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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Apparently, These Are Real

Although I'm not entirely certain.

From The Daily WTF, Health & Safety in the workplace

Enjoy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.