. You added Slayer, Gnarls Barkly and Radiohead. We noted with delight that we could avoid Radiohead fans by going to see the final Hellacopters performance. We hoped Bullet For My Valentine would be as good in the tent as MCR had been the previous year. And then you announced Jay-Z....

I mean, really. What were you thinking? And he was closing the festival? What. The. Fuck. A rapper/hip hop bloke closing the Roskilde Festival? Had you taken leave of your senses?

The Festival itself had much better weather than the previous year. Which was a relief, as we spent most of it as far away from the main stages as possible. Seasick Steve was in too small a venue and we saw nothing. MGMT were too far from anywhere to get to easily. And Slayer were only funny because of infants dancing to them whilst wearing headphones. The "highlight" for me was the fact that it started to piss down with rain just as Jay-Z was about to come on stage and everybody legged it. We managed to squeeze into the tent for Hot Chip and dried off by bouncing up and down with the crowd there - until they ruined it by finishing their set with a cover of "Time After Time". Way to go to ruin a vibe.

And so to this year. It started off with some promise: Slipknot, Madness, Nine Inch Nails. And some dross, Coldplay, Lily Allen and the fifteen years past their "prime" Oasis. It will pick up, we said, and even though the disastrous fall of the GBP against the DKK meant the tickets were nearly twice as expensive as last year, we bought early. We also dutifully filled in the Artist Request forms so you could see what we wanted.

And then you announced Lil' Wayne and Kanye West. And, just for good measure, the fucking Pet Shop Boys. Oh how we fumed. But we believed that you would, Roskilde Festival, pull out some big names when you announced the main line up for this year's event. And in some ways, you did. Not the ones we were expecting though, sadly.

Grace Jones?!? Who the hell asked for Grace Jones? Why do you bother asking for band requests and then book Grace Jones? Where's Faith No More? Where's Limp Bizkit? Where's the upcoming metal bands? Didn't this used to be a rock festival? Why the obsession with hip-hop?

Consider this a warning. Please get some better acts or we won't be back.

2009-04-16T07:15:00.002Z

Nominative Determinism?

Possibly just a really impressive piece of naming by her parents, or the sort of unfortunate juxtaposition that coincidence likes to throw up, but a woman named Cassandra telling police that her husband would kill her, and the police then not doing anything about it, is eerily reminiscent of Greek mythology, don't you think?

2009-04-16T07:04:00.003Z

Perhaps I'm Horrified At The Wrong Part

Read this story (the link is from the Daily Mail, I read it in the Metro) yesterday on the way to work, and couldn't work out what was bothering me about it.

The headteacher of a primary school where London Mayor Boris Johnson sends one of his children has been suspended over claims he watched pornography in his office

Having reflected on the above information, I realised that it wasn't those facts that bothered me. The story is obviously old (suspended in October last year), the reason for the suspension is obvious (pr0n at work is "bad", when your workplace is a school this is obviously doubleplus bad), and the first paragraph mention of Boris Johnson is being used to justify the exposure the story is getting now.

No, none of that bothered me.

This, bit, however, did.

Jay Henderson, 35, is awaiting the outcome of a disciplinary inquiry possibly due this week.

35?!?! Thirty fucking five? And he's the fucking headmaster? What the fuck? How? Shouldn't he only have progressed to head of year or something? How old are the rest of the teachers? Twelve?

As I said, I think I may have been horrified by completely the wrong part of this story.

2009-04-15T08:11:00.003Z

Linux User Too Suspicious To Be Ignored

Rather a weird tale from Boston, where a Computer Science student has had all of his computer kit seized (and pretty much everything else he owns) and has been suspended from his job for the heinous crime of understanding Linux. The University are alleging slightly more than *just* that, but they do seem suspicious of someone who can navigate their way round a non-Windows OS.

The EFF - who is representing him - has a copy of the warrant and says

"In his application, the investigating officer asked that he be permitted to seize the student's computers and other personal effects because they might yield evidence of the crimes of "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" and "Unauthorized access to a computer system."

Aside from the remarkable overreach by campus and state police in trying to paint a student as suspicious in part because he can navigate a non-Windows computer environment, nothing cited in the warrant application could possibly constitute the cited criminal offenses.

There are no assertions that a commercial (i.e. for pay) commercial service was defrauded, a necessary element of any "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" allegation. Similarly, the investigating officer doesn't explain how sending an e-mail to a campus mailing list might constitute "unauthorized access to a computer system."

The Slashdot post that brought this to my attention was tagged with "Idiocracy", which sums it all up rather nicely.

2009-04-09T08:43:00.002Z

Billboard Fun

H/t again to Obnoxio.

This is great. Change the wording to whatever pleases you.

Click image to embiggen

2009-04-08T07:25:00.003Z

Drinking, The New Smoking.

I read in the Metro this morning that 80% of doctors and nurses polled by the Royal Colleges of Nursing and Physicians believed that putting the price of alcohol up would curb people's drinking habits. The Metro article is quite short (and I'll cover why in a second) but the BBC have a much longer version of the same thing here that also mentions that the Prime Mentalist isn't too keen on the idea.

It seems Gordon is worried that moderate drinkers would be hit by such a plan. You think? I think Gordon is probably more worried that people who drink would hate him to the point of murder if he was seen to set minimum prices on alcohol, as Liam Donaldson wants.

But that's not my main point. The Metro, on the same page as the snippet linked to above, also had this spectacularly stupid idea.

Busy town centre pubs may be forced to introduce orderly post office-style queues when they run cheap drink promotions. Pubs and clubs may also have to limit customers to buying two drinks at a time, ban drinking in the queue and hire extra door staff to prevent trouble breaking out. Landlords would be made to give authorities a week's notice of promotions and pay for extra police officers to patrol, Oldham council in Greater Manchester has said.

Because pubs have plenty of spare cash at the minute, don't they? They could easily afford to pay the (presumably now hiked up massively) rate for doorstaff and/or police out of their huge profits*. The upside presumably would be that you wouldn't be able to go to the bar and get a round in for more than you and one person.

It gets better though.

Bars which refused to sign up to the new measures would be stripped of their licences.

Nice touch there: volunteer to do this, or we'll put you out of business. I wonder what kind of cocksucking ass hat would even think about being linked with an idea as monumentally insane as that?

MP Phil Woolas has described Oldham town centre as like the 'Wild West' at weekends.

Ah, there's a shock. Phil "we'll stop immigrants, oh wait, we can't, we're in the EU" Woolas. Or Phil "rent-a-quote" Woolas, as I like to think of him.

Amusingly - for me, at least, your mileage may vary - Alcohol Concern (a made-up charity, funded pretty much entirely by the Government, yet wheeled out as a legitimate voice of the public in matters such as this) said the plans "might have little effect" and added: "A pub is a very different environment to a post office."

Used to be very different from a Post Office, would be more appropriate. There are now a couple of worrying similarities. Firstly, there used to be lots of Post Offices, but quite a few of them have closed down and you have to blame that on the government. Secondly, you can't smoke in a Post Office.

I would also like to point out at this point, that while doctors, nurses and various government types are attempting to reduce alcohol intake by the majority of the population (and buttering us up for a minimum alcohol pricing structure by mentioning it at every fucking opportunity) the bars of Westminster in which the MPs drink are subsidised. By you, the taxpayer.

Fuck the Government. Fuck the minimum price of alcohol idea. Fuck the Nanny State. And fuck the arsewipes who cannot manage to drink without getting themselves injured.

This is my body, I will decide what does and does not go into it. I will not come crying to you if I damage myself and you will leave me the fuck alone and stop telling me how to live my life.

Now get back to your taxpayer funded porn and stop bothering me.

* - Sarcasm, for those that missed it.

2009-04-07T08:04:00.003Z

What One Trillion Dollars Looks Like

H/T Obnoxio

Ever had difficulty visualising the stunningly large amounts of money being bandied around at the G20 and on the news? Well, this is a helpful visual aide.

And you will be quite literally AMAZED by the size of a trillion dollars. Especially after learning that $1 million would fit into a small shopping bag

2009-04-03T07:39:00.003Z

Things To Do For Free In The Easter Holidays

And I've deliberately used that title in order to garner more hits from Google. This wonderful idea comes from B3ta's sickipedia site.

With the Easter weekend approaching a lot of people will be going to the seaside and visiting amusement arcades. If you live near one of these places it's a good time to play the following prank

1. Get loads of 2p coins
2. Get some Cillit Bang
3. Use the Cillit Bang to write swear words on the coins
4. Go to your local arcade and put them in the 2p pushes machines
5. Enjoy your Easter knowing somebody is going to win a 2p coin that you've written "CUNT" on!

2009-03-30T12:48:00.002Z

Jade Goody Jokes

From the creators of B3ta, I give you 114 pages of Jade Goody jokes.

As a start, and so you can see the level of humour available without clicking the link, here's some of my favourites.

I think Jack Tweed should now start to look on the bright side - at least there is still time to get his 28 day money back guarantee at Argos for the wedding ring.

Jade Goody has cancer, and she claims that she is worried that hair loss might ruin her looks. Nice to see she hasn't lost her sense of humour.

Apparently Jade's cancer is eating away at her brain now. Poor thing...it must be fucking starving

Cancer's not all bad. It's turned an 'ignorant racist bitch' into a 'beautiful loving mother'.

What's the difference between Jade Goody and Hitler? Max Clifford

2009-03-30T12:40:00.003Z

How To Promote An Album

Now, I'm not entirely sure how serious this is, but Josh Freese (the former drummer from Nine Inch Nails) has an interesting idea on how to raise more than the $7 per online album sale he would normally get.

For $50 you get the CD/DVD double-disc set, a T-shirt and "Thank you" phone call from Josh for buying Since 1972. You can tell him what you like about the record that you purchased, or what you thought sucked. Ask whatever you want, like "Is Maynard really THAT weird?" or "Which one of Sting’s mansions has the comfiest beds?" or "Are Devo really suburban robots that monitor reality or just a bunch of dads from Ohio?" or "Why don’t the Vandals play more stuff off the first record?" It’s your 5 minutes to yack it up. Talk about whatever you want.

For $1,000 (limited to an edition of 10) you get all of the above, minus the phone call, but with a signed cymbal, drum head and drumsticks. If that's not a good enough deal for you, Josh washes your car OR does your laundry … or you can wash his car (which doesn't seem like much fun to me) then you can have dinner with Josh aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California, followed by getting drunk and cutting each other’s hair in the parking lot of the Long Beach courthouse (filmed and posted on YouTube, of course)

There are more, but it would be rash of me to spoil the enjoyment of what $75,000 gets you.

2009-03-26T08:43:00.003Z

Snooper's Charter - The Figures Are In

I read this on the way to work this morning, but I've linked to the BBC coverage and the Daily Mirror's "exclusive" as there are a couple of interesting differences in the information reported.

While the BBC does indeed mention that "councils in England and Wales have used controversial spying laws 10,000 times in the past five years" the Mirror goes on to break down the figures.

(Remember, these are the offences that COVERT operations were used to target. And covert operations are costly, which is something you might want to remember when your new Council Tax bill comes through.)

Benefit fraud, 1780 times. Anti-social behaviour, 696 times. Theft, 79 times. Noise nuisance, 942 times. Dog fouling, 88 times. Fly tipping, 451 times. Criminal damage/graffiti, 127 times. Unauthorised taxis, 138 times. Trading standards, 734 times.

You'll note - although the BBC completely fails to mention it - that none of the reasons the RIP Act has been used for by councils has been terrorist related. Which is a bit of a worry, as the Government specifically introduced this Act so that terrorist suspects could be covertly watched, rather than joe public. I suppose the BBC are ignoring this point as it would suggest (correctly) the Government haven't thought this law through properly (again).

You may also be interested to note that just nine per cent of the surveillance operations led to a successful prosecution, caution or fixed-penalty notice. Nine whole percent. Wow. However will our prison system cope?

Even more worryingly, 1,615 council staff have the power to authorise the use of RIP Act, but 21% (or 340) of these staff are below senior management grade. Yep, 340 junior staff can have you followed, covertly filmed and thoroughly investigated for something as trivial as not realising your dog has taken a dump (and therefore not cleaning it up) or over filling your bin (because you're not allowed to have a bonfire in your back garden any more).

Ladies and gentlemen of the UK, refuse to pay your Council Tax. The council may try to take you to court, but if everyone refuses, then there's not going to be anywhere they can put everyone, is there?

2009-03-25T08:43:00.003Z

Dan Hannan Rips Gordon Brown A New Arsehole

Already seen on Devil's Kitchen, Guido and probably many more besides, but this is quite simply the best attack on the Prime Mentalist I have ever seen. And done in the full glare of the EU Parliament!

Interestingly, despite covering the Brown Gorgon's trip and quoting extensively from his speech, the only mention of the above speech on the BBC's entire site is in the comments section of Nick Robinson's blog post. Oh dear.

2009-03-25T08:23:00.004Z

Anti-Terror Training Takes Three Hours (Including Coffee Break)

From SpyBlog comes an interesting (if you happen to be a paranoid geek like wot I am) analysis of the weekend's announcements from the Government.

Apparently - and I'm sure I can't imagine why - the UK is now at a severe risk of terrorist attack. So in order to stop these terrorists, "Tens of thousands of men and women throughout Britain - from security guards to store managers - have now been trained and equipped to deal with an incident and know what to watch for as people go about their daily business in crowded places such as stations, airports, shopping centres and sports grounds." That quote is from the Prime Mentalist himself writing in Sunday's Observer.

Jackboot Smith confirmed the Brown Gorgon's words on the BBC's Politics Show on Sunday, saying "What we're completely clear about is that if we're going to address the threat from terrorism, we need to do that alongside the 60,000 people that we're now training up to respond to a terrorist threat, in everywhere from our shopping centres to our hotels."

So, you may think that this training would be extremely detailed, involve long hours and probably some sort of exam at the end?

You would be, sadly, quite wrong.

"Project ARGUS is a National Counter Terrorism Security Office initiative, exploring ways to aid you in preventing, handling and recovering from a terrorist attack...

Project Argus is a free event which takes you through, using a multi-media simulation, a terrorist attack. A series of questions and challenges are put to you, both individually and as a group. You will work in small syndicate groups with other local business representatives and develop your responses to the attack. The whole event including a coffee break will last three hours."

Security theatre at its very best. Completely pointless, does more harm than good, and is likely to lead to huge numbers of innocent people being harassed by jumped up little jobsworths who think they're in MI5.

This Government is the reason we're at increased risk of terrorist attacks.

I am the Revolution, I am a terrorist, and I'm taking this fucking country back.

2009-03-25T08:10:00.002Z

Facebook Needs Bash.org Application

Perhaps it's just me, or the people that I know, but there seems to have been an increase in weird status updates on Facebook since they made it look more like Twitter.

This one in particular made me laugh out loud this morning, but there's normally three or four that make me giggle.And it made me wonder why there's not an application on Facebook that allows you to upload any bits of genius to a "Comments Hall of Fame". (Any coders wanting to try, please go ahead, I won't claim copyright)

Something along the lines of the bash.org, except not for the (presumably dwindling number of) IRCers.

2009-03-23T14:00:00.001Z

The Present She'll Love

Cock in the box

From the wonderful Fail Blog

2009-03-20T10:41:00.001Z

Minesweeper Hates Me

How was I supposed to work out which one of those two the mine was in? Cunts.

2009-03-20T08:59:00.002Z

Please Try To Do This To Me

Via The Englishman, a tale from the Telegraph which warms the cockles of my heart.

Basically, the Government (remember them? They're the ones "in charge" who keep making you deeper in debt while piss-arsing around attempting to make every single thing you do illegal) have decided that as well as being drunk smokers, we're also too fat & stupid to do anything about it.

(Now in some cases, I do appreciate that this may well be true. But think of it as natural selection and view each fat drunk smoker as being a slightly increased chance of you receiving a pension at some point in the future and you'll cheer right up.)

But I digress. The Government (remember them? They're the ones who pretend to make laws that are actually forced upon us by our membership of the EU) have decided that we proles are completely ignoring their best efforts at changing our eating/drinking/smoking habits so are planning on using volunteers to nag their colleagues, family and neighbours into living healthier lives.

Oh yes.

People you know (look around at them, those people there) will be trained in ways of "persuading" you to not have that alcohol you've been looking forward to, that cigarette you've been waiting patiently three hours to partake in, or that fried breakfast you treat yourself to a couple of times a week.

And I'm sure you can imagine exactly which one of your friends it will be: the pious, self-righteous, Labour supporting, mung bean knitting twat who cycles to work (to save the planet) - but who still flies to Mauritius twice a year with the three kids (out of term time, natch) to see how "poor people really live", while simultaneously complaining about how crap the locals are at customer service.

How long can it be before these smug bastards decide to wander up to people they don't know? They're righteous bastards, they won't be able to help themselves. They'll start off by coughing at people who smoke outdoors. They'll tut at strangers who are going into McDonald's or Gregg's. Then they'll actually start haranguing people properly.

I look forward to it, I really do. As there's nothing I enjoy more than a good argument followed by a bit of physical violence. I do hope the training these "mentors" receive includes first-aid and self defence, because I have a fear this may well get ugly.

2009-03-19T15:46:00.002Z

The English Abroad

Would appear to be completely clueless.

2009-03-13T10:01:00.002Z

Apparently, These Are Real

Although I'm not entirely certain.

From The Daily WTF, Health & Safety in the workplace

Enjoy

2009-03-12T15:03:00.003Z

Frankly, I'm Fucked Then

Hat-tip to Dizzy (via his Twitter feed) for this excellent piece of trawling. From the Communications Act (2003), Part 2, Chapter 21, point 127:

Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

So essentially, pretty much anything that the Government finds on the internet, or on an email, they consider to be obscene, menacing or untrue can cause the poster/sender to spend up to 6 months in jail.

Which is a nice way of silencing critics, isn't it?

It's been said before, but it needs saying again: 1984 was NOT a fucking instruction manual, you bunch of cunts.

2009-03-09T15:37:00.002Z

Police Lose Memory

Not in a collective way, sadly, but in a specific "where the fuck's the USB stick gone" kind of way.

Obviously impressed by the way Government departments and various public sector companies have lost data and then had FUCK ALL happen to them, the Lothian and Borders Police have decided to join in.

The memory stick, which was last used by staff working in the road policing division in the the force's headquarters in the Fettes area of the city, was lost between December 2008 and January this year.

The USB memory stick contains 750 entries on vehicles "of interest" to police, along with other intelligence. Yet the force said its loss did not compromise anyone involved in any ongoing or previous police investigations, which is reassuring, eh?

Although, worryingly, it is understood the information on the stick was not encrypted.

Go team.

2009-03-06T08:47:00.002Z

The Daily Mash - Again Bang On The Money

In a "report" titled "WHY ARE ALL THE PUBS CLOSING? ASK PEOPLE WHO NEVER GO TO THE PUB"

Millions of people across Britain who never go to the pub were last night asking why all the pubs were closing down.

As it was revealed that 2000 pubs have closed in the last year, non-pub goers said their community would not be the same without the local pub they never went to.

Margaret Gerving, from Peterborough, said: "I was delighted when the smoking ban came in because it meant I could finally go to the pub without being killed.

"But then I didn't, mainly because I'm not the sort of person who likes going to pubs. I prefer to stay in with a carton of pomegranate juice and a bag of pine nuts and make long lists of all the things I want banned.

"Now it turns out that nobody else is going either because quite a lot of the people who used to go to the pub also liked to smoke. But none of this explains why all the pubs are closing down."

Julian Cook, from Devon, said: "Our local pub looks really lovely from the outside. It's got flower baskets and a nice old fashioned sign. Unfortunately it's used by local people with accents who dress differently from me and who are, I suspect, incredibly racist."

Which would be hilarious if it weren't so true. The next bit however did make me laugh out loud.

Former pub owner Charlie Reeves, from Hereford, said: "We were told that the smoking ban would mean lots of young mums and dads bringing their children in. But that didn't really help because there's only so much Guinness you can pour down a three year-old before it falls asleep."

Followed by the bit I'd like on a t-shirt:

"Then there's the added factor that a pub with children in it isn't really a pub, it's a fucking hell hole."

2009-03-05T09:26:00.002Z

Ace Of Cakes

No, not a parody of Motorhead's "classic" single (please feel free to name four others) but a wonderful series The Devil & I discovered on UKTV Food. It's basically about a cake making company - Charm City Cakes - in Baltimore, Maryland.

There's the slightly insane head chef, Duff Goldman, his organising, phone-call taking business partner Mary-Alice (sister of the Clutch lead singer, Neil Fallon) and the rest of the cake making staff. And the series follows them as they go about their work making weird and wonderful cakes for various people.

And that's it. There's no moralising, no "interesting" back stories about the staff or their customers, not even any actual recipes for the cakes.

But it is weirdly addictive entertainment. The show has brought Food Network (the US channel which commissioned it) some of the highest ratings it has ever received for a prime-time program. The June 4, 2008 episode had higher ratings than the NHL's 2008 Stanley Cup Finals. Which probably says more about the sad decline of hockey.

The reason I mention it now is because of a conversation between The Devil & myself last night. There's a guy called Geof who works for Charm City Cakes, and he is a hugely amusing man. And scary. And he has the most perfect voice for reading scary stories to kids. Geof could read ANYTHING and make it sound scary to a kid, as he has the oddest intonation when he speaks.

Bizarrely though, he also writes lyrics, plays guitar. And sings. Ladies & gentlemen, I give you, Geof Manthorne.

2009-03-05T09:04:00.002Z

Tom Harris MP

A Labour MP at that, it should be noted at the outset, has a posting on his blog that he has labelled "political suicide". I shall leave you to determine just why it would be labelled as such after you read it.

From here

The return of morality
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

When Carolyn was in hospital, having just delivered us of wee Reggie, a very young girl in the bed opposite was also celebrating the arrival of her newborn. As was her proud father, who made great play to anyone who might have been listening (me) of how proud he was of his daughter. She was, I guess, about 16.

I don’t think he should have been ashamed. And it’s great that this youing girl had such a loving dad to support her.

But proud? Proud that his teenage daughter was not only sexually active but was now a mother? Proud that any chance of a decent education, followed by a decent job, was now remote at best? Proud that she was, in all likelihood, about to embark on a lifetime of depending on benefit handouts for her and her child?

I’m a Labour MP, so some will undoubtedly be surprised, and shocked that I’m writing this. But I can no longer pretend that the army of teenage mothers living off the state is anything other than a national catastrophe.

A previous commenter on this site got it spot on: many (though not all) teenage girls do not become pregnant accidentally because of ignorance, because of a lack of understanding of how their bodies work. They become pregnant because they have absolutely no ambition for themselves. They have been indoctrinated with the lie that they’ll never amount to anything, and have fulfilled that prophesy by making no effort to achieve any qualification. Very often they live with parents (or a parent) who have no jobs themselves, who are setting the example of benefit dependency for all their offspring.

Such young women see parenthood as one way of achieving a level of independence and self-worth. And they’re right, because that’s more or less what they get: a flat and therefore some privacy, an income for the first time in their lives. And in fact, many of them make a decent job of parenthood despite the awful circumstances. But even they are nevertheless rearing the next generation in an environment where the main adult isn’t working, but claiming.

I was lucky. I was brought up in a relatively poor household, but both my parents worked for most of the time I was growing up. When my dad was out of work in the early ’80s, he was depressed because he felt a responsibility to earn money to provide for his family. And so he started up his own business and got back on his feet. That’s the example I and my brothers and sister were lucky enough to have set for us.

A few years back I was shopping for CDs in Tower Records in Glasgow of a Saturday evening. It must have been about ten at night. Outside there were two very young girls, about 15, all dressed up for a night out. Apart from the fact that wherever they intended to go, they were clearly too young to drink, there was only one problem: one of them was pushing a pram. The child inside was a few weeks old.

This horrified me. It was wrong. There is right and wrong and it is wrong for anyone to choose to have a child without knowing what’s involved in its upbringing, without being prepared to sacrifice your own lifestyle for it.

That father in the maternity ward was telling the world about his love for his daughter and his new grandchild, and I’ve no doubt his pride was genuine. People shouldn’t be ashamed of their circumstanmces, but neither should we avoid making value judgments about others’ choices, especially when those choices result in a greater burden on the state, and lead to the continuation of the underclass.

Teenage girls shouldn’t be having underage sex. Why? Because it’s wrong.

Teenage girls shouldn’t choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career. Why? Because it’s wrong.

Parents shouldn’t teach their children that a lifetime on benefits is attractive or even acceptable. Why? Because it’s wrong.

(Please assume all the usual caveats: some people have no choice but to claim benefits, lots of single parents do a great job, etc.)

So what’s next, I hear you ask. What am I going to do about all this? What’s the government going to do?

This post isn’t about policy, yet. I’m going to take up a previous commenter’s suggestion that I have a coffee with the estimable Frank Field to discuss ideas for reform.

But policies are one thing; winning the argument about why they’re needed is another. And we have to start by making it clear what we believe is right and wrong. How can we expect parents to teach that to their kids if our political leaders aren’t prepared to say the same?

Being accused of agreeing with the Daily Mail’s agenda is not the worst thing my critics can say about me. Being accused of accepting the current appalling state of affairs, of pretending that the concepts of right and wrong are meaningless - that is far worse than being accused of pandering to the right.

And, of course, it is a complete load of bollocks to suggest that the ordinary working class people of Glasgow South and in hundreds of other constituencies throughout the country don’t agree with me. The most vociferous critics of the dependancy culture and of deliberate worklessness have always been those who live in the same communities, those who resent paying their taxes to help other people waste their lives.

Don’t interpret this as any kind of “back to basics” crusade; I’m not remotely interested in what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, and I’m not sounding the rallying cry for Christian or religious morality. But when the actions of others has such a debilitating effect on the rest of society, it’s time to stop being polite. It’s time to stop worrying about how people’s feelings might be hurt if we question the choices they’ve made.

Because very often, those choices are wrong. And it’s about time we said so.

H/t Obnoxio

2009-03-04T09:46:00.002Z

Phil Woolas - Idiot Or Comedian?

The BBC are reporting that Phil Woolas has got into a bit of a tizzy regarding the ONS's decision to publish figures showing migration and British Citizens born abroad.

No real surprise there, but you have to worry when the Minister IN CHARGE of Immigration policy says;

"This is not a black and white area"

Dear Phil, you are a fucktard. Now fuck off.

2009-03-03T11:09:00.003Z

Where Scottish Hospitals Will Have To Follow

Following on nicely from yesterday's story about Scotland forcing a minimum price per unit of alcohol, a lovely and heart-warming tale from Dorset.

A local NHS hospital has removed the alcohol hand gels - put there specifically to stop hospital visitors catching or spreading MRSA etc (as the doctors and nurses sure as hell don't use them) - to stop the visitors drinking them.

You can see this happening in Scotland, can't you? You put the price up and stop 18 year old's from buying booze in off licences and pretty soon the hospitals are blocked up with the little buggers drinking everything in sight.

That, however, is not the weird or amusing part of this story.

The National Concern for Healthcare Infections say the gel, which contains up to 70% alcohol levels, is being stolen and mixed with other drinks.

However, Dr Bill Gramsden, director of infection control at the hospital, said there had been no reports of incidents or bottles of the gel being stolen but decided to bring in the extra measures after recommendations to all hospitals from the National Patient Safety Association.

So despite nothing having happened, the hospital have removed a control measure against MRSA, because of concerns about the safety of patients.

What. The. Fuck.

Kafka, the NHS. The NHS, Kafka. Oh, I see you've already met.

2009-03-02T12:29:00.004Z

Name Bono As The Father

News today - which sadly should have been from the Daily Mash, but was actually real - that women who receive IVF treatment will be able to name ANYONE as the father of their child. Sorry for the Daily Mail link, but it's their kind of story.

Can't see that going horribly wrong, can you? No malicious scrotes naming someone who they want to get back at? No? Or completely innocent people being pursued through the courts for maintenance payments they don't owe?

I have a solution. Name Bono as the father. He's rich enough.

Interestingly, this is in direct contradiction to a law enabled late last year that forces single mothers (presumably not receiving IVF) to give the father's name so that they can be pursued for child maintenance money. This link is from the Telegraph so your eyes won't be quite as sore as earlier.

Nice to see some joined up Government there lads. You incompetent cunts.

2009-03-02T12:23:00.002Z

The Daily Mash

TDM are in fine form at the moment. Following on from their earlier piece about Gordon Brown refusing to hand back his pension, we now have their take on Harriet Harperson's claim that the Government can change any law they like if enough people are against something.

Law of Gravity is to be repealed.

"THE government is to repeal the law of gravity because quite a lot of people don't like it anymore.

Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman said millions of ordinary people were furious that the universal force holding everything in place had been able to get away with it for so long.

She told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "Gravity might be enforceable in a court of law, or the universe, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion, and that is where the government steps in.

"People in this country want to know why heavy things don't just float about on the breeze like helium-filled balloons.

"Meanwhile ordinary families are dreading September and the prospect of millions of ripe, juicy apples bouncing off their hard-working skulls."

Ms Harman hinted that other universal constants may have to be reviewed, insisting the majority of taxpayers now think the speed of light is 'out of control'.

Clicking her fingers, she added: "It's that quick. In fact it might even be quicker than that. Do we really want light whizzing about the place in such a selfish and irresponsible manner?"

But British businesses have warned they may quit the country if heavy things are just going to float around in mid-air.

A spokesman for JCB, the JCB manufacturers, said: "A 20 tonne earth mover is of little use if it's suspended 40 feet above the earth it's supposed to be moving. You just can't get any purchase."

Bill McKay, professor of contractual physics at Reading University, said: "Let me try to explain this in layman's terms. Harriet Harman is an unbearably ghastly human being who will say and do anything to become leader of the Labour Party."

2009-03-02T10:49:00.002Z

As It Keeps Disappearing

Philip Pullman's article on Civil Liberties in The Times seems to be flipping in and out of existence, so I have re-printed the whole thing here. It is relatively long, but it is worth reading.

Are such things done on Albion’s shore?

"The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness - the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation - after all we have an Established Church - or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don’t know who you are

You’re mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum"

2009-03-02T10:38:00.002Z

Scottish Drinkers, It Appears You're Next.

As the Scots are used to being fucked first - it was they who had to endure the Poll Tax first - they should have been expecting the upcoming change to alcohol sales that has been revealed by Scotland on Sunday.

MINISTERS are to press ahead with a crackdown on sales of cheap alcohol in a move that could be fast-tracked through Parliament in as little as six months, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

In the biggest shake-up of alcohol laws for years, the Government is expected to confirm tomorrow that cut-price drink offers will be banned, minimum prices on alcohol imposed and a higher age limit set on off-sales.

A minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, as advocated by health campaigners, would result in rocketing prices. A two-litre bottle of cider, currently priced at around £3, would cost £7.50. Wine would also increase in price, with a £3 bottle of wine possibly rising to a minimum of £5.

The controversial plan to increase the age limit for off-sales to 21 is to remain in the proposals, despite opposition from students.

Scotland on Sunday understands that ministers may seek to place some of the measures – such as the ban on "Buy One Get One Free" deals – in the existing 2005 Licensing Act, which is due to come into force in September.

The Act enshrines "protecting and improving public health" as a key objective of all licensing decisions, so the Government may argue that it gives the power to ban cheap drink offers. The same logic could also be applied to plans to impose minimum pricing.

What the Scotsman fails to add is that this should guarantee a boom for retailers just South of the border. Imagine the queues of 18 year old Scots hanging around Tesco in Carlisle until they open at 8am on a Monday. It's not as if they've got much else to do, is it? But bootlegging is at least a career. Or it is until the Government down in England make similar changes to the law.

Drinkers, you're fucked next. Please adopt the position and lube yourself thoroughly, this may hurt.

2009-03-02T10:20:00.003Z

Of Pensions Gained. And Lost.

There has been an astounding furore over the Fred Goodwin pension debacle. Perhaps an element of jealousy from some quarters has been directed at Fred himself. The Government - via the mouthpiece of Harriet Harperson - has decided it needs to "do something" because of the public outcry (by retrospectively applying a new law that has been designed for one person, can't see anything going wrong with that, can you?).

Yet, of the people most likely to complain about Fred's pension, I'm sure most of them fail to see that Cristiano Ronaldo* "earns" Fred's annual remittance in a little over a month. For falling over a lot. And complaining. Ronaldo, like Goodwin, signed a contract guaranteeing him that money. Goodwin, like Ronaldo, should be paid that money. Whether it is obscene or not is a matter of opinion. Opinions are like arseholes, every one has one, but no-one really wants to hear someone else's.

I however, am an arsehole with a blog, so here's my opinion. Lord Mynas is the one who should be investigated and dealt with using the full scope of the current laws. It is he who agreed the remuneration package, and it is he who has deliberately leaked private conversations with Goodwin into the public domain in an attempt to smear him.

If there's anyone who actually needs their pension pot investigating and removing, I'd recommend Gordon Brown, who oversaw a disastrous collapse in the UK economy - as do the Daily Mash in genius fashion (re-printed below)

BROWN REFUSES TO HAND BACK PENSION

GORDON BROWN last night dismissed calls to surrender his £123,000 a year pension when he is forced to stop being prime minister next June.

He also has a nice big house which you pay for.

Mr Brown was defiant in the face of City outrage despite the UK government's annual operating loss of £100bn, rising to £1.5 trillion when the write-down of its banking assets is taken into account.

The prime minister said: "I've been building up this pension since I became an MP, it's all completely legal and now you want to take it away because I've been catastrophically bad at my job and you're looking for a scapegoat. What gives?"

He added: "Yes I've been in charge of financial regulation for 12 years, yes I encouraged the housing bubble, and yes I pissed billions up the wall giving pointless jobs to Labour voters, but I fail to see what any of this has to do with me being incredibly well off."

Brown's £3m pension pot is expected to cast the spotlight on the extravagant retirement packages of other failed politicians including Alistair Darling's inexplicable £1.7m and the £1.5m awarded to John Prescott for being a national scandal for 10 years.

Meanwhile Margaret Beckett has a fund worth £1.7m, something called 'Hilary Armstrong' has £1.2m and Tessa Jowell has £1m even though no-one has the faintest idea what any of them actually did.

Critics insist Mr Brown has a moral duty to hand back his pension fund as he will inevitably receive a multi-million pound advance for two volumes of eye-gougingly tedious memoirs which will end up in the bargain bucket at WH Smith within a fortnight.

Martin Bishop, head of pension rows at the Institute for Studies, said: "It's a fascinating dynamic. The politicians blame the bankers, the bankers blame the politicians, and the ordinary taxpayer is down on all fours with a confused look on his face, being fucked at both ends."

* - insert any current overpaid footballer's name here.

2009-03-02T10:16:00.001Z

Flying

Having spent rather a long time on planes in the past month, I read with some interest that Ryanair are planning to install coin slots on the toilets. Not entirely sure if the bloke being interviewed was being serious, but it seems that the good folk of B3ta have gone one further.

2009-01-14T08:15:00.002Z

I Shall Call Ye Cassandra.

A spookily prescient blog from Crashomatic that pretty much covers why printing more money is a bad thing, and that it only benefits the people who actually print the money.

I heartily recommend you read the whole thing - even though it is with a US slant - as it does explain a lot of things very clearly and very quickly.

Hat-tip to The Devil for pointing this one my way.

2009-01-12T10:47:00.003Z

No Shit, Sherlock

Apparently the UK is still an "unequal place to grow up" according to some research posted on the BBC.

To compound the "no shit" element, the report has found "success in life (is) largely determined by parents' backgrounds and earnings".

As if this alone wasn't enough of a shock, Martin Narey, chief executive of children's charity Barnardo's, said education had "not become the great leveller that many people believed it would be" and investment had "disproportionately benefited the middle classes". Which will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever met a middle class parent and discussed the subject of education with them.

The report also suggests child tax credits should be available only to low-income families and that they should also have access to affordable credit such as interest-free loans. Rather than the current state of affairs where they're available to pretty much everyone, one presumes.

2009-01-12T08:59:00.003Z

7 Things

I seem to have been tagged by La Bete over at safeism with the current meme du jour. So here we go with 7 things about me. I think most people who read this know me fairly well, so I'll put some obscure stuff in.

1. I once claimed to have been born on a plane travelling to America.

This was while I was at school and seemed fairly hilarious at the time. Managed to get away with that particular lie for over a year. I have also claimed, at various times, to be part Irish, despite there being no known truth to this (or any proof that it is an outright lie). As far as I'm aware, I was born either in Newcastle General, or Ashington General hospital, during a snow storm.

2. I don't eat (most) fruit.

I've tried pretty much every different type of fruit and I dislike pretty much all of them. The only things I will put up with are; pineapple slices if they're cooked; strawberries if they're thinly sliced, oven cooked and served with cracked black pepper; and very recently, bananas if they're in very small pieces (ideally blended) and in one of The Devil's excellent muffins.

3. I am rubbish at keeping in contact with my friends.

As pretty much everyone who reads this will know. I can go for probably a year without talking to some of them. As far as I can remember, I've always been like this and it shouldn't be seen as me not liking you any more. The person I've known the longest (who I'm not related to) is Julie Cho, and I've known her for about 25 years. For about 10 year of that, I didn't contact her. Not through spite, I'm just rubbish at keeping in contact.

4. I used to be very good at athletics.

Difficult to believe now, but I used to be VERY good at 400m running. So good, in fact, I used to run it for the county. I also represented my school at 200m, Long Jump and High Jump & the county at 4x100m relay. Oh, and I was on the county side for rugby for three years. Once I got to High School, however, I pretty much stopped all involvement in sports outside of class specific events. And once I went to University, I stopped taking exercise altogether.

5. I was born pretty much 9 months after my dad's birthday.

So that must have been one hell of a present my mother gave him. It always amuses me to see people's reactions when I point that one out. Mainly because you can see them doing the maths in their own head, and realising that they too were daddy's special present.

6. I'm fairly certain that I've only got a prize in two competitions.

Not that I enter a great deal of competitions - although there have been a couple of phases when I used to enter every competition I saw - and I'm not including the lottery in this either (although I've never won a prize bigger than £10 on that). But I do remember winning a Pretty In Pink t-shirt, book & soundtrack album (on vinyl) from Smash Hits and a jacket and something else from Empire magazine.

7. Considering I don't work in TV, I've met a decent amount of famous people.

Well, not a HUGE amount, and some of them aren't really *that* famous. But I have met music-related; Robbie Williams, Jarvis Cocker, Damon Albarn, Kylie Minogue, all of Duran Duran, all of INXS, and all of The Bangles (plus I kissed Susannah Hoffs). Comedy related; Eddie Izzard, Frank Skinner, David Baddiel, Bill Bailey, Sean Locke Mark Lamarr, Johnny Vegas, Ross Noble, Phil Nichol and Phil Kay. Sport related; Peter Beardsley, Chris Waddle, Neil MacDonald, Dewi Morris, Roger Uttley and Alan Shearer (long, *long* time ago). And a rather large number of actors from my University days.

And that is me. I'll spare most people the embarrassment but I will tag the following to continue the meme if they see fit, Feldman, Mia and Jamesh.

Anyone else who wants to, can.

2009-01-08T12:57:00.005Z

I Should Be More Precise

In what I wish for really.

Cristiano Ronaldo writes off Ferrari in crash.

Yay!

But is unhurt. (Although police claim he was rolling around on the ground pretending to be injured - Badoomtish!)

Boo.

/me makes note to add "and dies" to next wish.

2009-01-07T09:31:00.002Z

Happy New Year

I haven't been online much recently, and to be honest, blogging bores me now. There's so much I hate about the UK - and more that I hate about the rest of the world - that there isn't enough time left in my life to get riled up about it.

The main story of the week (year, in fact) is the Israeli land assault on the Gaza Strip. It seems to be that the Israelis have had 9 people killed (3 by their own soldiers) while the Palestinians have had 660 killed. This seems fairly disproportionate, but I would like you to read the following analogy by the utterly brilliant Leg-Iron.

I've copied the main bulk of it here, but please read him and the rest of his stuff (particularly the posts about the Righteous) as it is worth it.

Imagine a quiet pub. You're sat at a table, there are a few folk chatting in the corner, perhaps an American at the dartboard. Sitting at the bar is Mr. P. He's only little and looks quite harmless. He's occupying the one good stool - the chrome one with the backrest and the padded seat. A little further along is the only other stool, and it's crap. It's bare wood and it wobbles. Nobody wants to sit on it.

In comes Mr. I. He's a big lad. Mr. I walks straight up to Mr. P and throws him off the good stool. There's not a lot Mr. P can do about it but slink off to the crappy stool and sit there. Mr. I won't let anyone fix Mr. P's stool and he won't let Mr. P sit anywhere else.

Fairly clear cut so far. Mr. I is a bully and Mr. P is the victim.

However, these two have history. Mr. I used to get beaten up a lot by a certain Mr. Hitler and his gang, and Mr. P was all for Mr. Hitler's methods. Now it's not quite so clear cut. There's a reason Mr. I doesn't like Mr. P, but does it justify the bullying? Two wrongs don't make a right - that's what we were always told as kids.

The matter doesn't end there. Whenever Mr. P wants to use the bathroom, he has to pass Mr. I, and Mr. I wants to search him every time. Sometimes Mr. I won't let him go past. Back at the wobbly stool, Mr. P takes to lobbing beermats at Mr. I. Most don't do much harm, in fact most miss altogether, but once in a while a mat hits Mr I on the nose.

When that happens, Mr. I gets up, walks across to Mr. P, and whacks him one.

Now we have Mr. P deliberately provoking Mr. I, and Mr. I responding by pummelling someone who's a lot smaller than him. Mr. P wants Mr. I dead and says so at every opportunity. Mr. I won't let Mr. P go to the bathroom without permission and makes him sit on the dodgy stool.

Now, who's right and who's wrong? It's not so easy to see. If Mr. I had let the matter rest after the beatings from Mr. Hitler, or if Mr. P hadn't insisted he wanted to continue the beatings even though he isn't big enough, the matter might have faded. But they didn't. They kept on responding to the other's attacks and the whole issue escalated out of control.

It might also have fizzled out if the rest of the bar had kept quiet - but it's a bar so that won't happen. Some side with Mr. I and some side with Mr. P. Some supply Mr. P with more beermats, while our American dart player offers to lend his darts to Mr. I. Some insist that Mr. P needs their help and they buy him drinks and crisps so he doesn't have to worry about finding money. That lets him buy more beer mats, increase the rate of beer-mat throwing and make them more accurate. Some insist that Mr. I is only defending himself from beermats and they cheer whenever he gets up and slaps Mr. P.

Now the families of Mr. P and Mr. I come in. Mr. I won't let Mr. P's family pass him until they are searched, and slaps one or two of the kids just in case. Mr. P threatens to kill Mr. I's family at a later date when nobody's watching.

The polarised clientele now either say Mr. P is right to fight back against the oppression of Mr. I, or that Mr. I is right to give Mr. P a pre-emptive pounding because he's defending his family.

The rest of the pub are now as polarised in their beliefs as Mr. P and Mr. I. They stand, absolutely and unequivocally, behind one or the other of them. Neither Mr. I nor Mr. P can now back down. If they try to back of from further fighting, their supporters will push them back into the fray. Neither group will let their champion be the one to back down. Neither group wants their champion to lose because the supporters now have a vested interest in keeping the fight going.

Those supplying beermats to Mr. P are now making a profit on the deal. Those supplying darts to Mr. I are also making a profit. There are groups set up specifically to support one or the other and if this battle ends, they lose their reason for existence.

So now, neither side wants their champion to lose but neither side wants to win either. The profit is not in the culmination of the war, but in the war itself. Mr. I and Mr. P are now caught between those two stools and can't back away.

So Mr. I moves his family to a table on Mr. P's side of the bar. Later he moves them back again. Mr. P sends his kids over with shaken-up bottles to open next to Mr. I. Mr. I grabs some of Mr. P's kids and keeps them captive. Mr. P captures some of Mr. I's kids and they trade prisoners. And so it goes on. Mr. I moves forward, then back. Mr. P fires beermats, stops, starts again. By now, both are tired of fighting but they cannot stop because their supporters - who take no part in the fighting themselves - won't allow them to quit for more than a temporary ceasefire.

Mr. I cannot back down on the rhetoric that his stool was promised to him by the Barman himself, and it's his by right.

Mr. P cannot back down on the rhetoric that the Barman is actually on his side, that the stool is rightfully his, and that it is his duty to drive Mr. I and his family from the pub.

Both now have huge ranks of supporters. Mr. I's supporters say 'Yes, it is true, the Barman says it's his stool'. Mr. P's supporters say 'Yes, it is true, the Barman instructs that Mr. I shall be driven from the pub and Mr. P shall have the stool back'. Nobody even knows if the Barman exists, but that no longer matters. Mr. I cannot back down because the Barman Believers on his side will turn on him if he does. Mr. P cannot back down for exactly the same reason. So both are in a position dictated by absolutes, trapped by their own rhetoric and with no possibility of compromise. The matter now cannot be settled unless one or the other leaves the bar - and neither can.

The supporters take no risks in this. They will not be hit by Mr. P's beermats or by Mr. I's fists. The supporters can champion their cause by proxy, and incidentally turn a profit on the supply of materials to both sides. While there is every reason for Mr. I and Mr. P to stop fighting, there is no reason for their supporters to stop the fight. In fact, the supporters now have considerable investment in keeping the fight going for as long as possible.

There is no way to intervene. Try to do something for Mr. P, and Mr I and his supporters will cry 'Preferential treatment'. Try to do something for Mr. I and you'll get the same response from Mr. P's side. Suggest they share the stool and Mr. I won't hear of it. It's his stool - the Barman said so. Suggest fixing up Mr. P's stool and Mr. P won't hear of it - this is not The Stool, this is temporary accommodation.

Mr P's family and Mr I's family are sick to death of the whole thing but the men won't listen to them. They hear only their supporters now, who urge them on as Champions to the cause. Their causes are diametrically opposed. There is no middle ground. We can reason and argue all we like but in the end, there really is only one possible outcome.

In all the fighting, they'll end up destroying the good stool.

I added my own continuation to this, as follows.

Neither Mr I or Mr P drink, and the barman is furious at the pair of them for taking up valuable space around the bar and stopping other people from getting to the bar. The barman refuses to serve either of them anything (or anyone buying anything for them) in the hope that they'll both leave. When they don't, the barman leaves.

It appears as though the barman has left this particular bar quite some time ago. The fight however, continues in the closed down pub. If the pub is demolished, the fight will continue in the rubble of the car park, with each side blaming the other for the destruction of the pub and the disappearance of the barman.

There will still be other people standing around watching, urging both Mr P & Mr I to finish it properly. What neither Mr P & Mr I realise is that there is too much money riding on them for the fight to end as a draw. Relocating Mr P & Mr I to different pubs merely increases the distance they have to travel to get back to where they both *know* the barman originally was.

Neither they or their supporters can accept that there isn't a barman and there never was a barman. What would the point of a pub be *without* a barman? Well, it's like this; it's a social place, where people talk, argue about sport, buy stuff they know is stolen, and generally get along and pass the time before they die.

In time, people will realise that there's a bit of a barman in all of them and go on to serve themselves. Just remember to use the honesty box, and everyone will be happy.

2008-11-28T10:46:00.002Z

This Should Cause You To Be Concerned.

As I think it's a very accurate comparison.

H/T to Guido

2008-11-27T19:19:00.002Z

Guest Blogger

Silas has very kindly allowed me, The Devil, to guest blog today. The fucking muppet. Still, it has just been our two year anniversary, so I think it is about time he gave me a little voice. Well, at least a voice that y'all can read without having to check the comments!

Firstly. Silas has a new addiction. May I refer you to his blog posting of Tuesday, October 24, 2006, where he said Sudoku ... what the fuck's that all about? He now does it religiously every day. The shame. Not so secret anymore!

Secondly, shoes. I have made repeated requests on many comments for y'all to convince Silas to buy me yet more shoes, after all, a girl can never have too many, can she? Yet not a one of you has complied. Do you not realise that, as the devil, I own your souls, and you could help me own more soles (Silas's gag, so if you think it's shit, blame him, if you think it's great, kudos to me!)

Thirdly, join us on our crusade to mock the believers in this world. They need telling that blind faith is both dumb and pathetic. (Silas is reading this over my shoulder and correcting me as I type. This may be the last posting on this blog, as I may be forced to slice him up in to tiny pieces and feed him to my decking!)

Fourthly, I wanted to just say to all those of you that read this blog, there is a wonderful button at the top of the page that says next blog. Press it. Go on. I dare you. Chances are there will be something far more interesting, certainly less ranty, and prolly much more entertaining (you might even get to see pictures of naked women!)

Lots of love. Ok. I lie. I can't love. That would imply I have a heart. Ambivalence to you all.

The devil

2008-11-26T15:45:00.004Z

New Blog

I've just added a new blog to my repertoire, basically aiming to annoy as many Christians as possible.

The Devil sends me a huge amount of Mormon and regular Christian blog sites, and some of them are worthy of a slightly wider audience for their sheer comedy value alone.

If anyone else finds any religious blog sites worthy of derision, do send them to me via the comments section of the new blog.

I thank you.

2008-11-18T09:01:00.003Z

Update On Becca's Angels

Just if anyone's interested, there are two new - and probably final - updates on Becca/Bob's blog.

Peter and Bet are going to concentrate their future efforts on the Melanoma Awareness Project(MAP) website from now on, and attempt to get the MAP DVD into every school in the country.

I'd like to wish them the best of luck with that.

2008-11-18T07:46:00.003Z

This Made Me Laugh

Yes, I know, I'm a sick man.

Palmeiras coach Vanderlei Luxemburgo has suffered a broken arm after being attacked by his club's own fans. "It was the attitude of vandals," he told reporters.

Not funny so far, I grant you. Comedy bit follows.

"If we had known Palmeiras were going to lose 5-2 against Flamengo two days later, we'd have broken one of his legs as well," declared a fan's spokesman.

Now *that* is supporting your team.

H/T The Fiver

2008-11-14T12:14:00.004Z

Just Something That Caught My Eye

In the on-going debate about the death of Baby P, I see that a former social worker, Nevres Kemal, claims she sent a letter to the Department of Health in February 2007 stating her concerns about Haringey Council's failings with regard to child protection.

The bit in this report on the BBC that caught my eye, however, was the following:

Ms Kemal has been banned from discussing the matter after local authority took out an injunction against her.

For what, exactly? Being right?

How can a local authority take an injunction out against a former employee (or indeed anyone else) for discussing something SHE brought to THEIR attention?

2008-11-14T10:45:00.002Z

To Amuse The Devil

Via Old Holborn's site but originally from the Guardian's comment section regarding the death of Baby P.

Dear Ms Featherstone,

I think the people who should truly say sorry for such events are the opinion leaders of the Guardian. Please allow me to explain.

Last week I visited (as a doctor) a family in a council estate. The mother was concerned about her 12 year old son. She was very pleased that her older son was now on incapacity and would therefore do well for himself in terms of money. There is nothing wrong with this older boy that makes him incapacitated, but that is another story.

She also had a 14 year old daughter, who while I was there, constantly argued with her mother demanding money for cigarettes. The three children had three different fathers, all absent. The kids, while I could see were still children, gleamed with malignant insolence. I can see them turning into damaged adults.

I feel sorry for the trap they are in – the trap created directly by the welfare state whereby the family, and all those in the neighbourhood, see welfare as a lifestyle option. They live in squalor but have more wealth than most people I knew in India; they certainly have more material comforts than I ever had growing up in Delhi.

The Guardian describes such families as poor. The Labour party wants to throw money at the family. The Guardian readers blame Margaret Thatcher for this state of affairs, smug in their modern pieties, their intellectual laziness, and their stupidity masquerading as sanctimonious concern. I used to work with slum children in Delhi; they had very little, but even the most physically disabled amongst them made an effort.

There is no hope for Britian. Civilisations dont die, they commit suicide. And before they commit suicide, they read and believe the Guardian.

I truly and deeply feel sorry for all the children who are the victims of the welfare state. Things are much, much worse for the slum children in India, I saw more dignity among them and certainly greater hope.

I am not sure if you will understand this message. I am too tired to explain further. Either you will get or you wont. Either way, it will make no difference to anything.

The Guardian, the harbinger of doom.

2008-11-14T09:39:00.003Z

Possibly A Bit Late

As it's already climbed back above $300 a share, but if Google drops back below that figure, then you may want to consider buying into it. There's a very good chance - IMHO, although I am not a stockbroker, thank fuck - that you could double your money within 12 months.

You can track Google's price here

2008-11-14T09:14:00.003Z

25 Years? Are You Quite Sure About That?

I was watching - as usual - the BBC early morning news, then the ITV early morning news before I left the house this morning. I forget which channel it was, but there was a report about the TV show "The Bill" having celebrated its 25th Anniversary.

"Wow" I thought, "it doesn't seem that long since it started."

And while technically it was over 25 years ago that the pilot episode was broadcast (on August 16th 1983) the series itself only started on 16th October 1984. Or just over 24 years ago.

Not today, you understand, but October 16th.

So I'm somewhat surprised to have seen a relatively long piece on whichever news programme it was, telling me The Bill had been going for 25 years. When it would have been more appropriate to tell me that on August 16th, or to wait until October 16th next year.

Plus, it's not as if there's nothing else going on in the world, is it? Cunts.

2008-11-11T11:07:00.003Z

Anti-Drinking Campaigns

The above image comes courtesy of the Drink Aware Trust and is on display across London (and probably the rest of the UK) at the moment.

It suggests that just by looking at your recycling bin your friends & neighbours can condemn you for being drinking too much alcohol. Given the amount of interest the Council also have in your recycling and trash habits, you can also infer that the Council will be coming to the same conclusion: you drink too much.

The text accompanying the advert on the website says:

Recycling. You feel good when you do it, don't you? You're doing your bit to save the planet after all. But do you ever look at the wine and beer bottles you're putting out and wonder 'just how did we manage to get through all that since last week...?'.

But hang on just a tick, shall we?

First up, we only have recycling collections every fortnight. Over the course of two weeks there's a very good chance that even following the Government's own recommended alcohol intake (which they made up, by the way) a family of four (as children are allowed to drink alcohol from the age of 5) could get easily get through the amount of bottles shown in the advert.

Secondly, what the fuck has my alcohol consumption got to do with the Government? I pay tax on what I buy, the manufacturers pay tax on what they produce, and the Council Tax gets paid towards the cost of collecting the empties. So what's the problem?

If I cause myself or anyone else an injury or become a nuisance, then I should expect to be punished accordingly. There's no "second hand drinking" argument like there was with smoking (even though that has yet to be proved to exist either) so I fail to see why the Government or the Council should be interested in the slightest.

More to the point, it would be beneficial for young children to see alcohol being consumed (in moderation, naturally, and at appropriate times) around the house as they are growing up. They're then less likely to drink to extremes once they are legally allowed to go into pubs and clubs (assuming there are any pubs still open once they get to 18).

This Nanny Government has decided that alcohol consumption is bad for the general public, so they're on their way to making it socially unacceptable. So children won't be exposed to it, won't know how to deal with it, and will, in all probability, get fucked off their face as soon as they possibly can. Which will let the Government go to the next level and introduce prohibition. And that was a raging success in the States, wasn't it?

2008-11-10T15:31:00.001Z

A Company You Can Trust

From The Daily WTF

"I can't decide if the biggest WTF is using poster board, stencils and multiple colours of what appears to be chalk in their quest of 'moving technology forward' or the fact that they apparently made a mistake while putting the 'N' in consulting and just decided to use a bit of masking tape to correct it, rather than flip the board over and start again."

2008-11-10T15:15:00.005Z

One For The Geeks

If you're not a geek, you might just want to look away now. And I recommend here if you want to amuse yourself.

If you're reading this, I'm guessing you *are* a geek. And you may well be interested in the following. There is an online tool which allows you to look up the possible serial numbers and WPA keys for SpeedTouch modems (as used by BT). Handy, if you were planning on having a back-up internet connection but didn't want to go to the expense of getting a second line fitted.

Okay, it's a hacker's delight. And it's NOT a brute force attack, all you need is the SSID.

Enjoy.

2008-11-10T09:39:00.002Z

Quelle Shock, Not.

In a completely unsurprising move, a report by a group of MPs has called for the end of happy hours and a curb on supermarket's setting alcohol prices at a loss.

The Home Affairs select committee said reckless drinking was placing a heavy burden on police resources. One possible solution for England and Wales, MPs said, would be legislation setting a minimum price on alcohol. Scotland's new licensing laws already include powers to fix alcohol prices to stop cut-price promotions and happy hours, and ministers in Edinburgh say they might seek to set minimum prices for drink.

Interesting to note at this juncture that the bars in Westminster are subsidised. And you can still smoke in them. Unlike your local bar, that can now apply for reduced business rates (not that anyone actually told the bar owners, and the tax office initially turned them down) due to the smoking ban

Keith Vaz (a twat of some renown) chairman of the committee, said retailers must end a "pile it high, sell it cheap" culture around drink. He accused supermarkets of flouting the spirit of a voluntary code on alcohol sales.

"We cannot have, on one hand, a world of alcohol promotions for profit that fuels surges of crime and disorder and, on the other, the police diverting all their resources to cope with it," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"At the moment you have a situation where so much of police time is taken up dealing with alcohol related crime. Happy hours lead to unhappy communities. Loss leaders in supermarkets cause real misery to city centres on a Saturday night."

Couple of things there Vaz, you cunt, if the booze sold by supermarkets is being sold at a loss, then it's not going to be making them a profit, is it? Secondly, I would suspect that the majority of the booze sold by supermarkets is consumed at home, not in a city centre, particularly as it's now illegal to consume alcohol - or carry an open container of alcohol - on public transport.

Thirdly, and a point I've mentioned previously, it is illegal for supermarkets - or indeed any group of companies - to set prices among themselves. We have (or had at least) a veneer of competition in business. If I can sell something slightly cheaper than you can because I have economies of scale or a better business model, then I can and indeed *should* sell it cheaper than you do.

To force supermarkets to sell alcohol above a minimum price doesn't encourage them to improve their methods to lower prices for the consumer, does it? No, any improvement will only increase their profits and, as a Labour politician, you should be against that. It would also lead to an increase in the RPI, which will also look bad for you. You talentless fuckwit.

Still, don't let that worry you. Nanny knows best. A Home Office spokesman said: "We know the police and the public remain concerned about alcohol-related disorder. We have given the police, licensing authorities and trading standards officers a range of tough powers to tackle alcohol-related disorder, including on-the-spot fines, confiscating alcohol in public places and closing down premises that flout the law.

"Alongside this, the Department of Health has commissioned an independent review on the effects of alcohol price, promotion, consumption and harm which will be published shortly." And you can pretty much guarantee that report isn't going to be terribly positive, can't you?

You may be a smug non-smoker who happens to like a drink or two. You don't go into bars, yet you supported the smoking ban in there. You drink exclusively at home and you haven't once been arrested for causing a disturbance or public nuisance. And now you will feel the power of Nanny knowing best. Nanny doesn't want you drinking, so you will have to pay more for your booze than you previously did.

And there's nothing you can do about it. Except plan a revolution.

2008-11-10T09:02:00.002Z

The Stepford Society

I will be posting something about the current crackdown on alcohol very shortly, but thought this article from Computer Weekly would be of interest.

In a keynote speech to delegates at the City IT and IT Security Forum, Ian Pearson, a former BT "futurologist" and a chartered fellow of the British Computer Society, spoke of a backlash against the government's preoccupation with surveillance technologies. He warned that IT suppliers who collaborate with the government on the increasing surveillance of law-abiding citizens face a public backlash, and may be at risk of acts of violence, including the smashing of computer centres.

Within five years Pearson predicted that the government's crackdown on law-abiding people could lead to marches in the street, demonstrations outside some computer centres and - if the government takes no action - targeted acts of violence.

I've said it before, and I will say it again, it worries me that it's mainly people involved in IT that seem to be the most aware of the totalitarian state in which we are living. The Register often points out the worrying use of IT to monitor the general population, and here we have Ian Pearson saying that IT will be used to monitor the law-abiding citizens. Can everyone else please wake the fuck up?

He told the invited audience of some of the UK's largest IT suppliers and users, "By 2012 to 2013 tops you will see a technology backlash in the major population. Why is it relevant to you? Because if your firm is providing services to government authorities, which help the government to crack down on law-abiding people, you are in the firing line. Be very careful you are on the right side of the line when the [backlash occurs]. You need to be very careful indeed."

Indeed you do. Come the glorious Revolution the piano wire/lampost combination will be a fetching look for politicians and their assorted hangers on, we don't need geeks up there unless it is strictly necessary.

2008-11-07T08:43:00.003Z

Is It Possible?

I'm not a one for physics, but could someone please tell me if it's possible to use someone - say Hazel Blears - as a weapon to attack someone else - say Jacqui Smith - and that they would both end up dead?

I suspect that if I was to pick Blears (also known as "Bleats", and, my personal favourite, "Ginger Haze") up by her legs and swing her around my head (as one would in the Olympic Hammer event) and walk towards Smith to get their heads to connect at great speed, then I should achieve my aim. If anyone has any improvements to this plan that don't involve conventional weaponry or piano wire, use the comments section below. If anyone has any objections, please address them to \dev\null\ or just fuck off.

My ire, you see, has been raised by both these demented women in the space of just 24 hours. Smith for the reasons outlined in the post below (oh, and then claiming that people come up to her "all the time" asking her why they can't have an ID Card now - you want to watch out for those people Jacqui, they're obviously mental). Blears for the comments I read regarding bloggers that I shall outline here.

In a closed meeting, Blears gave a speech - ironically in a meeting about political disengagement - which said that corrosive cynicism, fueled by politically nihilistic blogs and a retreat from dispassionate reporting, is endangering British political discourse and fueling growing political disengagement in Britain.

And that "in recent years commentary has taken over from investigation or news reporting, to the point where commentators are viewed by some as every bit as important as elected politicians, with views as valid as cabinet ministers."

Yes, you did read that correctly. Blears is suggesting that the comments of the general populace of this country shouldn't be viewed as being as important as the delusional wittering of a cabinet minister. That would be the population who votes for the politicians who then go on to become said cabinet ministers, by the way, in case you had forgotten. Said by a woman who has never had a proper job her entire life.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your cynicism levels.

"Unless and until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

So it's the fault of bloggers that a large percentage of people in this country think politicians are greedy, lying, grasping cunts with no idea - or concern - how their decisions affect real people?

Oh really? I was under the impression that politicians being paid a fucking fortune to do fuck all besides rubber stamp "initiatives" from the EU while simultaneously stuffing their own pockets with "expenses" (despite working in a building with a subsidised bar - where you can still smoke - and restaurant) and looking forward to the best pension scheme in the fucking country, might have caused some of the cynicism love, but that's just me, I guess.

And just how, exactly, do you propose getting "more disparate voices" involved in political blogging, you short chipmunk-faced bint? Political bloggers aren't elected, the popular ones are popular because they report stuff people are interested in. They aren't necessarily sponsored or rich, they're just people who want to complain or praise politicians. The fact more people complain - and more people are interested in the ones who complain - surely suggests there's something going wrong at your end, rather than at ours.

It's not as if there's any way of stopping people setting up a blog and ranting. Oh wait, that's your fucking proposal, isn't it? Funnily enough, something the EU proposed earlier this year, a licence for bloggers.

So to get more "people" (and by that I'm taking that you mean "more people who agree with you") involved in political blogging, you're proposing to introduce lengthy bureaucratic paperwork requiring full disclosure of personal details, and then a fee. A fee which would therefore reduce the number of people blogging? Or a fee you would waive if the person applying agreed with your policies?

But how would you stop people from just blogging anyway? Oh, I see you're proposing to take control of Nominet. So anyone with a .uk domain name could be instantly taken offline (and presumably shot) by the government? Sounds remarkably like state censorship, that, or something North Korea would do.

You are a cunt, Blears, a cunt of the highest proportion. I shall batter Smith to death using you as a mace and I shall be happy, covered in the blood and bone of the pair of you, grinning like a fucking loon. Then I will go after the one eyed son of a manse, and force him to eat the shit that comes out of the corpses of both Smith and Blears. When he is sated - or I've decided he is - I'll cleave his fucking head with a hatchet.

I am the Revolution, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.

2008-11-06T13:54:00.004Z

ID Cards, Every Little Helps

Rather interesting - if you happen to be a geek, like wot I am - news today on the introduction of ID Cards.

First up, the Government seem to have backed down a bit from their initial proposal to force all airside workers to have ID Cards. Well, Government issued ID Cards that is; they currently all do have ID Cards - issued to them by the airport after they've undergone a far stricter vetting process than the one the Government is proposing for the new shiny Government issued ID Cards. But I digress.

The Register is saying that the plans for ID cards for airport workers are in deep trouble, with the news that next year's rollout has been downscaled to an 18 month trial at only two airports, Manchester and City of London. According to a report in the Financial Times, the Home Secretary is due to announce the trial on Thursday but that no agreement has yet been reached on whether or not the trial would cover existing workers, or only new employees.

According to the FT, Manchester and London City only signed up to the scheme "in principle" after the government agreed to provide a further £500,000 for pre-employment checks for airport staff. Nor, says the paper, is there any guarantee that the scheme will be extended to the rest of the airline industry after the trial concludes. Opposition within the airline industry has been virtually unanimous, however, and the sudden appearance of a lengthy trial at two smaller airports - as opposed to a general rollout across the industry - suggests strongly that the Home Office is losing this fight.

The Home Office, however, denied the 18-month trial was a retreat on plans to issue all 200,000 airside workers with cards: "We made it clear when we published the Delivery Plan in March 2008 that ID cards for critical workers would be 'starting in the second half of 2009' and we are on track to meet this commitment," a Home Office spokesman said. No2ID have said it was a "transparent attempt to save ministerial face" after anger from airport unions and airline bosses.

The Unite union, which represents airport workers, has said staff are already extensively vetted before being given airside passes. Airport unions have been resisting the scheme, saying workers would have to pay £30 for a card to do their jobs. Airlines including British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and EasyJet, also spoke out against the plan, saying it was "unjustified" and would not improve security.

So the Government think it's a good idea, and everybody in the affected industry says it's a stupid and unnecessary idea which will do nothing to improve security.

You can see how this is going to end, can't you?

The Government will claim (but without giving any information as it would "undermine efforts by the security services") that a plot to smuggle a bomb/suicide bomber aboard a plane has been stopped and that they simply MUST improve security by introducing these passes. The airlines, unions and airports won't be able to complain - as there's no actual evidence - and the plans will be forced through.

Thinking about it, doesn't the timing of this story seem just a little suspicious? An MP walks through security at an airport carrying a large knife in her bag and no-one notices. So she reports it to the papers. Yet she's not arrested for carrying a knife? Or attempting to carry a knife onto a plane? Wouldn't things have been oh so different if a Muslim teenager had done exactly the same thing? I digress again, but my point is, that it seems kinda odd to me that this story comes out THE DAY BEFORE this announcement by Smith.

Smith has been busy though, sadly, as her stupid mind has also let her think that we would be far happier giving all our fingerprint details for ID Cards (the ones EVERYBODY will have to carry, not the Airside ones) to the supermarkets, rather than have to go to a special Government unit.

On plans to involve retailers and the Post Office in the ID cards scheme, a spokesman said it would be "more convenient" for people than the government's original plan to set up enrolment centres in large population centres.

The Identity and Passport Service (IPS) would continue to carry out enrolment at its offices but a spokesman said it also wanted to

"drive down costs using market forces and competition" and was talking to a "range of high street retailers and other organisations". He stressed that security of data would remain the "utmost priority". "Any third party involved in enrolment would be accredited and audited to ensure they meet and continue to meet robust and strictly administered security standards.

"System design standards will ensure that no data is stored locally and that all data is transmitted directly to IPS using a secure communications link. In addition all locations and personnel will be subject to strict security standards set by IPS."

Let's hope that their standards are a bit higher than everyone else in Government, and all the details won't be left on a USB key in a pub car park or on a train.

I - along with a few others - are wondering just which retailers would sign up to this scheme. There doesn't seem to be much incentive for doing so. Both the Tories and the LibDems have said that they would scrap the ID Card scheme, so any company making the necessary investment in the equipment are likely to discover it redundant after an election. Similarly, any retailer involved would surely be the subject of a campaign to stop people shopping there. In the current financial climate, that would surely put a damper on even the most enthusiastic company chairman (no doubt eyeing themselves a peerage).

Unless. Unless there's a HUGE incentive for a retailer to take part in this scheme. Like being the only official supplier of alcohol in the UK? Like being the only supermarket allowed to open 24 hours a day all week? Surely the lure of a peerage can't be enough to entice a major retailer into the moneypit with the Government.

UPDATE:

Just seen this on Guido and it made me howl. While giving a speech elsewhere today (hasn't she been busy, eh?) a No2ID sympathiser nicked the glass she'd been drinking from. Her fingerprints will be copied from it, and if there's any DNA on it, that too will be taken.

Not too secure with your data, are you love?

(deep breath)

A-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

2008-10-31T09:15:00.003Z

The New Puritanism

Obviously keen to follow up their campaign to make smokers into a demonised section of society - latest plans show that smokers won't be allowed to adopt or foster children - the Government are now going after the other big revenue generators: drinkers.

In the past month I've seen proposals to increase the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to 21 (and hasn't that worked out brilliantly in the US?), for there to be a separate area in shops for alcohol so that customers have to queue twice (so that their "alcohol purchases can be scrutinised by other shoppers") and in Scotland, a proposal that while you can buy alcohol in pubs at 18, you can't buy it in a shop until you're 21 (which won't cause any confusion at all, will it?)

This is on top of the on-going campaigns the Government have to get fat people to eat less, and everyone else to eat what the Government decides is healthy and good for them. Combined with the recent call, by Ed Balls, to ban the opening of fast food outlets within a certain radius of schools, and you would suspect the Government are actively going after the Nanny State title.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are both still legal, yes? Burger King, McDonald's and the like aren't force-feeding anyone, are they? We're not in some weird Arab state run by keep-fit non-smokers, are we? At least not yet, at any rate.

So why the hell are the Government insistent on interfering in people's lives to this extent?

You'd think that with the current financial crisis - nothing to do with Gordon Brown's management of the economy over the previous decade, oh dearie me, no - the Government would have less time to fuck about in the petty areas they seem to love. But no. You'd be quite wrong. Because the Prime Mentalist himself waded into the "scandal" of Jonathan Ross & Russell Brand's radio show to give his two pence worth.

Despite it being FUCK ALL to do with him - although handily deflecting public glaze from his general cockpuppetry - Brown demanded action be taken.

Why, you incompetent fucksock, are you getting involved? Oh wait, I know. It's because he's a fucking Puritan dictator.

He's the one who will decide what is good for us and what isn't. Anything that is bad will be banned, and the only things that are available will be those that are personally allowed by the Prime Minister. We people, you see, aren't pure enough of mind or deed to be allowed to make these choices for ourselves. We're too stupid to see the benefits or failings ourselves, so we *need* someone to tell us what to eat, what to drink, not to smoke, to do more exercise, to believe in a vengeful God who will punish us for not looking after the planet properly, to understand that the Prime Minister is doing a good job and not destroying the economy single-handed.

He is, in short, a cunt. A righteous cunt. A complete and utter righteous cunt.

Well here's something from me to you, Gordon. I will drink & smoke as I please and I will die when I'm supposed to. There's nothing you can do to stop me, because I am the revolution, and I want my fucking liberties back.

2008-10-31T08:56:00.004Z

Contemptible Bastards

I see that prospective MPs may no longer be required to give their home address when they apply for election.

Harriet Harperson said: "Obviously, it is in the public interest for the public to know when they come to be voting in an election whether or not the candidate lives in that area or whether they live somewhere miles away... But whether or not there has to be the precise address of the flat number of the block in the particular street is questionable."

I'm guessing, call me cynical if you wish, that this is in direct response to The High Court ordering addresses be published as part of a wider Freedom of Information battle over expenses claims, to allow people to check MPs were living in properties they claimed for. In May the High Court ordered addresses to be published with expenses claims, but MPs voted to keep them private.

In its ruling, the High Court pointed out that "the addresses of well-known MPs like [Tony] Blair and [Margaret] Beckett were available in any event, and that every prospective MP would be registered as candidates and as electors, with names and addresses in the public electoral register." MPs now seem set on removing this information from all public record.

You'd think that if they had nothing to hide, then they would have nothing to fear.

2008-10-24T09:55:00.004Z

Fucktard

Phil Woolas has just followed up his previous assertion that "the population of the UK will not be allowed to top 70 million".

Which, in itself, is quite some statement.

Seeing as I'm fairly certain there's not a single fucking thing the Government could do if the entire population of the EU decided to come and live in, say, Nottinghamshire. One of the main points of the EU is that it allows freedom of movement between member states. It's also one of the main drawbacks, as it means none of the member countries has the ability to deny access to a fellow member's populace.

How does Phil think he'll be able to stem the tide of Johnny Foreigners arriving from within the EU? Well, let's just say he's a bit vague on that. Asked whether he had made an eye-catching pledge that the government could not keep - because it cannot restrict immigration from within the EU - Mr Woolas told Today: "No, I don't accept that at all."

He said: "What you cannot factor in is how many people leave the country. You cannot factor in, as you rightly say, movement from EU and that is why you can't put a precise figure - but what you can reassure the public over is that the general trend will be controlled."

How?!? You fucktard, the UK has NO control over immigration if the people coming in are from the EU. If, as is accepted, the population in the UK is currently 62 million, 10 million people come in from the EU in the next five year and no-one leaves, we'll already be over your 70 million figure and there'll be fuck all you can do to change it.

Are you planning on offering people incentives to leave? Because if you are, can I be first in the fucking queue?

I am the Revolution and to be honest, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.

2008-10-23T13:43:00.002Z

Obscenity

You may, or may not, be aware of the law regarding the publication of obscene material - called obviously enough The Obscene Publications Act. The OPA also extends to t'internet, although up until now it had not been used in that context.

Yesterday, however, a Civil Servant from South Shields (had to be a fucking sand dancer, didn't it?) was in court for a trial over a blog posting he made, regarding the kidnap, torture and murder of "pop group" Girls Aloud.

John Ozimek from The Register noted

This is the first such prosecution for written material in nearly two decades – and a guilty verdict could have a serious and significant impact on the future regulation of the internet in the UK.

The case originated in summer 2007, when Mr Walker allegedly posted a work of fantasy – titled Girls (Scream) Aloud - about pop group Girls Aloud. The story describes in detail the kidnap, rape, mutilation and murder of band members Cheryl Cole, Nadine Coyle, Sarah Harding, Nicola Roberts and Kimberley Walsh, and ends with the sale of various body parts on eBay.

The piece was brought to the attention of the Internet Watch Foundation, whose remit includes the monitoring of internet material deemed to be criminally obscene: they in turn handed details over to the Police.

The true significance of this case – and the reason for our interest – is that it is the first prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 in respect of written content since 1991, when Manchester magistrate Derrick Fairclough ordered the seizure under section 3 of the OPA of David Britton’s Lord Horror. This would have allowed the book to be destroyed without jury trial. Again, the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal.

The significance of this prosecution cannot therefore be understated. At present, the UK effectively has no sanction against written material, no matter how apparently obscene. The implication for UK surfers is immense. If a not guilty verdict is returned, then written material on the internet – as written material elsewhere – will return to its present near-privileged status. On the other hand, a guilty verdict could change much.

Interestingly, there are many 'swear bloggers' that may have to change their style quite significantly if a guilty verdict is returned.

I may be one of them. Cunts.

2008-10-22T12:57:00.005Z

Avoiding The Elephant

You may be surprised to see that I've not mentioned the Government and the current banking fiasco/crisis. I've tried to avoid it as I think I would find it difficult to stop once I've begun*.

I've been following it, obviously - both on the BBC and in the Metro (the only newspaper I actually read now I'm a commuter) - but I've been in an unusual position for me. I just don't know what to say about it. I've read an analysis from an economist's point of view (Timmy), a stockbroker's point of view (British Dude), a Libertarian's point of view (LPUK) and from the ex-trader's more political point of view (Guido). And I'm still not entirely sure I understand what's gone on.

As far as I can tell - and anyone can point out where I've gone wrong here - the American banks were told by their Government that they had to lend money to people who they would not normally lend to (the so-called NINJA loans - No Income, No Job) in order to allow said people to buy houses. I'm guessing that the American economy isn't quite as built on house prices as the UK economy, but that by having a credit history, these people could be proper consumers.

So the banks lent the money, knowing that it was more likely these NINJAs would default. In order to avoid having the debt firmly sat on their books, the banks wrapped it up in smaller packages and sold it on. To other banks. But with a AAA rating so that it wouldn't look as toxic as it would turn out to be. Hence the amount of banks that started to get into trouble when the NINJAs started defaulting to such a major extent that the house prices in America started to fall dramatically.

As the banks couldn't trust each other (as the amount of trouble they were in was hidden or just plain unknown) they then wouldn't lend to each other. As they wouldn't lend to each other, the banks were less able to pay off any short term debts they had in trading balances. And they couldn't get any money in from anywhere apart from the Bank Of England, and going to them cap in hand made the banks look desperate & likely to collapse. Thus confidence in them eroded further.

The Government claim that they tried to save the banks, but after Robert Peston informed everyone that the Government had had a meeting with all the big four banks who were looking for cash, bank shares fell even further. Whether this was incompetence of the highest order, or a deliberate attempt by the Government to get the banks nationalised on the cheap, time will only tell. But when both the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank Of England come out within a day of each other saying the UK economy is going into recession (thus sparking a sell off of Sterling by any sensible trader around the world) the impression I get is that it's incompetence.

At the same time, Iceland's banking fell over quite spectacularly. UK public bodies had somewhere in the region of £1bn invested - hardly a surprise as the interest rate was unbelievably (for good reason) generous - and despite warnings being issued some months earlier. I've even seen reports here that there were warnings in July 2007 about the fragility of the Icelandic scheme. Entertainingly, the Audit Office (whose job is to ensure that £180bn of public sector spending provides "value for taxpayers" and should oversee any investment advice) had £10m tied up in the Icelandic banks, and the Audit Commission are now being investigated by the National Audit Office.

In order to "protect UK savers" the Prime Minister then used anti-terror legislation to freeze the accounts held in the Icelandic banks. Interesting that this legislation was used against a NATO ally, but such is the joy of function creep and badly worded (or not, depending if you're a conspiracy freak) legislation. More interestingly, the legislation only freezes the funds for 30 days, so in a couple of weeks we should have another announcement about Iceland.

The strange thing is, I've been through two recessions before, some bad financial times and three stock market crashes (yes, I am old). This latest one didn't wipe as much off the share prices as the last one (when the dotcom boom suddenly went bust in 2001 - mainly after everyone suddenly realised that none of the internet companies had a business model that actually made, you know, cash). This one hasn't seen interest rates go up to 15%, indeed they've just come down again. There hasn't even been a single power cut yet, let alone dead people not being buried.

I'm not saying that this isn't a financial crisis, but it seems to be based more in the financial markets than in real life. How many people (outside of bank staff) have been directly affected by this in the UK? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? Out of a population of 62,000,000 that's not a huge amount.

Okay, so if you need to get a mortgage then it is now more difficult, but that's not necessarily a bad idea. The UK housing market was (and still is) over priced. If it falls, then more new buyers will be able to afford to get on the property ladder (having got deposits for more expensive properties). If you already have a mortgage that you can afford to repay, keep doing that and enjoy the fall in interest rates. Your house is worth less than you paid for it, probably, but you still have a roof over your head and you aren't starving to death. Chances are, if you don't move in the next 10 years it may eventually be worth more than it is now.

If you have a mortgage and can't afford to repay it, then (unless you've been made recently unemployed or had a change of circumstances) how were you planning on keeping the house anyway? Getting yourself in HUGE debt by hoping to sell your house for more money than you paid for it (so you eventually had no mortgage and a free house) is pretty much the same as the South Sea Bubble in 1720 - eventually, it will fail.

Why the Government were so insistent about nationalising the banks, rather than just letting them fail and guaranteeing savers their money back, I have no idea. Surely by propping the banks up, they're being told that no matter what stupid thing they do, the Government will always bail them out. Not going to make them take better decisions, is it?

Why the Tories didn't complain about the Government's plan and ask if there was a 'Plan B', I have no idea on that either. There was no mention in Labour's pledges to bail out banks. There was no discussion in Parliament about whether it was the right thing to do. Nothing. The Government just wade in with half a trillion pounds of taxpayer's money and do what, exactly? The FTSE is still hovering about 4000, the pound is still falling against a raft of currencies and the entire country is out of pocket.

How Gordon Brown has managed to come out of this looking like the saviour, when he was the Chancellor in charge of the country's finances for ten years prior, I similarly have no single clue. I'm still slightly surprised he hasn't called a state of emergency yet, and become a proper dictator.

Perhaps it's just a matter of time.

* - And having read the post, I think I was right. Apologies for the rather long rambling explanation of how I see the financial crisis.

2008-10-22T09:56:00.003Z

Day Of Fantastic Quotes

Quite an interesting selection, in my opinion, showing the wit and stupidity of people in the UK in equal amounts.

In regard to this article about banning fast food outlets from opening "within 400m (0.4km) of areas often used by children", this beautiful bit of double speak Council leader councillor Clyde Loakes:

"There are more than enough fast food outlets in this borough and we want to stop any more from opening. The bottom line is that residents simply don't have enough choice because of the number of fast food takeaways - we don't want to tell them how to live their lives but we do want to give them the widest possible choice in what they can eat."

In response to this idea of putting anti-religious statements on London's buses, a wonderful statement of blind stupidity from Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice who said:

"People don't like being preached at."

as well as the equally fucking stupid:

"Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large."

It's funny, I don't recall atheism or bendy buses causing many wars or bombing campaigns. Maybe I was off that day when we covered it in World History.

Again from the BBC, in an article about the latest book to have "angered Muslims" (really, are there any other types of Muslim?) a particularly funny comment from 'Mark, London':

"I understand the anger of Muslims. I grew up in a family of fundamentalist dental hygienists, and I know how angry I would be if someone wrote such blasphemous lies about the tooth fairy."

The best, for me, was a letter in today's Metro. I've tried to find a better link online, but this (registration required) seems to be the only place, on page 22. Here's a picture of it instead.

2008-09-05T11:54:00.004Z

Happy Coincidence

Picture from Guido's Friday Caption Contest:

Headline from the BBC:

Balls found inside rattling dog

2008-09-05T08:10:00.004Z

And So It Ends

As probably expected after three days of wrangling, Kevin Keegan has resigned his position of manager of Newcastle United. He claims that he could no longer continue in the post as he felt the position of manager should allow him to buy the players he wanted, rather than have players bought buy those higher up the management chain and then have him try to fit them in.

The Board of NUFC claims that if Keegan wasn't happy, he should have raised his concerns to the club rather than just resigning. What he was doing for three days before finally resigning then, I don't know. And let's face it, Keegan has prior form on walking away from a job that wasn't going his way - NUFC in the 90s, England and then Manchester City.

So what next? Well apart from the utter delight no doubt emanating from the unwashed sector of the North East, and the anger of the rent-a-dick mob (and I'm including former players in that group, not just the nylon covered unemployed outside St James's Park) normally on Sky Sports News when any announcement like this regarding NUFC is made, there's not a great deal that can be done, is there?

Supporters stop going to matches

Well, the terraces would be empty and any new manager (potentially even the hated Wise, seemingly the person responsible for Keegan's resignation) would have a ready made excuse for dismal performances. Also, as the majority of people who actually attend games are season ticket holders, the club has already had the money, so not turning up to watch is actually just annoying yourself at your own expense.

Stop buying merchandise

Bit late in the season for that as I'm sure the majority of people who were likely to buy a Toon shirt etc will have already snapped up the slightly redesigned shirts as soon as they came out. Okay, so the combination of not going to the matches and not buying merchandise like programs and 'refreshments' inside the ground might have some financial effect, the majority of NUFC income doesn't come from these sources.

Go to games and protest

Again, this gives any new manager a ready made excuse for poor results - "the players were distracted" - and does more harm than good. Similarly the option of turning up to the game and watching in utter silence makes very little difference (remember how successful Arsenal were despite playing in the Highbury Library) and could also be used as an excuse by whichever puppet is installed in the manager's job.

Boycott of Sports Direct

While this would be more targetted on Mike Ashley than on NUFC as a whole, I'm not sure the potential purchasing power of NUFC's fan base would actually make much difference to Sports Direct's sales. Ashley is - aside from his purchase of NUFC without knowing the full extent of the debts - a fairly shrewd businessman, so any boycott of one of his businesses would no doubt profit another one somewhere down the line.

Petition the LMA to advise no-one takes the job

Quite an entertaining suggestion this, working on the slightly old-fashioned ideas that a petition actually does anything, and that the League Manager's Association have any power whatsoever. Richard Bevan, chief executive of the League Managers' Association, has already told BBC Radio 4 the Magpies had to resolve this issue.

"You can't have an orchestra with three conductors. You won't be very successful and people will leave," he said.

While it would actually be good if the LMA said, as many people already believe, that NUFC is essentially unmanageable with the current 'structure' in place, many other clubs with far richer owners (Chelsea, Man City) are likely to be more successful with people other than the manager buying the players.

So will I be doing? I'm going to do what I honestly can recommend everyone else does: Shut up about NUFC, not talk about them or offer my opinions any further. There's been too much written about the machinations of the NUFC board and management over the past decade, and precious little good to come out of it on the field of play. When it comes down to it, NUFC are now beyond comment except perhaps as a warning to others.

I shall leave you with a quote from the independent fans website NUFC.com from Tuesday:

"SkySports played their joker on Tuesday afternoon by interviewing Freddy Shepherd live on the phone - a timely reminder that we've been through this pantomime before. The faces (and accents) of the cast may change, but the script remains farcical, scarcely believable and unique to this particular theatre of nightmares."

And those will be my last words on NUFC. Ever.

2008-09-02T07:56:00.001Z

I Am A Geek.

98% Geek

Bugger.

2008-09-01T09:08:00.002Z

Humanism

Went to a Humanist Naming Ceremony at the weekend, and heard the woman overseeing the ceremony say something along the lines of "Humanism encompasses atheism and agnosticism ‑ but is an active and ethical philosophy far greater than these negative responses to religion." That's an actual quote from the British Humanist site here

I'm an atheist not as a negative response to religion, I just don't believe in any God. I don't see me believing that the Universe was created by something I don't understand (but wasn't by a mystical being) as being negative. Nor do I actively attempt to stop other people from having their religious beliefs. If they need religion to explain the wonderful chaos of life, then fine. I don't. As long as they don't attempt to convert me to their point of view, then they can go and kill each other over which one of them has the best invisible magic friend.

The fact that the Humanist Society seem to be taking previous Pagan ceremonies as being proof of the long standing existence of Humanism (on their site, where they explain that they're not planning on abolishing Christmas) irritates me, especially as they seem so determined to show that they're not religious in any way shape or form. They even have, in a list of their beliefs, one that says they don't believe in any sacred texts. Which strikes me as ironic.

But that's not my main beef with Humanism as 'practised' in the UK, oh dear me no. Nor the most ironic thing they've ever done.

The thing that seems to grate the most is that the British Humanists seem to have Polly Toynbee as their president. Polly Toynbee, for the uninitiated is a Guardian columnist. She's also a spectacular liar (as shown rather often by the wonderful Factchecking Pollyanna website - now sadly defunct) and was made to look a complete tit on Question Time quite recently by Richard Littlejohn.

Polly Toynbee is one of the Socialist preacher types. Expects other people to do as she says, as she knows best. But she doesn't follow her own rules. Her kids went to private school while she advocates the state school system. She has a holiday villa in Italy while she advocates we travel less to save the planet from Global Warming. You know the type. She was also a massive supporter of Gordon Brown until it became readily apparent to her that he was completely barking mad and not capable of running the country. It took Polly quite a bit longer than it took the rest of us to notice, so blinded was she by her devotion to Gordon.

Which isn't very Humanist. Or perhaps it is. Who cares?

2008-08-26T07:25:00.000Z

Hating People

Not specific individuals, per se - although sometimes that does actually take place - but hating people inter alia. I believe it's called misanthropy, from the Greek misein meaning 'to hate' and anthropos meaning 'mankind'. It's not something I suffer from.

No, I positively enjoy it.

I am beginning to hate every single aspect of this country (the UK). I previously used to just hate most of it, but now, I'm hard pushed to think of a single thing I actually like about the place. There are some people I actually like a great deal who live here. Not very many of them, obviously (I could probably hold a meeting of all of them in a phone box if I stacked them properly) but there are a few.

Other than that, nothing. Not one single thing inspires me or gives me a feeling of fondness for this country.

The Olympics should have given me something - even jingoism for beating Australia in the medals table - but no. I was pretty much unmoved by all of it, though having the London 2012 section have as its core a bus that resembled all too eerily the one blown apart on 7/7 did raise some bile. How the newspapers and the Government can call professional athletes who have won a medal 'heroes' is beyond me, surely they're just doing their job? How Gordon Brown can welcome *them* home, but not watch a single body of a fallen soldier return to the UK leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

The football season? Well we're three games into the Premier League season, NUFC have won one, drawn one and lost one, and I think that's probably the best our record will look all season. There's not a great deal about sport that interests me at the minute. I can't even remember, through a lack of caring, who won Euro 2008. Stupidly well paid people who can't actually do anything other than kick/throw/hit a ball in a better than average fashion doesn't automatically garner my support purely because of the team shirt they're wearing.

Fashion is recycling the eighties, so even walking through city centres is depressing. I lived through the 80s, it was hideous to look at then, and it's even more hideous to look at now: Day-glo orange Reebok trainers will never be a look you can carry off, even ironically. Music too has 'rediscovered' the 80s with the shrill casio tones and repetitive sounds of blandness. Where is the new punk? Where's the feeling of barely repressed anarchy?

The other thing the 80s brought us was rampant Thatcherism - the Tories having surged into power on the back of a failed Labour government that couldn't keep inflation or unemployment under control. Tell me if any of this sounds familiar. Expect us to be involved in a war soon, in a place we'd previously never heard of, for reasons obscure. Oh wait.

I'm reliving the past like a waking nightmare. Does no-one else remember this shit happening before? Was no-one taking notes?

2008-07-30T08:03:00.003Z

IT - It's All About Cooling

As is so often the case, when your computer goes kaput, it's likely to be down to the failure of one small fan. The same applies, apparently, to the UKTV servers.

Hat-tip to DailyWTF via Timmy

2008-07-29T12:22:00.002Z

You're Next!

A colleague of mine has just rung up to tell us he'd found a USB drive lying around in an airport in Ireland. Nothing terribly unusual in that, mine falls off my lanyard about once a month. What was unusual though was the contents on the one he found.

A completely non-encrypted drive, with nice easy to read Word documents etc, showing Next's entire catalogue for next season and who was going to be sacked across the company.

Oopsie.

If anyone from Next - who his wife called to tell them about this, but they have so far failed to ring her back - would like this dongle returned, please contact me via the comments.

Ta

2008-07-29T08:46:00.004Z

This Is Newcastle, Man!

Okay, so not as glamorous as shouting "This is Africa", but with a similar disregard for laws as the former colonies.

Newcastle's drinking culture has come under the spotlight today, with the Spy Bar in Jesmond selling bottles of strong lager for just 10p each. And yes, 10p is still a lot of money in Newcastle, thanks for asking.

Anyway, note the slight change in outlook between the BBC's interview:

Spy's owner, Mr Handa, said: "The bottles were being sold at full price months ago, but they were no longer on sale. Two or three cases, or 36 bottles, were later found behind the bar and were sold off at the cheap price, but they were limited to one per person and only offered to regular customers. There was certainly no promotion, no adverts or anything like that."

and that from the Metro.

Spy Bar spokesman said: "I don't think we have been irresponsible at all. We were given two crates of beer by the brewery and just wanted to get rid of it. If people are drinking too much alcohol that is their choice."

It most certainly is. Although for some reason (surely not bandwagon jumping?) the local police and council now want to get involved.

Police Supt Dave Wormald said: "Northumbria Police is committed to tackling alcohol-related disorder. My neighbourhood officers will be speaking to the management at this establishment to take the appropriate course of action to discourage them from offering such promotions." And if I were the management I'd be telling you to get out of my premises.

Councillor Anita Lower, executive member for community safety and regulation (which is surely the most pointless job title you've heard in quite some time) at Newcastle City Council, said the bar's management would be "invited to meet the council's licensing committee". Again, if I was invited to the City council, I would be telling them to fuck off out of my business.

What the bar did - regardless of how they did it - is not illegal. The big supermarkets do this sort of thing all the time (have you seen any wine advertised as £7.99 a bottle, £10 for 3?) and keep getting away with it. Bars are having huge problems getting anyone into them; the smoking ban and the public perception of a credit crunch are not ideal conditions for welcoming people to a night out.

This twunt - another Doctor, who can presumably afford £30 bottles of Claret - has a different idea though. (From the Metro article):

Dr Christopher Record, who works at Newcastle's Freeman and Royal Victoria Infirmary hospitals, said: 'The offer is absolutely monstrous. It's totally irresponsible, one bottle of that beer contains 2.8 units of alcohol and they are charging the equivalent of 4p for a unit.' The doctor added he wanted to see new laws making it illegal to sell alcohol for less than 50p a unit.

Now that, I believe would be called price fixing. And that is most definitely illegal.

2008-07-29T08:18:00.003Z

Blank Passports Going Cheap!

The BBC are reporting that a batch of 3000 blank passports has been snatched during their delivery from Manchester to London.

The Foreign Office admitted a serious breach of security over the loss of the passports and visa stickers, which were being sent to embassies overseas.

However, the passport service said the stolen documents could not be used by thieves because of their hi-tech embedded chip security features. The passports were the new electronic variety which contain a chip replicating the data printed on the document itself.

Well that's a relief. Because obviously no-one has shown the flaws in the new e-passport, have they? So it must be "secure" in a sense I'm not familiar with.

And correct me if I'm wrong here, but not every country in the world is going to have the necessary equipment for reading the passports anyway. So if you're travelling to say, Australian Samoa by boat, how high exactly are the odds of your passport being checked using the e-passport reader?

Ah, I've worked out the meaning of "secure". It means that we in the UK are, while the rest of the world who can't afford the e-passport reader are now open to 3000 potential terrorists. Well that makes me feel a whole load safer.

2008-07-28T09:00:00.002Z

Stop Having Children Or The Planet Dies

From the Register, an article about the attempt of two doctors to reduce the population of the UK. Sadly, there's no Harold Shipman type slaughter of the elderly being proposed. Wonderfully, however, they do recommend a reduction in the number of children - so it's not all bad news after all.

And while I would normally support such a call for less children, I have some reservations. Because the doctors are suggesting that controls are needed because kids cause carbon emissions and, therefore (at least in their eyes) climate change. The ecopalypse! Noes! We're all going to die!

Sorry, I got a bit carried away there. The two medics suggest that choosing to have a third child "is the same as buying a patio heater or driving a gas-guzzling car" and that "GPs should advise their patients against it". Yes, you did read that right - Doctors are comparing children with consumer goods. How splendid is that? It makes my heart swell to hear the medical profession talk in such loving terms.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, John Guillebaud (emeritus professor of of family planning at UCL) and Pip Hayes (a GP) raise the spectre of global population explosion, and suggest that the children of the developed world are a particularly severe carbon burden.

You think? I have three words to say to you: Too. Fucking. Late.

There is no "spectre" of a population explosion, there's already been one. If you're over 40 years old (and thankfully I'm not quite old enough to be in this group) the population of the planet has DOUBLED since you were born. I am old enough to remember being taught there were 5 billion people on Earth - the figure now is around 6.75 billion.

There are too many people on this damn planet. To quote Bill Hicks; "How about we take a moment out of our frenzied rutting to work out the whole food/air deal, huh?"

While some - China - have set limits on the number of children a family can have, and the birth rate has fallen in most Western countries, family size in third world/developing countries has actually increased.

In 1984, when Band Aid exhorted us to "thank God it's them instead of you", there were 42 million in Ethiopia and 8 million of them were starving. There are now 78 million people in Ethiopia, and 10 million are starving. When Band Aid suggested we "feed the world", I think they would have been better advised to teach family planning.

From the Country Studies site of the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress (as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998) a short paragraph giving some insight into why this may have happened.

In 1990 officials estimated the birth rate at forty-five births per 1,000 population and the total fertility rate (the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime) at about seven per 1,000 population. Census findings indicated that the birth rate was higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Ethiopia's birth rate, high even among developing countries, is explained by early and universal marriage, kinship and religious beliefs that generally encourage large families, a resistance to contraceptive practices, and the absence of family planning services for most of the population. Many Ethiopians believe that families with many children have greater financial security and are better situated to provide for their elderly members.

Analysts believed that reducing the population growth rate was a pressing need, but one that could only be addressed through a persistent and comprehensive nationwide effort over the long term. As of early 1991, the Ethiopian regime had shown no commitment to such a program.

Funny that, as feuding tribes (and Ethiopia was at war with two different countries during the 90s) don't really like this option. Unfortunately, religions don't like this option either. Both for the same reason, weirdly. If there's less people on your "team" then there's more chance of you being taken over/killed by the opposition. This "breeding for God" approach does no-one any favours.

Sadly, using the fear of the ecopalypse to encourage people to breed less also fails to do much good.

2008-07-25T11:16:00.003Z

How Not To Name Your Child

Something from yesterday that I didn't get time to do, a child in New Zealand has had her name changed by a judge. Her parents had initially named her Talula Dances The Hula From Hawaii. Which is quite some name.

Judge Rob Murfitt said that the name embarrassed the nine-year-old and could expose her to teasing. No shit, you think? "The court is profoundly concerned about the very poor judgment which this child's parents have shown in choosing this name," Judge Murfitt wrote. "It makes a fool of the child and sets her up with a social disability and handicap, unnecessarily."

"New Zealand does not allow names that would cause offence or that are longer than 100 characters" Registrar-General Brian Clarke said. "Officials often tried to talk parents out of particularly unusual choices that could embarrass their offspring" the Associated Press news agency quoted him as saying.

Which is fair enough, when some people have attempted to call their children: Yeah Detroit; Stallion; Twisty Poi; Keenan Got Lucy; Sex Fruit; Fat Boy; Cinderella Beauty Blossom; Fish and Chips (twins)

However, this does fall down slightly when you see the names they have actually let through: Violence; Number 16 Bus Shelter*; Midnight Chardonnay; Benson and Hedges (twins)

Strange people, Kiwi's, strange people.

* I'm presuming this nomenclature is similar in rationale to Brooklyn Beckham's, although obviously a great deal less glamorous

2008-07-25T10:54:00.002Z

South Central

Not Los Angeles's infamous suburb, but the wild lands that are South London.

Following on from last week's mob attack on two policemen who tried to get a girl to pick up litter, news today of a woman being slashed by a 10 year old boy who wanted a cigarette off her.

The woman, in her 50s, was confronted by the boy and his friend outside Selhurst railway station in south London on Wednesday. He tried to grab a lit cigarette from her mouth and attacked her when she shouted back at the pair. Passers-by rushed to her aid as she bled heavily from the wound which was inflicted with a craft knife or razor.

South London: it's the place to be, I tell you.

2008-07-25T09:36:00.003Z

Fined For Smoking In Own Van

As someone who drives a van, this article worried me slightly.

I consider the van to be my own private space. Anything I do in it that doesn't harm anyone else outside of the van, I consider to be reasonable behaviour. I would extend that to "has the potential to harm anyone outside the van" to rule out me drink driving or under the influence drugs, but as the emissions from the van would probably cause some people to have an asthma attack, I can't fully commit to that proviso.

However, Ceredigion Council would appear to think somewhat differently.

Gordon Williams, a painter and decorator, says he had popped to the shops earlier this month, when he was pulled over by council officials carrying out spot checks on the safety of vehicles. "I was told that because my van is my place of work I had broken the smoking laws," he said. His vehicle, an unmarked blue Suzuki Carry van, is "not my place of work - I decorate houses not vans."

Good point that man.

He believes it is the first ticket of its kind handed out by the council since the smoking regulations came in last year - the fixed penalty notice was number 0001. Mr Williams' wife Sue has already paid the fine - of £30 - fearing it would increase if not settled promptly. Which it would, to £50.

Simon Clark, the director of smoking freedom group Forest, condemned the fine as "absolutely ridiculous". He said:

"It smacks of some jobsworth council official interpreting the law to the most extreme level. This surely is not what the change in the law was intended for - it was not meant to harass and persecute people going about their ordinary lives. It is ridiculous that someone should be fined for smoking in their own private vehicle away from any workplace."

Ceredigion Council said they could not comment on individual cases. Which is a shame as I'd just love to hear the justification for this.

2008-07-23T07:51:00.003Z

Do As We Say, Not As We Do

Yesterday was the last day of term for MPs, who are now on their annual Summer holidays for a spectacular 76 days. If you thought teachers had a long holiday, try becoming an MP! Not only do you get paid so much more for doing so much less, you also get the opportunity to be a truly hypocritical bastard.

While coming out in droves to announce that there will be a clampdown on the alcohol industry and a forced end to "happy hours", MPs themselves enjoy the types of bar prices that the rest of us can only dream about. Oh, and they can also smoke while getting hammered at our expense, so that surely makes the whole thing more enjoyable, eh?

Compare this press release from ALMR that has uncovered hidden statistics which show the House of Commons Refreshment Department operated on a subsidy of £5.5 million of taxpayers’ money in the 2007/08 financial year, equivalent to total annual tax receipts from 35 pubs. When you've finished reeling in horror from that little statistic, check out the following:

Given the level of subsidy, it is unsurprising that MPs can enjoy much cheaper drinks than their constituents. A pint of Foster’s in Stranger’s Bar costs £2.10, compared with a national average of £2.80 (33% higher) and a London average of around £3.00 (43% higher). A House of Commons 8-year-old Scotch costs £1.35, while our politicians can enjoy a Pimm’s on the Thames-side terrace for just £1.65.

With the following report on the BBC which says Ministers have told the drinks industry to act more responsibly or face new laws governing alcohol sales.

Interim findings (of the government's review of the impact of pricing on alcohol consumption by Sheffield University) published to coincide with the consultation suggested cheap prices encouraged increased consumption in the young and heavy drinkers.

Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians and chairman of the UK Alcohol Health Alliance, pointed out one in four adults is drinking more than the recommended daily amount.

"This is not just something affecting a small minority, it is not about the binge-drinking culture, it is affecting a large part of society. If we don't get to grips with it, it will have serious health repercussions.

"The key to tackling this is price. Alcohol is too cheap and that has driven up consumption."

Which does tend to support the ALMR press release which says:

The subsidy, not published in the House of Commons’ Annual Accounts, was £693,000 higher than in 2006/07, a 15% increase.

So despite (or perhaps because of) the low prices, the Houses of Parliament subsidy has increased in the past year. Yet these bastards are demanding an end to cheap booze in pubs and supermarkets!

Utter cunts.

2008-07-18T14:36:00.006Z

BBC Having A Laugh, Again

The BBC initially headlined that today's report by the Charity Commission into the Smith Institute had cleared them of too many connections to the Labour Party. Bloomberg had a slightly different slant on that report. The BBC have now amended the headline, probably because the original one wasn't entirely true. And you wonder why some people think the BBC is a bit biased towards Labour...

Now, on the Magazine page, there's an article saying that there are "Reasons to be Cheerful" in the current economic climate.

1. HOUSE PRICES ARE UP
2. EMPLOYMENT RATE IS HIGH
3. INFLATION HAS FALLEN
4. LOWER EARNINGS ARE GOOD
5. WE'RE LIVING LONGER

I have responded to said article with the following:

Good grief, was this written for you by a Government minister?

The elderly are getting wealthier are they? I'm sure the many pensioners in fuel poverty would be delighted to hear that. As well as the ones unable to pay the ever-increasing Council Tax.

The employment figures quoted are from May and obviously won't take into account the people made redundant in the building industry over what is normally their busiest times.

The RPI isn't weighted very well and puts too much emphasis on consumer electronics (not regular purchases) when the more major increases have taken place on food and fuel. Consumer electronics have always come down in price over time. Also how can it go down if house prices are still going up as you contend in the first point?

While there has been some over stating of the downturn in the economy, this article is diabolical.

Although I wish I'd asked them how tractor production was going. Or the war with Eurasia, come to that.

Fucking bastards.

2008-07-18T11:30:00.002Z

Gordon Brown On The One Show/Knife Crime

Unbelievably, the Prime Minister spent yesterday evening on the comfy sofa of BBC1's 'The One Show'. I say unbelievably, as you'd think the fucker would have more important things to do with his time than being 'interviewed' by Adrian Chiles. And when I say 'interviewed', I mean "thank you for explaining Government aims and policy to us Prime Minister".

Obviously attempting to build on his "stunning" appearance on American Idol, Brown seems to think that by being on a non-political TV show (and note his lack of appearances on Newsnight, Question Time, Daily Politics, or even Channel 4 News) spouting his usual political platitudes, "real people" will believe him. Mind you, Tony Blair did do Richard & Judy, so there is a precedence.

On "The One Show" he re-iterates that carrying a knife should be punished and knife crime eradicated from society. But that he doesn't believe, unlike Cameron, everyone should be jailed. He seems to think that there needs to be more visible policing, but that it needs to be Community Support Officers! Which is ironic, given that just last night three actual policemen were hospitalised by a gang of people who beat them up for asking a girl to pick up some litter.

A more effective approach, I suspect, would be that advocated by the actor Lennie James in an open letter published in the Observer, that I feel needs as much viewing as possible.

To whom it may concern,

My name is Lennie James. I am a 42-year-old father of three. I grew up in south-west London. I was brought up by a single mother. I was orphaned at 10, lived in a kids' home until I was 15 and was then fostered. I tell you this not to claim any special knowledge of how you've grown, but to explain how I have, and from where I draw my understanding.

I want to talk to you about the knife you're carrying in your belt or pocket or shoe. The one you got from your mum's kitchen or ordered online or robbed out of the camping shop. The knife you tell yourself you carry for protection, because you never know who else has got one.

I want to talk to you about what that knife will do for you. If you carry it, the chances are you will be called on to use it. It is a deadly weapon, so if you use it the chances are you will kill with it. So after you've killed with it, after you've seen how little force it takes for sharpened steel to puncture flesh. After your mates have run away from the boy you've left bleeding. When you're looking for somewhere to dash the blade, and lighter fluid to burn your clothes. When your blood is burning in your veins and your heart is beating out of your chest to where you want to puke or cry, but can't coz you're toughing it out for your boyz. When you are bang smack in the middle of 'Did you see that!' and 'Oh, Jesus Christ!' here's who to blame...

Blame the boy you just left for dead. Blame him for not believing you when you told him you were a bigger man than him. Blame him for not backing down when you made your chest broad, bounced into him and told him about your knife and how you would use it. Blame him for calling you on and making you prove yourself. Tell yourself if he had just freed up his phone or not cut his eyes at you like he did, he wouldn't be choking on his blood and crying for his mum.

Then blame your mum. When the police are banging down her door looking for you, or she hears the whispers behind the 'wall of silence', tell her it's all her fault for being worthless. Cuss her out for having kids when she was nothing but a kid herself, or for picking some drug or some man over you again and again. Even if she only had you and devoted herself to you, even if she is a great mum, blame her anyway. Blame her for not being around more to make sure you took the chances she was out working her fingers to the bone to give you.

When you're done with her, blame the man she picked to make you with. Blame him for being less than half the man he should have been. When he comes to bail you out and starts running you down for the terrible thing you've done, tell him straight: 'I did what I did coz you didn't do what you should have done.' Even if he did right; respected your mother, worked to provide for his family financially and spiritually, taught you right from wrong and drummed it home everyday... Even if he nurtured you as best he could, blame him for the generation of men he comes from.

The one that allowed an adolescent definition of manhood to become so dominant. The one that measures a man by how many babymothers he has wrangling his offspring, or by how 'bad' his reputation is on the streets of whatever couple of square miles he chooses to call his 'ends'.

Damn them for letting you believe that respect is to be found with gun in hand or knife in pocket. Damn them and everyone who feeds the myth of these gangsters, villains, thieves and hustlers. Anyone who makes them heroes while damning hard-working, educated, honest men as weak, sell-outs or pussies.

If you are black, blame white people for the history of indignities they heaped on you and yours. For the humiliation of having to go cap-in-hand or get down on bended knee or having to burn shit down before you are afforded something so basically fundamental as equality. If you are white, blame black folk and Muslims for taking all your excuses. Failing that, blame a class system that keeps you poor and ignorant so the 'uppers' and 'middles' can feel better about themselves.

You have good reason to blame them all. I wouldn't be you growing up now for love nor money. Your generation has so little room to manoeuvre. We had more space to step around the bullshit. We weren't excluded at the rate you lot are. Teachers hadn't given up or lost their authority over us. They still tried to protect and guide us even through our most disruptive years.

The police stopped and searched us, but we fought that right out of their hands - we hoped into extinction. But they want to bring back that abusive practice. They are still hooked on punishment rather than prevention. They seem ignorant to the fact that they are feeding you acceptance of an already prevalent gang mentality. As far as you can see, the police are not protecting and serving you, they are coming at you like just another street gang trying to boss your postcode.

When I was where you are now, generations of state agencies, social services, policy-makers and politicians had not abdicated all responsibility for me. We weren't left to our own devices like you have been. Is it any wonder that you end up expressing yourself in such a violently pathetic way?

We should be ashamed. I am. You have shamed us into a desperate need to do something about ourselves. We have collectively failed you and we should take all the blame that is ours for that... but so should you.

I blame you. I blame you because as a generation you are selfish, self-centred and have little or no empathy for anyone but yourselves. You are politically stunted and socially irresponsible and... you scare us. What scares us most is that you would rather die than learn. Your only salvation may be that still most of you aren't playing it out dirty. The vast majority of young men, even with all that is stacked against them, are finding their way around the crap. The boy you will kill, should you continue to carry that knife, almost certainly had the same collective failures testing him. He probably felt no less abandoned and no less scared. He also, almost certainly, wasn't carrying a knife.

Whatever it seems like, whatever you've read, whatever you tell yourself about protection being your reason, statistics show the life you take will be that of an unarmed person. That is what that knife will do for you. It will make you escalate a situation to where it is needed. It will give you a misguided sense of confidence. It will make you the aggressor. That knife will make you use it. It will bring you nothing worth having. There is no respect there. The street may give you some passing recognition, but any name you think you might make will soon be forgotten.

Your victim will be remembered long after you. Name me one of the boys who killed Stephen Lawrence. Once you've bloodied that knife you may as well be dead because you'll be buried for 10 to 20 years. Banged up for that long, only a fool would look back and think it was worth it. You'll be nothing more than a sad, unwanted, unnecessary statistic.

If you were mine, this is what I would tell you. I would make myself a big enough man to beg. I'd get down on bended knees if I had to. I would beg you to take that knife out of your pocket and leave it at home. I would tell you that I know you are scared and lost and that I know the risks involved in what I'm asking you to do. I know that what we could step around, you have to walk through, and that there is always some fool who isn't going to make it any other way but the wrong way. I'm just begging you not to be that fool.

Be a better man than that. Let the story they tell of you be that you exceeded expectations... that you didn't drown. Don't spend your days looking to be a 'bad-man' - try to be a good one. Our biggest failure is that our actions have left you not knowing how precious you are. We have left you unaware of your worth to us. You are precious to us. Give yourself the chance to grow enough to understand why.

Be safe.
Lennie James

Now, ask yourself, who is talking the most sense? Lennie James or Gordon Brown?

2008-07-18T10:23:00.002Z

Exactly How The Credit Crunch Happened

But in a slide presentation of stickmen. Best viewed in full screen (click the little icon in the bottom corner)

Hat tip to Obnoxio The Clown (and if you think I swear a lot, you may want to cover your eyes)