The Moose

Saturday (I don't want to blog about politics) night

2012-02-11T17:00:00.001Z

The Sierra is dead! Long live the Clio!

Mrs Buckos Sierra XR4i has failed it's MOT to a spectacular degree. The fail sheet was three pages long. Here's a taster of some of the bits that need replacing:

Brake discs, pads, callipers and hoses, both sides
Fuel lines
Suspension bushes and steering rack
CV joints and track rod ends, both sides.
Both number plates??
Both sills and seatbelt anchorage points

The chap who did the MOT was someone we know well, so I dread to think what would have happened if we took it to a random garage. They probably wouldn't have let us drive it away.

Apart from the welding, I could have done the work myself over summer, but as we need to be running two cars for work, it had to go. Mrs Bucko managed to swap it for a Renault Clio with tax and MOT, so fortunately we didn't have to shell out any money at all, which is good because my MOT is due next month.

The only problem is, Mrs B has had to go from a nice, rare 2 litre Sierra to a poxy Clio and she isn't liking it.

It's got the pulling power of a well whipped mule, and you would get better acceleration if you got out and pushed.

Renault Clio

It's 1.4 litre engine is about .6 of a litre shy of anything useful. If you put your foot down it just makes a lot more noise.

I does have one big advantage over cars with real engines though. The fuel costs are going to be very economical as it runs on cheese. This is a picture of the engine taken earlier today:

1.4 litre mouse power

The mouse turns the wheel that turns the crankshaft. Every 50 miles or so, you have to stop and feed the mouse. Being a French mouse it prefers Brie or some other soft cheese, although I'm reliably informed that you can run it on Sainsburys basics cheddar with little noticeable difference to performance.

The mouse needs changing every 10,000 miles. Cheap technology that only the French could invent.

This car was definitely built with A-B people in mind. It's a hairdressers car. I'll have to watch Mrs Bucko because she's liable to start some kind of mobile hairdressing or gel nails service if she runs this thing for too long.

Not only does it lack any kind of satisfactory performance, it's an ugly little bugger too. Short and stumpy with silly little froggy headlights. There's no room inside and no comfort. I like a car you can stretch out and relax in. Driving this vehicle could easily be compared to flying by Ryanair.

So to sum up, I don't like the Clio.

Hopefully she will get a few hundred quid for it that she can put towards another petrol guzzling lump that will have the enviroloonies lamenting and rending their garments. That's the only way to drive.

Bored!

2012-02-11T13:29:00.001Z

Mrs Bucko is visiting friends and I have some spare time on my hands so I'm relaxing with a film for an hour or two. I'm also looking at a few blogs as I seem to need two screens in front of me rather than one these days.

The film is called "Countdown to Looking Glass". I've never seen it before but it's supposed to be an eighties film about a coming nuclear armageddon done through newsreel footage. I'm only about twenty minutes in, but so far the build up has included a banking crisis caused by defaulting countries, uprisings in the Middle East and American troops in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chillingly predictive so far. Anybody seen it?

I have to take Mrs Bucko out this evening for Valentines Day. She wants the opportunity to dress up like a girl because she spends the week driving fork lift trucks and working in a warehouse with a bunch of blokes. I have no plans so far, and I can't think of anything we haven't done before. Suggestions would be appreciated. I am on a budget though because we spent all our money on tobacco and cigars in Belgium last weekend.

Mrs Bucko is a bit depressed this weekend so not only is it Valentines Day tonight, but I have to try and lift her spirits a bit too. She had to get rid of her dream car, the Sierra XR4i she has been driving for the past eight months or so.

We took it for it's MOT last Friday. We were expecting quite a bit of work including 2 new sills, a new CV boot, horn, indicator stalk and exhaust. It was a lot worse than that. The fail sheet was three pages long and the estimate for the work was a minimum of £800. Most of it was mechanical stuff that I could have sorted over time. If we didn't need to run two cars for work I would probably have had a go at it.

She managed to swap the car for a Renault Clio with MOT and tax. The guy she swapped it with is a mechanic who will either do it up or break it for parts. She hates the Clio but did it because she needs to run a car until she can save up for another beast.

My car is also due it's MOT next month. Hopefully that won't be as bad. It's a Seat Cordoba that we bought of ebay four years ago for £220. It was Mrs Buckos at first, then I took it on when she bought the Sierra. We keep piling the miles on it and it just keeps going. So far it's up to 187k. That's a lot for any engine but it says something for German engineering.

It's about time I bought something new though. Like Mrs B, I'm no fan of bog standard cars that have no character. I really want an old Jag XJS but the budget won't stretch that far for a while. My brother in law has a tasty convertible Escort and I'm trying to convince him to sell it to me. No luck so far.

One of the reasons I want to retire to Greece is the abundance of eighties vehicles on the road. Cars don't rust quite as fast in that climate, but with the more relaxed rules on MOTs, people aren't constantly scrapping them. I once saw a car in Greece that had it's windscreen held on with parcel tape!

I've just started planting seeds for this years bumper harvest of veg and stuff. I didn't do too badly last year and I'm hoping to do much better this time around. My turnips are sprouting already. I'm also going to have another go at growing my own bacci. I tried last year but it was a total washout. Other bloggers have had much better success and I've managed to pick up some tips for this year. Does anyone have any tobacco seeds to give away? I can pay postage.

Well the film is nearly over now so I think I'll have a bath. Not because I pong but because I can't think of anything else to do.

Catch you later Bill and Ted.

Friday night Moose music - Soul night!

2012-02-10T17:30:00.001Z

Free entry (Dress code applies)

I feel good! Another ciggy and a beer, I'll feel even better.

NHS malpractice costs more than smoking

2012-02-09T13:00:00.001Z

Government accounts show 'gobsmacking' costs

Estimates showing £10.9bn in unpaid tax was written off and medical negligence could cost £15.7bn are "gobsmacking", says the Commons spending watchdog.

The ten billion in unpaid tax I am fine with. The Government wastes the bulk of tax it receives anyway, so the less they get the better.

It was the fifteen billion for medical negligence that caught my eye.

This BBC article from 2009 puts the cost of smoking on the NHS at five billion. ASH have gone as far as to estimate the cost at thirteen billion, although by doing so they suggest that every citizen has the moral obligation to live as long as possible in order to keep working.

There is no report I have seen, scientific or nonsense, that puts the cost higher than this estimate on medical negligence.

Maybe those people who think the NHS shouldn't be spending any money treating people should take a look at the treaters rather than the treatees. If the NHS got it's act together it could save a lot more money than persecuting smokers has ever done.

Smoker hatred gives a large chunk of the treasury's assets to single issue groups made up of the otherwise unemployable though.

Usless product of the week

2012-02-09T08:00:00.002Z

In a consumerist society where people are hell bent on buying crap that they don't need and cant afford, companies are always trying to invent the next must have item.

Sometimes they are successful and get customers queueing through the night to buy the next model of a mobile phone; people who have probably forgotten how to use the things to make a simple call. Occasionally they will stumble across a really useful invention that actually enhances peoples lives, although the creation of the paperclip, microwave oven, ~~Sinclair C5~~ and velcro all came about in a different economy to the one we have now.

Most of the time they just invent bollocks. Like this.

Description:

USB interface
Supports USB 2.0/1.1
Plug and play
No driver required
Connect these slippers to your PC or laptop USB port and your feet will be quickly wamred by the internal heating pad
Slipper contains a warming pad that operates on safe and reliable 5 volt USB power
Just slide these slippers on your freezing feet, plug them into a USB port on your computer, and your feet will suddenly become
Super nice and toasty!
The cord is nice and long, so you'll still be able to dance around your work area, and the front of the slippers can even become detached so you can run to the bathroom or get a snack without removing your feet from these wonderful heated cocoons!

USB heated slippers. Have I seen it all now? I think so.

Bacci, Belgium, beer, blogging and other stuff that begins with B

2012-02-08T20:56:00.000Z

Went to Belgium at the weekend on another bacci run with Pat Nurse. That's partly the reason why things have been so quiet on this blog for the beginning of the week. That and I've got some unexpected time off work. I've had to book my last remaining days before starting my new job on Monday, so I've been using the time to do a bit of DIY around Moose Meadows.

I love these bacci cruises, although this is only the second one I've been on, I hope there's many more. It's not only the opportunity to stock up on cheap tobacco (cigars in my case, bacci in Mrs Buckos) and stick it to the British Government and Nu Puritans who think punitive taxes will stop us smoking, it's also a great opportunity to meet up with like minded people who we only normally speak to on the internet.

I love talking with Pat about the smoking ban and related stuff. I know many people who are strongly against the ban, but Pat is by far the most passionate.

She pointed out while we were waiting to leave the boat back in England, that none of the people leaving were taking back stacks of booze with them. Beer is cheap enough over here (for now), most people on that trip were bringing back tabacco by the boatload *ahem*.

In how many other trades can you open a specialised shop and have regular boat loads of people come from another country to spend £1000 a time there? None.

That money should really be staying in the British economy. Some say the powers that be are too stupid to realise this. They aren't. They will solve the problem and keep the money over here eventually through tax harmonisation. Unfortuantely this doesn't mean lowering British taxes to match Europe, it means raising European taxes to match ours.

It won't stop there either. Minimum alcohol prices and fat taxes are not far off.

In a few years time the entire western world will be paying through the nose for all the things they enjoy. This is supposed to be progress.

Everyone who values their own freedom needs to do what they can to oppose this, acively or passively, just in any way they can. Fat people can't afford to dislike smokers, smokers can't afford to dislike drinkers. We're all the same. We cannot fight amongst ourselves, we need to stand together to fight the new Nazis.

If we can't do that then we haven't learned a thing.

The fear, the illogical logic, it's all because of the children.

2012-02-04T12:00:00.001Z

Petition started at Blackburn pre-school following phone mast plans

A CAMPAIGN has been launched against plans to install a mobile phone mast just yards from a pre-school.

Just yards? Oh the humanity! Won't someone think of the chiiiildren!

Of course there are those who believe phone masts can be harmful to health and cause cancer and stuff that kills you dead.

And there are others who believe this is complete bunkum because there has never been any evidence to back up such claims.

And then there is the third group. They know there is no evidence:

Justine Gavahan, who runs it, said: "There isn’t any proof that mobile phone masts are dangerous, ...

but they still believe in the death rays:

...but there isn’t anything that disproves that either.”

How's that for logic? Presumably, if I told this woman that tomatoes are deadly because everyone who ate them 200 years ago is dead, she would have to give up eating tomatoes because it would be impossible to disprove my theory?

Or if I told her that second hand smoke.., oh wait, that's been done.

Highlighting concerns over the health risks related to mobile phone masts, they said their priority was to protect their children.

Well that's ok then. In the religion of thinking of the kiddies, any old nonsense is gospel.

Friday night Moose music - The uncoverables

2012-02-03T18:48:00.001Z

New music these days is generally crap in my opinion. There is also a heavy reliance on covering other peoples music, particularly among boy bands.

Cover versions have always been around but now a newbie band can easily make a career out of ripping off other peoples stuff. I've lost count of the times I've heard some young scrot sack say, "They've knicked that off Westlife!" when the oldies are on the radio.

If you are going to cover a record you need to do it as well or better than the original artist for it to be worth it's salt. Some groups have pulled off some very good cover versions in their own particular style. Others make a right bloody mess.

I'm also of the opinion that there are some records that should never be covered. No matter how good a version someone else does of them, they will always be ruining the origianl.

The following are some of those records. Enjoy.

With thank to Mrs Bucko for helping me pick em

First Double Jeopardy, now the presumtion of innocence.

2012-02-03T14:05:00.000Z

Ok so this story isn't quite on the same level as the Government scrapping double jeopardy in order to bring two men to trial for the killing of Stephen Lawrence after already being found innocent, but it does make a mockery of another tradition of British justice, this one being the presumption of innocence until found guilty.

Police vow to 'strike fear' into Lancashire burglars

POLICE have vowed to ‘strike fear’ into suspected burglars by filming them and visiting them at their homes as part of a major crackdown.
Officers will visit Lancashire’s top 30 burglary suspects, execute search warrants and increase high-visibility patrols in hot spot areas.
Suspected offenders will be filmed at different times of day and night to remind them they are being watched.

And police will form a ‘ring of steel’ around the county by using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) to target criminals travelling into Lancashire.

I'm not one to stand up in defence of toe rag burglars. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who breaks into another persons property is fair game for the noisy end of a shotgun. My problem with this is the repeated use of the word 'suspect' and the police's insistence that they will be harassing people based on their belief that they may break the law.

I am also wary of the 'ring of steel' of ANPR cameras that will be recording the movement of all of us, not even just the 'suspects'.

Preventing crime, such as the high vis patrols is certainly a good thing, but following people around and filming them is a whole other thing.

For one, I don't trust the police to only target those people who have definitely committed crimes. If the cops don't have enough evidence for a conviction, how can they have enough to ensure they are targeting the right people?
Secondly, we've all seen how annoyed the police get when you attempt to film them, yet there are many situations where they believe it is perfectly alright to film innocent members of the public.

A similar operation in July 2009 saw 440 people arrested, almost £300,000 of stolen property recovered and more than 200 search warrants executed.
Police seized 141 vehicles and visited more than 5,000 suspects.
In excess of 6,000 suspects were stopped and searched, and officers visited 880 second hand shops to search for stolen property.

So the cops visited or searched over 11,000 people yet only made 440 arrests. How many of those were convicted, we don't know.

If anyone reading this has been burgled, please let me know how long it took to get a response from the police and how much of an interest they took. Also, was the burglar ever caught?

Judging from the accounts I have heard, car theft and burglary gets little more than a crime number for the insurance from our police.

Maybe the police could properly investigate such crimes rather than following folk around with a handycam. And maybe the courts could start dishing out some proper sentences; jailing those who burgle houses rather than setting them free and keeping the prison places available for old people who can't afford their council tax.

People can follow the police activity on Twitter @LancsPolice and on hashtag #OpJulius.

It's worse than that, she's a bitch Jim

2012-02-03T08:00:00.002Z

To boldly forego: Trekkie loses his painstakingly recreated Star Trek flat to ex-wife in divorce

When Star Trek obsessive Tony Alleyne was separated from his wife, he embraced the chance to turn their old flat into a recreation of the inside of the Starship Enterprise.
But the 58-year-old's painstaking efforts may have been for nothing.
His ex-wife wants to sell up - and she intends to offer buyers a more conventional looking home.

I felt for this chap when I read his story in the Daily Mail. I'm an avid Trekkie myself, although I've never done anything quite like this. Given the opportunity, I can't say I wouldn't though.

"Mr Alleyne has spent the last ten years transforming the one-bedroom property into a sci-fi fantasy, with a computerised flight deck, flashing lights and even 'transporters'.
He is devastated by the news that his ex-wife Georgina wants to sell the flat in Hinckley, Leicestershire, where he has been living by himself since their break-up."

I'm gutted for him. He must have put so much time and money into creating that flat. He's been there for ten years now. His ex-wife doesn't want to sell the flat, she wants to destroy what he has created*. Exes can be real vindictive cows but this one takes the cake.

"'Trekkie' Mr Alleyne said it would cost at least £100,000 rebuild the interior elsewhere, according to The Sun."

*I'm guessing. To be fair, she has been paying the mortgage. I still think he should be entitled to some kind of special 'crazy Star Trek fan' dispensation. Maybe he could apply to have it turned into a listed ~~building~~ star ship. My opinion on this may have a slight bias.

Click to boldly biggen

Smoking OUTRAGE!

2012-02-02T20:57:00.000Z

'They won't let me out for a cigarette': One Born Every Minute reality show causes outrage after 17-year-old in labour reveals she was smoking while pregnant

Viewers of One Born Every Minute were left outraged last night after a teenager revealed that she continued smoking during pregnancy.
Focusing on single parents, the reality show followed 17-year-old Jessica as she went into labour at Leeds General Infirmary.
With cameras rolling at her bedside, the mother-to-be told friends that it was only hospital restrictions stopping her from having a cigarette.

My my. First world problems eh? This is all it takes to set the baying mob against a smoker these days. Well done tobacco control, what a brave new world you have created.

In one clip her boyfriend Nathaniel drinks from a can of Red Bull, as his sister Devinya asks: 'Have you been out for a cig and that?'
To which heavily pregnant Jess replies: 'I’m not allowed.'

Horror of horrors!

After the hour-long episode aired, a debate on Jess' smoking habit erupted on Facebook, attracting more than 1,300 comments.

The public makes me want to vomit. So does the press.

The fight against 'Big Sugar' is on

2012-02-02T14:05:00.000Z

Sugar tax needed, say US experts
How can anyone who proposes something as demonstrably bollocks as a sugar tax refer to themselves as 'experts?

Sugar is as damaging and addictive as alcohol or tobacco and should be regulated, claim US health experts.

It gets worse. These people are total morons yet they get themselves in international newspapers as experts.

According to a University of California team, new policies such as taxes are needed to control soaring consumption of sugar and sweeteners.
Prof Robert Lustig argues in the journal Nature for major shifts in public policy.

I've never understood the arguement for extra taxes. First a single interest group will define a (non) problem. They will then propose that the solution is to make sure poor people can't do it. The means to this end will be to give a hugely wasteful and inefficient government, even more money. One assumes the reason for this is becuase these single issue groups get the bulk of their money from that very same Government. Therefore they are not altruistic champions of public health, they are simply out to make money.

The Food and Drink Federation said "demonising" food was not helpful as the key to health was a balanced diet.

Demonising food is not helpful, but as smokers will now tell you, this is not about health. It never has been. It's about creating a bloated public health industry that is paid for by the taxpayer. It's also about dividing a nation.

Several countries are imposing taxes on unhealthy food; Denmark and Hungary have a tax on saturated fat, while France has approved a tax on soft drinks.

If Denmark, Hungary and France told you to jump in front of a bus, would you do it?

The consumption of sugar has tripled worldwide over the past 50 years, with links to obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes.

'Links to' is not hard evidence that validates serious action. Even if it were, the correct action would not be to beg the Government to impose further restrictions on an already browbeaten nation.

A bit of education would suffice; people could then make thier own choices. One of the principles of a free society is that people get to choose for themselves. Sometimes they will make the wrong choices, yet that's freedom. The most a government should do is not deny people access to the information they need to make choices. They should certainly not be interfering in personal choice.

In a comment in the journal Nature, Prof Lustig, a leading child obesity expert, says governments need to consider major shifts in policy, such as taxes, limiting sales of sweet food and drinks during school hours, or even stopping children from buying them below a certain age.

Imposing taxes and limiting sales will affect everybody, not just the fat kids that you are complaining about. Most people do not overdo it with the sugar. Most peoples sugar intake will do no harm to their health whatsoever, yet you plan to tax everybody and limit their ability to make purchases based on school hours, just to target a minority.

Banning children from buying sweet food and drink is totally wrong. It's up to childrens parents to educate them on healthy eating and decide what they are allowed to eat. Again, most children will enjoy eating some sweet things as part of a more varied diet. Why penalise all because of a few fat whaps. Ahh, but this isn't about health is it.

The professor of paediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, told the BBC: "It [sugar] meets all the criteria for societal intervention that alcohol and tobacco meet."

What criteria? Are you seriously proposing that people only be allowed to buy sugar on a premesis with the correct licence? I dispair! When smokers complained that their denormalisation was the beginning of a slippery slope, we were told that tobacco was a product unique in it's dangers and commercial availability. We were told that the tobacco control template would go no further than tobacco. Now the lie is exposed.

The researchers acknowledge that they face "an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby".

WTF?

Read that again:

"a powerful sugar lobby"

Take sugar in your tea? Well done, you're the new smokers.

The appeal that had to come

2012-02-01T14:15:00.000Z

Murderers pile on agony for the Lawrence parents: Norris and Dobson will use legal aid to appeal against convictions

THE two race-hate thugs jailed for murdering Stephen Lawrence are to appeal against their convictions, it emerged [...]
David Norris, 35, and Gary Dobson, 36, will claim that their six-week trial, which resulted in unanimous guilty verdicts, was unfair.
Their move, which will prolong the agony of Stephen’s campaigning parents Doreen and Neville, is expected to take the killers’ legal aid bill through the £1million barrier.
Gary Dobson (left) and David Norris are to appeal their convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Court of Appeal revealed today

Not having been at the trial myself, I've no real idea if it was fair. Having weighed up all the evidence available to the public, chances are the trial was very unfair.

They probably are guilty. Probably is a far cry from 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. Considering the farce of the original investigation, the heavily biased McPherson report and the original acquittals, probably is likely to be the best we can get.

Considering the fact they they were once found not guilty and that the subsequent publicity would deny them any kind of impartial trial, they should never have been back in court a second time.

This appeal was inevitable. But considering the publicity, I'm wondering if there is a judge out there who would order a retrial.

British Justice has taken a big enough hit over this debacle with the loss of Double Jeopardy. Questioning their right to appeal or to be granted access to legal aid to do so is not what we need right now.

In order to survive, the British justice system needs competent and thorough police investigations followed by solid convictions in court. There is no longer any chance of this happening with the Stephen Lawrence case. The most we can hope for now is show trials and unsafe convictions based on an assumption of guilt.

We can also hope for seriously illiberal changes to our justice system like the loss of double jeopardy and the proposed changes to the bail system after the murder of Jane Clough.

We are moving slowly towards a court of public opinion. Mass media and public pressure is doing serious damage to justice in our country.

Yes, they probably are guilty. In a free society, it is better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to prison.

(Yes I know, what if it was your kid etc, etc....)

Scrapping the crappy courses

2012-01-31T14:29:00.000Z

Most GCSE equivalents axed from school league tables

Ministers have cut the value of more than 3,100 vocational qualifications, ending their recognition in England's school league tables.

Universities began trimming the fat of their 'degrees for all' courses last year when it became apparent that students who were now forced to pay for their tuition, would no longer be opting for Mickey Mouse courses that would have no hope of preparing them for a career.

I wouldn't have expected schools to voluntarily follow suite so readily, but with a push from MPs, it looks like they will also be ditching the deadwood that allows pupils to pretend at achievement rather than working hard at it.

In opposition, David Cameron vowed to end the diploma if he came to power. That's one of the reasons why I (mistakenly) voted for him. It feels weird to see that promise coming to fruition when for the most part, the coalition has just picked up where Labour left off.

Courses such as a diploma in horse care can be worth the same as four GCSEs.

That's why it's a good thing they are going. Schools are not there to teach horse care, that's for the colleges and universities. Schools are supposed to teach life skills; educate you in things you will need for adult life, not how to look after a horse.

Reading, writing, maths, science. These are the core skills that every adult needs to make the best of their opportunities.
History, geography, literature. Learning about yourself, your country and your world.

Unfortunately though, some of these essential subjects can be boring to young people. There was a time when pupils were forced to learn them anyway. If they didn't concentrate in class, if they were disruptive, if they failed to complete their schoolwork and homework they were punished

Now our education system takes the easy road. If a child finds a subject boring, find something they like and teach them about that instead. If they are disruptive in maths class, put them in front of a horse. If they refuse to learn about Shakespear, offfer them something they will learn about, no matter how irrelevant to their education. And if you find something that will engage their brains, give them four GCSEs for the price of one. Never mind you didn't pass maths and English, your horse care diploma more than makes up for it.

Other examples of courses that will not be included in future league tables are the level 1 certificate in practical office skills;

Ahh yes, the level on Gofer. Best learned in an office environment.

the BTEC level 2 extended certificate in fish husbandry;

In school, not college?

and the level 2 certificate in nail technology services,

Really? How much technology is there in a nail. It's long, sharp and holds wood together....oh...

all currently worth two GCSEs.

Which does nothing more than devalue real GCSEs in my opinion.

But from 2014, only 70 "equivalents" will count in the tables' headline GCSE measure and on a like-for-like basis with GCSEs.

The government says this has created "perverse incentives" for schools to offer them and boost their position.

The move could make schools less likely to continue to offer such qualifications, and the government has instructed them to wait for its final list before changing their timetables for September 2012.

Education Secretary Michael Gove said the changes would extend opportunity because only qualifications which had demonstrated rigour, and had track records of taking young people into good jobs or university, would count in the future.

Getting children to pass something, just so they have qualifications when they leave school is doing so much more harm than good. A piece of paper that says degree or diploma or GCSE is worth nothing without the skills and knowledge needed.

Children are not, and never have been at school to learn about the things that they like and the things that interest them only. They are there to learn the things they need for life.

Adults decide what those things are, or at least they did, because a child will pick like over dislike every time.

Others feared the move might undervalue vocational qualifications altogether and have a negative impact upon disengaged young people who are often encouraged by such courses.

I'm not really sure what disengaged means but I'll assume it means can't be bothered with school. Teachers should not be encouraging 'disengaged' young people by allowing them to learn whatever the hell they want and ignore the rest. Teachers should be 're-engaging' those children by insisting they become involved in the education that is given to them. With punishment if necessary. Children need clear boundaries discipline and rules in education, not the choice to do as they please.

Prof Wolf said: "Vocational studies can form a stimulating and demanding part of the curriculum. But pretending that all vocational qualifications are equally valuable does not bring them respect."

"Innit". Stop getting down wiv da yoof and give them a real education instead. Scrapping these courses will be a good start.

The even bigger, big breakfast.

2012-01-30T14:22:00.000Z

It seems that this £10 mammoth fry up is not enough for some breakfast eaters. The owners of a diner in Gt Yarmouth have got themselves in the Daily Mail by creating an even bigger breakfast - much to the abject horror of 'health campaigners'.
The REALLY big breakfast: 6,000 calorie fry-up is slammed by health campaigners... but a hit with diners

I love the headline. Health campaigners hate it but the folk who eat it, love it. Freedom of choice always seems to have the righteous getting their undercrackers in a twist. That must be why it is currently the most persecuted of human values. When we're free to choose, we may just choose to put half a pig on our breakfast plate.

A monster breakfast which weighs the same as a small child and could potentially kill diners is attracting criticism from angry health campaigners
The Kidz Breakfast at Jesters Diner in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, includes 12 rashers of bacon, 12 sausages and six eggs and weighs on average 9lb - 1lb 5oz more than the average newborn baby.
Health experts are demanding its removal from the menu and are warning someone with a heart condition could die if they eat it, with each helping amounting to at least 6,000 calories, up to three days' food intake for an average person.

I would like to think that a person with a heart condition would not attempt to tackle such a feast. They would at least be aware that it wasn't a very good idea and be able to make an informed choice. That's not good enough for the health fascists though. It must be banned; removed from the menu so nobody can have a go at it.

Greasy spoon owner Martin Smith said the gigantic breakfast, which comes on a 2.5 sq ft plate, is 'just a bit of fun', with the menu inviting diners to tuck in and 'leave a stone heavier'.
The diner owner has refused to take his big breakfast off the menu but has agreed to help raise money for the HeartCare charity.

Should have just told them to get stuffed. Now your breakfast will be contributing money to a charity that will use it to hector you and bully you about that same breakfast.

The breakfast has not yet been assessed by Guinness World Records, but according to records would take the title of the largest commercially available English breakfast.
The current holder, as of 1 December 2009, could be bought at Mario’s Cafe Bar in Westhoughton, Bolton, weighing an average of 6lb 7oz.

Blogging may be light for a while. I'm off to Gt Yarmouth. *Slobber*

Friday night Moose music - Fat tax edition

2012-01-27T19:49:00.000Z

The changeover went flawlessly, so here's some celebratory music

Mrs B is stuck on the motorway coming back from London so I'm off to the pub. Happy Friday.

The changeover

2012-01-26T21:00:00.001Z

I'm changing my internet provider from Talk Talk (pants) to BT (mixed reports). I've been asking around everyone I come in contact with about their service providers and how good they are.

So far I've had 50% good reports and 50% bad reports for every provider, which didn't really help me make a choice. In the end I found a fairly cheap, 25meg (17-19 at my address), totally unlimited package from BT that sounds quite good so I took the plunge.

The changeover is supposed to be happening by midnight tomorrow.

If everything goes black at Moose Meadows, there's no need to send the dogs in, it's just a problem with my new connection (It's bound to happen).

A rule for one, school rules for the others.

2012-01-26T08:00:00.001Z

Parents slam Solihull school after pupils are sent home in uniform crackdown

Claire Thomason, of Chelmsley Wood, claimed the crackdown was harming the education of her 13-year-old son Matthew Lee.

Depends on your point of view I suppose. It could be argued that by sending your kid to school in the wrong uniform, it's you who is harming his education.

She claimed parents had no warning of the detailed uniform inspection, carried out on the first morning after the half-term break.

All the best inspections come without a warning.

Matthew was excluded from class for wearing black sports shoes, complete with a green crocodile designer motif.
The school’s uniform guidelines state pupils must wear plain black shoes.
But part-time receptionist Ms Thomason, aged 32, said Matthew had worn the same style of shoes since September without incident.

I love that excuse. I have met and continue to meet that and similar excuses often in various situations. It's usually accompanied by an indignant face; the face of a person who has been caught doing something they know to be wrong and is desperately trying to worm out of it.

"You've never complained before?"
"I've never had to do that before?"
"But there's NO SIGNS!!"

“There have been no complaints before so I was surprised by the school’s change in attitude.
“If the shoes were OK before, why have they suddenly become unacceptable?”

The shoes were not ok before. The school uniform states, and has always stated, plain black shoes, not trainers.

But this is the best one:

“The shoes cost more than £70 and I cannot afford to buy a new pair until I get paid next month.
She said she was disgusted by the reaction of school staff when she informed them of her financial difficulties.
“A teacher told me to go to Asda and buy a pair for a tenner and claimed I should be able to afford that. I was horrified,” she said.

Horrified! I can afford a seventy quid pair of designer trainers to send my child to school in, but I can't afford a pair of standard school shoes from George. Oh the humanity! Won't somebody think of the trainers! Blub, wail!

It's not just the refusal to adhere to uniform code either, it seems he is a bit of an unruly brat as well. Of course to his mother he is an angel who can do no wrong.

Ms Thomason said Matthew was hard-working but a “bit of a joker.”
She claimed he was victimised by school staff and regularly excluded from class.

Your kid is regularly in trouble at school but you are happy to believe it is all his teachers fault, even to the point of letting him think his behaviour is acceptable and he is being victimised?

Who is harming this kids education again?

(When I worked in the pubs I once got bollocked off an area manager for turning up to a business meeting in black trainers. I started to explain that I had ripped the sole of one of my shoes the previous day but he cut me off and said I could have easily picked up a pair on the way to the meeting. Lame excuses do not wash in real life, as this kid will one day find out, probably the hard way)

It's a good job handguns are illegal

2012-01-25T20:51:00.000Z

Otherwise me may not get to see videos of old men fending off armed robbers with nothing more than a mop.

If that old fellah had been armed with a handgun there would have been very little to see here. Fortunately, as long as we ensure frightened old men are unable to adequately defend themselves and their property, we will continue to get these little titbits for our entertainment.

/sarc

Socialism in the White House. It's only taken 60 years or so.

2012-01-25T19:46:00.000Z

Obama urges economic fairness in State of the Union

US President Barack Obama has attacked income inequality as he set the tone for his re-election bid in his third State of the Union speech.

Income inequality is a term used in the socialist politics of envy. It doesn't mean higher incomes for lower earners, it means taking money from the wealthy by force, in the form of taxes, and redistributing it to those who didn't earn it. Obama seems to want to be elected on the 'rich bashing' agenda that suits so many people who have made nothing from themselves and whose only consolation is to blame people who have done well.

The speech saw a renewed call for higher taxes on the wealthy, something Republicans strongly oppose.

He was defiant too, about the different visions on offer in the election. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well - while a growing number of Americans barely get by - or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake, he said, are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

This reminds me of the time Tony Blair refered to New Labour as the 'Political wing of the British people'. If that's the case then who needs any other party. If Obama is for 'American values', rather than Democratic or Republican, who needs to vote for any other President.

But what are American values? Did they not used to be about freedom and Capitalism? Is Obama now saying that they are about taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth until everyone is level on the lowest common denominator? That sounds more like old Eastern Bloc values than traditional American ones

Mr Obama also made a renewed call for his Buffett Rule - a principle that millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than typical workers.
The idea is named after billionare investor Warren Buffett, who famously complained that his secretary pays a higher rate of tax than he does.

Complained did he? Did he complain while he was writing a large cheque to the IRS?

Pledging no tax increases for those earning under $250,000 (£160,000), Mr Obama said: "If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30% in taxes."
"Now, you can call this class warfare all you want," he added. "But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense."

When you word it like that...

But you are talking percentages and missing the point. A billionaire paying only 7% of his income in taxes will pay more tax in one year than I will pay in my entire life. Surely there must come a time when you have paid enough tax. Comparing the tax percentage rate of a billionaire to a secretary is just muddling words.

Republicans have repeatedly rejected Mr Obama's call for higher taxes on the wealthy and accuse him of resorting to class warfare to get elected again.

Agreed

President Obama said there would be "no bailouts, no handouts, no cop-outs"

What does that mean exactly?

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, delivering the Republican Party's response to Mr Obama's speech, called it "pro-poverty".
He said: "No feature of the Obama presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favour with some Americans by castigating others."

Hey we know how that works, we've lived with it since the dawn of Tony Blair. It isn't nice and you need to do all you can to put an end to it.

Earlier, one of those contenders, Mitt Romney, was forced by political pressure to release his tax returns.
The forms revealed the private equity tycoon earned nearly $22m in 2010 and paid an effective tax rate of about 14%, a lower rate than most other Americans pay.

What's 14% of 22million? It's £3,080,000. Three million quid a year in taxes is certainly not lower than most Americans pay. And they want more? To do what with? Start more foreign wars probably. Iran anyone?

Opinion polls show his approval numbers languishing beneath 50%, with most Americans disapproving of how he has handled the economy.

Good. Get Ron Paul elected.

It was the SMOKING BAN!

2012-01-24T20:45:00.000Z

MORE than a thousand traditional neighbourhood pubs have shut in the past two years, figures show.

They spell the death of the suburban local typified by TV’s Queen Vic and the Rovers Return.
As many suburban premises are calling time as those in city centres, high streets and rural areas combined.

These little stories about the death of the traditional British pub keep cropping up from time to time. I long for the day when the MSM grows a set big enough to question the figures and look for the truthful reason.

They have been hit hard by supermarket prices, tax rises, “greedy owners” and a fall in pub-going, says The Campaign for Real Ale, which compiled the figures.

Lame CAMRA, very lame. Supermarket prices have always been a damn site cheaper than pubs. They sell booze, pubs sell an evenings entertainment.

By "greedy owners" I'm assuming you're referring to the breweries and pubco's. In my experience they certainly can be a bit over the top with rents and ties. A tenant needs to be constantly on the ball when negotiating deals, but pubco's don't go as far as to purposely price themselves out of business.

As to a fall in pub going, why is that? Why are more people staying at home and choosing to take more advantage of cheaper off sales booze rather than spend an evening down the pub?

The smoking ban.

The smoking ban.

The smoking ban.

Let's have the courage to face facts and question the ban. Let's acknowledge the damage it has done.

I'll give you tax rises. Between the demands of Government and the health puritans, taxes are getting silly.
That's the lesser issue though. Come on MSM, question the ban. Stop being a mouthpiece for prohibition.

Boris Johnson. I think you miss the point, my son.

2012-01-24T11:33:00.000Z

There are 30,000 job vacancies in London but young Brits don't have the right work ethic, says Boris

More than one in five 16-24-year-olds are unemployed
Mr Johnson said Brits don't have the same 'energy' to get jobs as foreigners

Unemployed young people need to learn lessons from the hard-working immigrants who have taken their jobs, Boris Johnson said last night.
The Mayor of London said that the younger generation are missing out on jobs because they do not have the same ‘energy to go out and get them’ as the foreigners being employed in this country.
Speaking a day after youth unemployment broke records, Mr Johnson said that there are vacancies, but British young people do not have the right work ethic.

I'm actually quite surprised that this statement from the Mayor of London didn't create a 'storm of protest'. After all, we are supposed to hand jobs to young people on a plate these days. Heaven forbid they are made to get of their arses and look for work.

‘London is a fantastic creator of jobs – but many of these jobs are going to people who don’t originate in this country,’ he said.
‘They are hard-working, good people, and we need to learn from them and understand what it is that they have got that makes them able to get those jobs that young Londoners don’t have.’

Well Mr Johnson, you do surprise me. You really don't understand why young British people do not have a work ethic? Then I'll try to explain.

Today's young people have grown up in a heavily watered down education system. Qualifications have never been easier to get and everyone is told they can go to university if they want to. New courses have been created for those who do not have the aptitude to complete traditional university courses. The impression is given that a degree, regardless of the subject, will guarantee a good job.

School children are not given any real career direction. If they want to be a footballer or a contestant on the X-Factor, these dreams, however rubbish, must not be discouraged by teachers.

There is no longer any competition between pupils. All are equal, all are reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Education is not the only problem. The society they have been brought up in is one of entitlement. Everyone is taught that they can have their desires fulfilled by others if they cannot do it themselves. Anything you cannot afford will be bought for you by the taxpayer. We are all equal so must be entitled to equal things.

This breeds consumerism. Kids are not content unless someone else buys them the latest gadgets and the latest designer clothes. Budget options are simply no option. All possessions must be the best.

This of course is all paid for by the taxpayer in the form of many and varied benefits. A lot of these young people have grown up in families where nobody works and nobody has done for a long time. Sometimes never.

When their family and their friends families are getting by well enough without ever having to do any work, where is the incentive for them to work. When they can have all the possessions they want without having to pay for them, where is the incentive to work.

Even where they do want to work, if they have a degree in forensic science, where is the incentive to take on a manual job? Why not remain on benefits while you complain that there are no jobs available as a CSI. Particularly after your secondary school teachers encouraged you in your career dreams.

It's not just the young either. Many adults are very comfortable in the benefits trap.

He said: ‘There are large numbers of job vacancies. Why are young people not taking up those jobs? How can we help them? That is the key problem for our economy.

I think that's the problem you are missing Boris. Maybe it's time for the help to stop. Society needs to learn to survive as individuals once again, rather than being a state dependant collective.

Education needs to be difficult and challenging. Career advisers need to show some realism. Entitlement needs to end and acquisition of consumer products needs to come through work. Benefits need to be scaled well back until they are only a stopgap providing the bare minimum of support while someone is out of work through no fault of their own.
We won't do this though will we. The Governments solution to any problem is to throw more money at it. Real solutions to our problems will take years to achieve. Even when the Government does propose a realistic start, it gets blocked by the bleeding hearts in the church and the opposition.

As long as people like yourself keep asking, "What can the Government do to help?", Boris, all that will ever happen is further harm. To solve our country's problems will take action that few current politicians will have the courage to contemplate.

It's official...

2012-01-24T07:41:00.000Z

...Susan Boyle is a mong.

Ofcom said that in the name of freedom of expression, no word was banned after the TV watershed.
However, there must be a good reason for using language many people find offensive.

I'm beginning to get the impression that Ricky Gervais is set to be the new Jeremy Clarkson. Personally I prefer a comedian who makes me laugh, to one who gains his fame through manufactured controversy.

That must be my old fashioned streak.

So the proposed benefits cap has been blocked...

2012-01-23T22:03:00.000Z

... by a Bishop.

The amendment on child benefit was put down by Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer.
He said child benefit was "a universal benefit" and it was "wrong to see it as being a welfare benefit".
"It's a benefit which is there for all children, for the bringing up of all children and to say that the only people who cannot have child benefit are those whose welfare benefits have been capped seems to me to be a quite extraordinary argument."

Giving in excess of 26k of free cash to out of work families seems extraordinary to me. If anything it should be less.

But Work and Pensions Secretary Duncan Smith has said any defeats will be overturned when the legislation returns to the Commons.

I surely hope so.

Won't somebody think of the heavily armed children?

2012-01-23T14:00:00.003Z

Hundreds of primary school children licensed to use shotguns - including one aged SEVEN

Hundreds of primary school-age children have been granted shotgun licences over the past three years, figures have revealed on the day MPs are due to debate a possible ban.
Between 2008 and 2010, a total of 281 children aged 11 and under were granted licences – one of them as young as seven.
Five licences were granted to eight-year-olds, 25 to those aged nine, while no fewer than 92 went to 10-year-olds. Another 158 licences were given to children aged 11.

The Daily Mail just love a good scare story.
How many of these children have used their guns for criminal purposes? None.
How many accidents have happened with these guns resulting in death or injury? None.
How many of these children are allowed to handle a weapon unsupervised? None.
How many of these children need to be supervised at all times by an adult with their own gun licence? All of them.
How many children have had a licence revoked in the past ten years? Two. (Not for gun related offences)

Of course none of this is mentioned in the article as it doesn't make for a good scare story.

The disturbing statistics – higher than previously thought – emerge on the day that the Commons is due to debate whether under-10s should be banned from being granted licenses to use shotguns.

I would hardly call these figures disturbing. I find it quite refreshing that some young children are being given the opportunity to grow up in an environment of sensible gun ownership. They will be the next generation of responsible gun owners rather than the next generation of criminals.

Statistics I would find disturbing are those for the number of illegal guns in the hands of children.

Again, no mention of that. There is no point in calling for a ban on something that is already illegal, even though it is only those guns that we actually have a serious problem with.

At present, they may not be given licences for other firearms, such as revolvers, until they are 14.

Come on DM, get it right. Revolvers, along with all other handguns were outlawed during Labours last round of illiberal gun control.

But there is no lower limit for shotguns. The decision to grant a licence rests with a senior police officer, and all under-18s must have an adult over 21 with a firearms licence to vouch for them.

And it works just fine. The gun control network say that, "Guns and kids don't mix", yet they have no basis or evidence for that statement. There is no problem with the current system so it doesn't need changing.

If anything it should be relaxed.

Nannied if you do, nannied if don't.

2012-01-23T09:48:00.000Z

How diets are destroyed by home cooking: Large portions and clearing a plate blamed

Dieters relying on healthy home-cooked meals wreck their efforts to slim by dishing up large portions and feeling obliged to finish everything on their plate, a survey has found.
The study from Weight Watchers has revealed that the increasing trend for home-cooking, led by celebrity chefs, TV shows such as Come Dine With Me and the need to save money, can have unexpectedly fattening consequences.

Well wadda ya know! Takeaways make you fat and now home cooking makes you fat.

There's some interesting wording in that statement too. The increasing trend for home cooking is apparently to be blamed on celebrity chefs, yet our nanny Government has been pushing home cooking for ages. It is also blamed on the need to save money, yet that same nanny Government keeps telling us that everyone eats unhealthy processed and takeaway food because it is cheaper.

So in whose interest is it to move people away from home cooking and on to cheap ready-meals? Maybe a company that produces cheap ready meals, such as Weight Watchers?

The survey also found that although 57 per cent believed they dish up the recommended portion sizes, only 14 per cent of people actually did.

There are recommended portion sizes for meals you cook at home? Surely people are able to judge for themselves how much food they need to eat without nannying advice.

Warnings over obesity levels have mainly concentrated on what is bought from takeaways or fast-food outlets, which last year triggered the launch of the Government initiative, The Public Health Responsibility Deal.
But now Weight Watchers suggests that education on healthy eating needs to begin much closer to home.

Great. Isn't there enough busybodying from the Government and it's lobby groups without having them pester us on how much food we cook at home. Home cooking has been around since the dawn of man. Government intervention has never been necessary in the past, but I suppose if you are trying to breed a nation of state dependant imbeciles, you can't allow them the sanctity of privacy in their own houses.

Two out of three (68 per cent) questioned aim to dine at home more this month.

These people must have a bit of money. My aim is always to dine out more, yet I can rarely afford it.

A quarter of those (24 per cent) say this was to cut calories, nearly a quarter say they want to be healthier and 54per cent saying it was to save cash, many will struggle to reach their weight loss goals judging by the common eating-in mistakes identified in the report:

None of this however, is any business of the Government. Please let's not start throwing away more taxpayers money in an effort to 'do something'.

Friday night Moose music - Dance like yer dad 4

2012-01-20T16:00:00.001Z

Comment under this video on Youtube:

""HEY THESE GUYS ARE RIPPING OFF JUSTIN BIEBERS HAIRSTYLE. THATS BULLSHIT, THEY SHOULD TRY AND BE ORIGINAL.
NSA666999 5 days ago""

I dispair!

Them dancers were in time, what?

Irish TV tax

2012-01-20T08:00:00.002Z

I posted at the weekend about how to legally avoid the television licence. It seems however, the Irish are way ahead of me.

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources Pat Rabbitte wants to replace the television licence fee with a household broadcasting charge.
Mr Rabbitte said his department is committed to examining the role and collection of the licence fee and to transforming it into a household-based charge under the Programme for Government.
The existing system and the efficacy of collection need to be examined because of changes in technology and the continued evasion of the TV licence, Mr Rabbitte added.

Some people are not paying the TV licence fee but still watching TV. Others will be following similar steps to those I laid out in my post linked to above. One is illegal, the other is not. This Irish minister has decided that every household in Ireland should be forced to pay the fee by default, regardless of weather they watch or own a TV. He is concerned that modern technology is making evasion easier.

“A huge number of the population now get their news not from sitting down and watching the nine o'clock news but accessing the arrangements that the public service broadcaster has put in place.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean but Grandad has a response:

Now what in the name of fuck is that about? Is he complaining that we read the RTE website instead of watching the news? If RTE are moaning about that then why do they have a website in the first place? That’s equivalent to complaining that we get our news from local gossip instead of the radio.

If this is the case, many websites are funded by advertising which is driven by traffic. A household fee will charge everyone for using a service that many will not be. Although strenuously denied, this will just turn the telly licence into another tax.

“There is and continues to be significant evasion - anywhere between 14 and 18 per cent or in excess of €25 million in lost revenue - from failure to collect from people who do have a television but don’t pay the existing license.”

It is your responsibility to individually target lawbreakers, not make everybody pay just to be sure you get all those that are using the service.

“Those of us that believe in public service broadcasting need to ensure that in the future there is a sound financial framework for supporting public service broadcasting,” he told RTÉ radio this morning.

And what of those of us who don't believe in public service broadcasting? Do we not get a say?

He said his department is examining how to levy and collect the charge, but he denied it would be is an additional tax on households, saying anyone who currently pays their existing licence had “nothing to fear”.

If everyone is forced to pay then it is a tax. Nothing more, nothing less. And what of those who don't have a TV? What do they have to fear?

Mr Rabbitte admitted it would be difficult to “strip out” households that genuinely don’t have a television or computer from those simply evading the licence. He said proposals would have to be run past the attorney general to make sure they are as “legally firm as possible”.

That's just lazy lawmaking. Difficult or not, it's your job to distinguish between those who use a TV and those who do not.

As more and more people opt out of paying for the BBC, a telly tax similar to this one will be become more probable over here too. I doubt the BBC will try to fund itself through advertising or subscription. It would probably be dead in no time at all.

Polish speaking person required to help out with this blog

2012-01-19T18:45:00.000Z

My Polish readership has been growing steadily lately so I've decided to include a few polish posts about things that Polish people like.

The trouble is, I don't speak or write Polish and I've no idea what they like to read about. Therefore, I need to hire a Polish person to assist me.

The trouble is, I have no idea how to advertise for one without creating a storm of outrage. I really don't want to end up in the same boat as this chap:

Shopkeeper under fire for advertising for assistant and insisting they speak POLISH

A shopkeeper who is recruiting an assistant has infuriated jobseekers - by turning away anyone who doesn't speak Polish.
Naveed Hassam placed an advert in the window of Costcutter in Bodmin, Cornwall, stating that a 'knowledge of Polish' was 'preferable' for the position.
But he has been forced to withdraw the ad after a string of complaints from unemployed local people desperate for work.

I could understand the concern if this chap was advertising a job that was only available to a foreign immigrant, but he's only asking for a Polish speaker. He's obviously not Polish himself so it's not like he is only opening the job to his own countrymen, he's specified a skill that is required for the job. Is this legal?

A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said: 'An employer can say it needs someone who can speak a specific language to do a job if that is a genuine requirement, for example for a translator role.
'This is lawful if the focus is on the skill needed to do the job, not the nationality of the person sought.'

So it is legal if knowledge of the Polish tongue is a requirement for the job. But why would a costcutter need to hire a Polish speaker?

Mr Hassam said:
'We have a lot of people from Poland coming into the shop and I wanted someone who could understand Polish so they could order products for me and read what they are because I can't read Polish.

'I just thought employing someone with a knowledge of Polish culture would mean we could provide them with a better service.'

Sounds fair to me.

The supermarket has a Polish food section and sells the Poland Express newspaper.

I don't see discrimination here, I see a businessman doing what businessmen do, catering for the wants and needs of his customers.

Paul Baynon, 23, a local jobseeker, said: 'They asked me if I spoke Polish, and when I said no, they said that is what they were looking for, so I didn't have a chance.
'They didn't say in the ad that they wanted a translator.'

Unemployed local Robert Mill, 27, said: 'I would have liked the job at Costcutter because jobs are hard to come by in the town.
'I enquired about the position but I can't speak Polish.'

If I really wanted this job I could wail and moan about the unfairness of it all until Mr Hassam was forced to give it to me, but what would I do on my fist day at work when he explained that I was responsible for sourcing and ordering the Polish products? Demand that he hire a translator for me?

The number of Polish migrant workers living in Bodmin - population 13,000 - is not known.
But according to Cornwall Council's local education authority, there are currently only 23 primary and seven secondary school children attending schools in the area whose first language is Polish.

So the council have no idea how many childless Polish people live within it's boundaries?

Latest figures for unemployment show that 22 per cent of homes in Cornwall - or 36,200 out of 163,500 households - have no adult working.
Across the South West, more than 277,000 of 1.6 million households were unemployed, representing more than 16 per cent.

Those figures are appalling but bear no relevance to this story. Mr Hassam did not create Britain's unemployed, all he wants to do is provide a good service for his customers.

If local people are concerned that local businesses are employing foreigners, they need to turn to the government, not local businesses. If immigration is taking away needed jobs then immigration needs to be halted.

If a local businessman wants to hire an employee with a skill relevant to the position then he should be allowed to do so.

Thoughts?

Fascism begins in school

2012-01-19T08:00:00.001Z

A PROPAGANDA programme from Brussels to “brainwash” British children in the classroom should be halted, critics said yesterday.

The call comes after a new video shows the EU official responsible for teaching aids for UK schools blatantly admitting the desire to get to youngsters “early enough”.

The programme is to convince them it is good to be in the EU before they “form prejudices and are misinformed by other sources”.

Express - EU Education video on MUZU.TV

Ukip deputy leader and education spokesman Paul Nuttall MEP said: “It is what we always suspected but could never prove. Now we can. They [the EU] are effectively using our cash to brainwash our children. And it has to stop.’’

Indeed it does. Where's our referendum?

Criminal responsibility

2012-01-18T21:55:00.001Z

Minister rejects calls by thinktank to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12

Controversial new proposals set out by a thinktank set up by Iain Duncan Smith say no child should be prosecuted for any crime, whether it be shoplifting or murder, until they are at least 12.
The current age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is ten.
It is likely to spark fierce debate among ministers - not least because under the proposals Robert Thompson and Jon Venables would have escaped justice for murdering toddler James Bulger in 1993 as they had just turned 10.

I thought children were growing up faster these days? Raising the age of criminal responsibility is not the way to go. On the contrary, we should be lowering it to eight.

Fewer children should be sent to jail, the prisons minister said yesterday as he rejected calls to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12.
Crispin Blunt said he did not believe that offending by youngsters should automatically lead to prosecution.
And he called for the introduction of ‘restorative justice’, under which young offenders are made to apologise to their victims rather than receiving a stiff punishment.

Rejecting the change to twelve is right, but restorative justice is just plain bollocks. Now is certainly not the time to be removing responsibility from young hoodlums and going easy on punishment.

What's in a nugget

2012-01-18T08:00:00.001Z

I stumbled across this little nugget *ahem* while looking for a weather forecast.

What's in Fast Food Chicken? (Hint: It’s NOT Chicken)
Shilo Urban
OrganicAuthority

The blatant lie in the title, 'It's not chicken', lays bare the bias that is to follow in the article.

Frying chicken is fairly simple, if a little messy. You dip pieces of chicken into a mix of egg and milk, roll them around in flour and spices, then cook the chicken in sizzling hot oil until the pieces are brown, crispy and delicious.

Sounds good, but this ain't no cookery course.

But wait! Don’t forget to add a dash of dimethylpolysiloxane, an anti-foaming agent made of silicone that is also used in Silly Putty and cosmetics.

Oh no! A chemical with a long name that's used in cosmetics? Well that simply must be bad for us?
Not according to the World Heath Organisation who have studied it in depth.

This compound has been evaluated for acceptable daily intake by
    the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (see Annex 1,
    Ref. No. 20) in 1969.

What other horrors have we in a nugget?

Now add a heaping spoonful of tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), which is a chemical preservative and a form of butane (AKA lighter fluid). One gram of TBHQ can cause “nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse," according to A Consumer’s Dictionary of Food Additives. Five grams of TBHQ can kill you.

Yes it can do all those dreadful things, however it constitutes 0.02% of the fats it is added to, not a 'heaped spoonful'.

TBHQ is a highly effective antioxidant.[1] In foods, it is used as a preservative for unsaturated vegetable oils and many edible animal fats.[2] It does not cause discoloration even in the presence of iron, and does not change flavor or odor of the material to which it is added.[1] It can be combined with other preservatives such as butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA). As a food additive, its E number is E319. It is added to a wide range of foods, with the highest limit (1000 mg/kg) permitted for frozen fish and fish products. Its primary advantage is enhancing storage life.

Oohh Deadly

Sprinkle on thirteen other corn-derived ingredients, and you're only about twenty shy as many ingredients as a single chicken nugget from McDonald’s. And you were using pulverized chicken skin and mechanically reclaimed meat for your chicken, right?

However chicken only accounts for about 50% of a Chicken McNugget. The other 50% includes a large percentage of corn derivatives, sugars, leavening agents and other completely synthetic ingredients, meaning that parts of the nugget do not come from a field or farm at all. They come from a petroleum plant. Hungry?

I'm sure all those chemicals are just as horrid as the two you have already named. As for mechanically reclaimed meat and all those other ingredients, the basic fact of the matter is, they are all edible. They are also harmless. You would make yourself ill if you lived on a diet of chicken nuggets, but that's the same of any foods.

I have had veggies say to me, "You do realise you are eating animal flesh?". My response is that calling it animal flesh or pig anus or whatever, does not make it any less edible, safe or tasty. Neither does it put me off my food because I am well aware of where the meat on the supermarket shelf comes from.

Most people these days are aware of the crap that is in a chicken nugget. Many would choose not to eat them. Personally I think they taste gorgeous, and from time to time I will grab a bag from Iceland. Telling me that they contain all these hard to pronounce chemicals will not put me off as long as they are safe and edible and as long as a nugget continues to make my mouth water.

No one in his or her right mind would cook chicken like this. Yet every day, hoards of Americans consume these ingredients in Chicken McNuggets, which McDonalds claims are “made with white meat, wrapped up in a crisp tempura batter.”

That's their choice, is it not?

Scariest perhaps is the fact that this recipe is a new and improved, “healthier” Chicken McNugget launched in 2003 after a federal judge called the deep-fried poultry bites “a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook.”

There are many and varied ingredients used in fast food or off the shelf meals that we would not use to cook with at home. The main reason for this is that we have no need to preserve our home cooked food. We cook it and consume it while it is still warm.

Also terrifying is the fact that these McFrankenuggets are overwhelmingly marketed to children who love their fun shapes and kid-friendly size.

Marketed with children in mind they may be, but children do not have any money. Parents buy food for children and it is up to the parents to give their kids a proper diet. Food such as chicken nuggets can be eaten as part of a varied diet with no problems. That's hardly terrifying is it?

Eating fast food is a habit, but it is one that you can break? No doubt you rarely plan to have a delicious meal at Arby’s for dinner, a lingering lunch at Carl’s Jr. or a special breakfast at the Burger King in the airport. It just happens. You are late, tired, hungry, broke, or all of the above. You have no time, and you must find something to eat before you crash. All of a sudden a bright, friendly sign beckons from the side of the road: Drive-through!

I do plan a delicious meal from McDonalds every now and then. I tend to eat roughly one take away meal per week, be it a kebab, fish and chips or a pile of McDonalds burgers (One is never enough). For those people who use fast for in the way it was intended, buying a quick and filling meal while on the go, how lucky they are to have people like you who try to take that option from them for their own good.

In five minutes you are happily chowing down on an inexpensive, filling meal. But don’t be fooled – the true cost of fast food does not come out of your wallet, but out of your body, your health, and your years on this earth.

Only if every day is fast food day. Most of us just use fast food as an occasional treat, and I would like to continue to do so, thank you very much.

You can break the unhealthy fast food habit: educate yourself about the true ingredients of fast food items, plan ahead for your meals, carry healthy snacks like nuts to ward off hunger and cook healthy chicken recipes at home. Convince yourself that fast food is the most disgusting stuff on the planet and is harmful to you and to those you love. After reading this, that shouldn’t be too hard.

You were doing so well. You started off with a few words of good advice but turned sour. Fast food is far from disgusting. The examples you have used of 'deadly' ingredients would not put anyone with a bit of nouse off eating them.

Fast food, like all things, should be enjoyed in moderation.

Full ingredient list for a Chicken McNugget (from McDonald’s website):

White boneless chicken, water, food starch-modified, salt, seasoning (autolyzed yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (botanical source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (canola oil, mono- and diglycerides, extractives of rosemary). Battered and breaded with: water, enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, food starch-modified, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, whey, corn starch. Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness). Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent.

Read the ingredients of any canned or packet food in your cupboards and see how many of them items you spot. The vitamins and minerals in that list can be found on the side of any cornflakes packet.

A 'Health Boss' stands up for smokers

2012-01-17T20:59:00.001Z

Health bosses propose to create 'smoking courtyards' at East Lancashire hospitals

NEW internal smoking areas could be created at East Lancashire’s hospitals to stop people smoking at entrance doors.

Read that again. I'm sure the smoking ban has not been repealed, so the legality of internal smoking areas in a hospital is questionable and not explained in the article. It could be a proposal that will go nowhere, or it could be an example of a council doing as they please regardless of the law. If it's the second option then it's one that will get no argument from me in this case.

What is important is that somebody with decision making power is speaking publicly in favour of catering to smokers. AsTESCO keep telling us, every little helps.

In response to this:

Speaking at the trust’s latest board meeting, Mark Brearley, East Lancashire Hospitals’ chief executive, said: “We’ve had a number of complaints from patients and visitors who feel that they have to walk through a cloud of smoke to come in here.

Non-executive director Elizabeth Sedgely suggested that the trust could follow the lead of big businesses and ban smoking on its sites entirely.

a typical proposal for a complete ban, regardless of the wishes and needs of patients and visitors, we get this:

But Lynn Wissett, deputy chief executive at the trust, said: “Given the statistics I have just laid out we know we could enforce a total smoking ban but the likelihood of that happening is nil.
“Sometimes we have some very vulnerable, sick people who are addicted to smoking and we have to acknowledge that.
“We can’t have people saying if I can’t smoke I won’t come and get the treatment I need.
“We’ve got people coming here in their 80s, they have smoked all their life and they are coming here to die. Are we to say to them you can’t smoke in the last days of your life?
She said the proposed solution was to create an internal courtyard smoking area for patients, which carers and relatives could also access in certain circumstances, such as following a bereavement.

Gets my seal of approval, it's certainly a start. So is this something we can expect soon?

East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust has launched a six-month study to decide how to solve the problem at Royal Blackburn and Burnley General hospitals after complaints from patients, visitors and staff.

Of course. A study. I hope they come to the right conclusions.

The article might give a ray of hope but the comments from the anti smokers are typically vile.

Thin skinned person of the week, plus crappy excuse bonus.

2012-01-17T19:52:00.000Z

Aintree woman’s fury over Liberal Democrat nutters leaflet ‘slur’

A MERSEYSIDE woman today told of her outrage after a political party appeared to brand her and other voters as "nutters".
The phrase was used by Sefton Liberal Democrats in a document naming residents blacklisted from receiving a party newsletter, which was accidentally posted through a neighbour’s door.
Trade unionist Claire Traynor, 32, and her partner were named with four others who live near her Aintree home in a column headed: "NUTTERS. Please DO NOT deliver to:"

LOL! It's a bit cheeky referring to voters as nutters but I wouldn't personally go for 'outrage'. I think I would be honoured to have caught their attention in such a way :-)

The Lib Dems insisted the term was not directed at Ms Traynor, claiming it was a long-standing nickname given to the volunteer team who deliver the pamphlets. Party leader Cllr Tony Robertson said there had been no intention to offend.

And there's the crappy excuse. It may be true but I doubt it.

But Ms Traynor, who was handed the document after it was accidentally posted through a friend’s letterbox, was fuming.

Ms Traynor, of Mostyn Road, said: "I am really upset because it is a term I find really offensive. I know people with serious mental health problems, which makes this so much worse. "It is quite distressing."

Come on love, don't try to make out that this is a mental health issue. They were not comparing you to somebody who is mentally ill, they don't think you are mentally ill and they were not using the word in anything like that context. Don't take offence on behalf of a group who have not been offended, in order to make your offence appear to have meaning.

So why why was this woman blacklisted? What had she done to get herself taken off the Lib Dems mailing list?

She was taken off the delivery list because she was recently elected for Labour to Maghull town council.

She's a Labour councillor? But they're all n...

Ahhh...

Yay me!

2012-01-16T21:37:00.000Z

I posted back in December that I had applied for a new job at the company I currently work for. I said at the time that it was a big step and one I was unlikely to get.

Well knock me down with a feather but I got the bugger!

I have to spend a month training my replacement and I will begin my new duties in February.

Blogging should be unaffected.

Blogging may be affected for the rest of the week though as my evenings are going to be a bit hectic for other reasons. I'm not going anywhere though, sorry ;-)

There is an alternative to paying the TV licence

2012-01-14T15:57:00.001Z

I don't pay the television licence, yet I still watch whatever I want. Legally. In this post I will explain exactly how I do it and how you can too.

I know a lot of my readers (Possibly both of them) already know this stuff and probably already do it. This is for the benefit of anyone who is not aware that you can legally avoid the fee, so if I sound like I'm teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, please bear with me.

I'll start by breifly explaining the aspect of the law that a lot of people are not familliar with. Please feel free to confirm what I am telling you with your own research before usimg it. That would only be prudent.

The law says that you need a TV licence if you are watching televised media as it is being broadcast. It doesn't matter how you are watching it, PC, TV, mobile phone etc. The key is those words, "as it is being broadcast".

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

For example, if you watch the latest Eastenders on TV as it is first shown, you need a license. If you wait a day and watch it on BBC iplayer, you don't need one.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

To watch TV using this approach, you need to do away with your telly ariel, freeview box and satellite, if you have them., and use a personal computer instead. This does actually limit your viewing options, so if you are a telly addict, this approach is probably not for you.

From now on you will be watching TV over the internet. You will need a telly with a VGA, DVI or HDMI input. The old CRT tellys are no good for this so you will need a flatscreen. Mine is second hand and cost me £130, a tenner less than a years telly licence fee.

Position you PC box near the TV and plug it in using the monitor cable so your telly now acts like a big PC monitor. I also bought a wireless keyboard and use that as a remote control. It's a bit bulky as remotes go, but worth it in my opinion. This isn't totally necessary but I also have an amp and a decent set of speakers plugged into the back of the PC. Your telly speakers are ample if you don't want to do this and you will need a small jack plug from the output on the PC to a similar input on the telly for sound.

When your kit is ready you will need to set up your channels.

Download or bookmark BBC iplayer, ITV player, 4OD, and 5OD for the basics. There are also many websites showing films and TV shows which are in the public domain. Google is your friend here. You will need to experiment for a while untill you find some good stuff suitable for your tastes.

You can also continue to use your TV for watching DVD's and playing games as neither of these require a licence.

This new setup will limit your options to a certain extent. It works well for us because the only telly we really bother to watch is on Channel 5 so we just use 5 On Demand. If you are using Google you will have to know what you want to watch before browsing, thater than flicking through the listings and watching something at random.

It also helps to have an internet provider that doesn't throttle your download speeds. This means that if you are using more bandwith than they like, they will limit the amount available to you, making your video images run eratically. Most of the big providers do throttle speeds, but if you have an 'unlimited use' packege, you will be fine. These tend to cost more so you need to decide if it's worth it based on the amount of stuff you watch and the affect it has on performance.

The final step is to inform the telly licencing people that you no longer need one. There are many blogs out there that will advise you to stop paying and then have all kinds of fun with all the threatening letters you start to get through the post. You can even have a bit of fun with the inspectors if they turn up, because they have no real powers other than to make threats.

However, if you do it correctly, you can avoid all this hasstle. Go to https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/nln/index.aspx to declare you don't need a licence. Fill in your details (Don't worry, they have them anyway) and pick a reason why you no longer need a licence.

Click to biggen

Pick any of the offered reasons, it doesn't really matter. Once done, the licencing people will write to you confirming you no longer need a license and promising not to bother you for a further two years.

As you're not doing anything illegal, the question is, do you want to be constantly battling them or do you want them on your side? They have been true to their word and not bothered us since we did this.

When all this is done you are now free to watch TV without having to fund the propaganda arm of the British Government, otherwise known as the BBC. As long as you are not watching programmes 'as they are broadcast' you are free to do as you please.

Bear in mind that these instructionas are there to allow you to legally watch TV without paying a licence. They are only a few short steps away from making it possible to carry on watching whatever the hell you want and illegally avoid the licence. That is not why I wrote this post. If you choose to use a service that requires payment, then pay for it.

If anyone out there already does something similar, if I have missed anything or if anyone has any other ideas or questions, please share in the comments.

Happy viewing.

Friday night Moose music - By the numbers

2012-01-13T18:00:00.002Z

Tonight's is a varied selection, by the numbers one to ten.

Starting with a little gratuitous punk

One Way System

U2

3 Dog Night

4 Non Blonde's

Wes Minster Five

Scaramanga Six

S Club 7

MN8

Nine Inch Nails

Ten Pole Tudor

Legs eleven

Good night, God bless!

Nasty anti smokers part 2. The TV ads.

2012-01-12T17:00:00.003Z

Following on from this piece detailing some anti smoker billboard and magazine ads, here is a selection of television adverts.

It's illegal for tobacco companies to advertise their products anywhere, yet this vile filth is encouraged? Warning graphic and nauseating.

First up, mouth cancer. Have you ever seen anyone, smoker or not, with a gob like this? (Bradford nightlife excepted)

Now how can we pull on the heartstrings? I know. A crying child.

Or a dying man

It's funny to show smokers dying

Here's another one with children. This time it's SHS

This ones a bit graphic

I particularly don't like it when children are used to convey a message they don't even understand

But let's stay focused on the positive.

This is just a small sample for the masses of adverts out there. Hatred of smokers is rife.

Some nice cigars were enjoyed while creating these two posts.

Anti gun nuts pop out of the woodwork again

2012-01-11T13:00:00.002Z

WHY WAS A THIRD MANIAC FREE TO KILL?

A third maniac was not 'free to kill'. Killing is against the law and he committed a criminal act. He didn't do it because he had access to guns, he did it because something was wrong in his head.

ANTI-GUN campaigners have accused the Government of ignoring warnings they made two years ago that could have helped prevent Michael Atherton from killing three people.
Members of the Gun Control Network told MPs on the Home Affairs Committee looking into firearms law in 2010 that urgent changes were needed. It followed Derrick Bird’s killing spree across Cumbria which left 12 dead in June 2010 and the gun rampage of Raoul Moat on Tyneside a month later.
The MPs agreed to “explore” their proposals, which had significantly cut domestic gun violence in other countries. Despite that, no change to the law was made.

Deaths and injuries involving legally owned firearms are very rare in England, yet you wouldn't know that because every time there is an incident it gets so hyped up by the media that is worries the sheep. Every time something like this happens, the anti gun lobby pop out of the woodwork and demand that legal gun owners like myself and others face a new raft of restrictions and bans.

Britain already has the most draconian gun laws in the world, way beyond what could really be deemed necessary. Every British citizen has had all means of armed self defence taken from them by the Government; not just firearms but anything that could be used in defence is illegal to carry.

Apart from the odd isolated incident, the only guns used to attack people are illegally owned ones. Illegal guns in the hands of criminals who use them against defenceless citizens.

The proposed changes included police interviews with current or ex-spouses and partners of anyone applying for a firearms licence, to ensure anyone guilty of domestic abuse would be blocked from getting a gun.

Anyone guilty (under law) of domestic abuse will have a record with the police and will not be granted a firearms licence. Approaching an ex-spouse or partner will not guarantee accurate information. Such a person may harbour bitter resentment to their ex and may use the opportunity to do them a mischief.

It has emerged that Atherton was allowed to keep an arsenal of six weapons (Six does not make an arsenal) despite a long history of domestic violence.
Durham Police confirmed they attended four domestic incidents at their home in Horden between 2002 and 2004.
His guns were taken off him in 2008 after police were told he had made threats to kill himself. But he denied it and the guns were returned.

If all this is true and documented then it would suggest a failing on the part of the police, not an excuse to ramp up restrictions on everyone else

Nick Herbert, Criminal Justice Minister, is to meet with the GCN, which was set up after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. Gill Marshall-Andrews at GCN said: “Every year we get a killing like this and the Government response is weak.

I'm sorry but every year is not all that often in the grand scheme of things, and if you look at the stats for gun deaths, it's also a lie.

I know, I know, if it was my [insert family member] etc, etc...

The Government do not approach every single murder in the country with a strong response. Unfortunately murders occasionally happen. Only a tiny fraction of legally held firearms are ever used in a crime. The large majority of legal guns are used for their intended sporting or work purposes

We will be pushing for a much more rigorous firearms licensing process.” GCN also wants the firearms licence fee raised from £50 to £250.

Why? What could possibly justify that? Do you only trust rich people with guns? Do you want to price plebs like me out of shooting because you think I'm too stupid to handle a firearm?

And we all know it won't stop at 250 quid. The next time something goes wrong it will have to be raised again won't it?

Fortunately, no one is likely to take this seriously

2012-01-11T08:00:00.001Z

Cut the working week to 20 hours... and it will BOOST growth say economists

The New Economics Foundation (NEF) will meet with other experts at an event in London this week to find a solution to unemployment, the credit crisis and reducing the country's carbon footprint.
The NEF, which has organised the gathering with the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, said their solution to the problem would be enforcing a 20-hour working week.

Now I'm no economist but I can see that this is utter unworkable bollocks without much thought. The bit that jumps off the page is that word, 'enforcing'. nobody has a right to set a limit on the amount of time a person chooses to work, however if this rubbish was actually brought in, enforcement would be necessary as many people in work would want to keep up their earnings.

The idea of a 20 hour working week may sound like a good idea to us 9-5 wage slaves, and I'm sure we would jump at the chance is our wages remained the same, but in reality we have outgoings that we need / want, and wouldn't be willing to give up half of our wages for the extra time.

I have always said that If I won the lottery or inherited a fortune I would give up work, as being financially independent, I would never get bored. If I had the extra free time but even less money I would be crawling the walls as I couldn't afford to do anything with the time. Unless the NEF has any ideas of how I could occupy myself?

[...] the move would mean people had more time to think about the effect they are having on the environment [...]

Hmmm. Sit around contemplating my carbon footprint? That's the stuff of dreams, isn't it?

Parents could spend more time with their children or other dependents and there would be more opportunity to get involved with civic duties or charity work.
People could spend more time bonding with one another and improving relationships
[..] individuals would have more time to carry out worthy tasks.

Ok. That lot's alright for lefty, socialist, pie-in-the-sky claptrap, but what about the real world? You know, the one we live in. Job sharing for an entire country might help unemployment, but rather than all that rosy faced, luvvy duvvy rubbish above, this is what I predict would happen if you halved everyone's wage in exchange for 20 extra hours a week free time:

The economy would collapse because most of the workforce would suddenly be under the income tax threshold. The money tap to the Government would suddenly be turned off, and it's unlikely they would just bugger off and stop spending it.

This would mean no more money for public sector jobs, and anyone in the private sector who is capable of expanding business and creating work would not have the time if they only had 20 hours a week to do it. That would then cancel out any unemployment benefits from job sharing.

People would have a lot more spare time but a lot less money. They wouldn't be able to afford to do anything with their time other than sitting in front of the telly smoking, drinking and getting fat. Contemplating your effect on the environment doesn't burn the calories, and most folk wouldn't be bothered with charity work or 'building relationships'.

Having said that, maybe this could work if we phased it in slowly. Put all MP's on a 20 hour week so they didn't have the time to hector and nanny us, then give it a hundred years or so to see if it works.

Listen to that. Sounds like another righteous race row.

2012-01-10T21:49:00.000Z

Supermini that drove into a PC storm: Volkswagen's latest car in controversy over 'black up!' model

Controversy? Why? Do tell.

With the launch of its new ‘up!’ supermini looming, the firm decided on a few special editions to boost sales of the model.
One, however, proved a little controversial. While the ‘white up!’ was always on safe ground, the ‘black up!’ was clearly heading for trouble.
UK bosses blocked the name fearing that if it was used in Britain, it could give offence to ethnic minorities – because of the connotation of white actors and singers ‘blacking up’ to perform as minstrels.

Seriously? First world problems eh? And why was the white version always safe? It's moronic things like this that create racial tension; picking something perfectly innocent and turning it into a race row.

The solution they came up with however was hardly inspired. Bosses simply decided to reverse the words and call it the ‘up! black’.

*Golfclap*

Matthew Collins, of campaigning organisation Hope Not Hate, branded the name ‘insensitive’.

Then he's a muppet!

He said: ‘In this country at the moment we seem to be dealing with an explosion in racism and these are not the wisest of words to have been chosen.’

The only explosion of racism we are currently dealing with is the stuff that righteous morons like yourself create in order to give you a reason to keep bleating and keep cashing the cheques.

Volkswagen said there were no plans to change the ‘black up!’ name on the Continent because, as foreign words in European countries, they did not have the same ‘resonance’ as in Britain.

Roughly translated: Britain is an overly sensitive country of spoiled children that really needs to grow a pair.

Thin skinned over reaction of the week

2012-01-10T19:17:00.000Z

A FAMILY had their Christmas dinner ruined when they opened a cracker containing an offensive quiz about the World Trade Centre.

That's right, ruined! This family has such thin skins that when reading an out of date quiz question about the Twin Towers, found in a cracker, not only did it ruin their Christmas dinner, they also found it necessary to take their story to the papers.

Sheila Jones said the slip of paper which asked people to name the “the twin skyscrapers, 1,361 feet high, that are the tallest buildings in New York “ was inexcusable more than a decade after the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11.
She said the find wrecked the family’s yuletide celebrations and could have had a “devastating” effect on people who knew victims of the terrorist attack.

It must have been a seriously slow news day for the paper to be bothered printing this story. Any newspaper reporter worth their salt would have just pointed and laughed at this family

“We personally did not lose anyone in the 9/11 atrocities...

but we'll be damned if we're going to miss out on the on the offence seeking.

“When my husband read out the piece of paper I couldn’t believe it.

I thought the opportunity for compo was huge, but all we managed was a quick piece in our local rag. The Daily Mail refused to return our calls.

Unfortunately the company who sold the crackers are also indulging the wailing and lamenting of Britain's softest family.

A spokesperson for Wilkinsons said the firm was disturbed to hear of the incident.
"We are a family business and would never knowingly include inappropriate material in our Christmas crackers.
“We apologise to our customers and an immediate investigation is under way with our suppliers."

Should have just told them to grow a set.

The drugs don't work

2012-01-10T12:33:00.000Z

Nicotine patches branded a waste of time as study finds they don't help smokers quit long-term

Former smokers just as likely to relapse if they used nicotine replacement therapies to help them quit
Nicotine patches are no better than willpower at helping smokers to quit, research shows.

What a study. All that pharma crap that we keep having pushed on us is actually useless. Of course the study was only of 800 people so it could be just as unreliable as all those anti smoker studies that tell us SHS kills babies at 1500 yards.

It conforms with what my own two eyes see though. I know no one at all who has successfully quit with the help of nicotine replacement. The general consensus among smokers I have spoken with on the blogs is that the only way you successfully give up is if you really want to give up.

Researchers said the earlier trials had failed to replicate ‘real-life’ situations. They said success and relapse rates were similar whatever method smokers adopted.

There are also the massaged NHS stop smoking figures, like these from August 2010:

The NHS has helped a record number of people to successfully give up smoking, according to new figures.
The NHS Information Centre revealed 373,954 had quit cigarettes in 2009/10 - nearly half of those who had used the service.
It marked an impressive 11 per cent rise on the 337,054 people who gave up in 2008/09.

Sounds pretty impressive doesn't it? But how do they decide when a person has 'sucessfully given up smoking'?

The figures related to people in England who hadn't returned to the habit when they were contacted four weeks after they had stopped.

You can't tell if a persons quit attempt is successful after only four weeks. Also, how do they know who is telling the truth? Phoning someone up and asking if they are still off the weed will likely get a hasty, "Oh yes", while exhaling a lungful of smoke and reaching for the nearest ashtray.

As pointed out by Leg-Iron, the comments are crawling with anti smokers pretending to be ex smokers who have quit on the patches. There is an absolute frenzy trying to deny this study and sing the praises of nicotine replacement therapy. The study is even being accused of being funded by big tobacco, believe it or not.

Research funded and manipulated by the tobacco industry no doubt. No getting away from it, when you chew or wear it, nicotine replacements cut down or cut out your smoking. As my doctor once said, one is better eating it rather than breathing it.
- The Voice Of Reason, Hockley, Essex., 10/1/2012 10:06

"I stopped smoking 16 years ago using Nicorette 16hour patches. I have never smoked since."
"Patches absolutely DO work"
"On May11th 1993 I put a patch on as per instructions and I haven't had a cigarette since...and I was a 50 a day addict"
"10 years later, after a 40+ a day habit both myself and my husband are smoke-free having used patches in the initial stages to wean ourselves off the habit. "
"As a 30 a day smoker, and also working for a cigarette company, I have recently used Champix to quit - recommend it to all serious people,"

Sounds like there are a lot of savings to be made by stopping stop smoking services.

Some nasty anti smoker imagery

2012-01-09T21:01:00.000Z

If you've not already had it to breaking point with the war being fought against smokers, maybe these anti smoking adverts will help. If you have, well, view them anyway. Every little helps.

The first set is taken from 15 powerful anti smoking ads. 'Powerful' is not the word I would have used.

First up - Hitler. He's not as bad as smokers.

We are worse than terrorists too.

Caption: Terrorism-related deaths since 2001: 11,377. Tobacco-related deaths since 2001: 30,000,000.

We have bad teeth

We are committing suicide

Caption: It's called suicide because it's your choice.

We are addicted

And we kill babies

Caption: Smoking isn't just suicide, it's murder

The next set is from 17 creative anti smoking ads. Again, not my choice of words.

This one from our very own Cancer research UK

What does this scene remind you of?

May as well shoot us and be done with it.

This is not about health.

Drink responsibly promo that might work? Not if the BMA can help it

2012-01-09T17:00:00.002Z

The Sainsbury’s solution to binge drinking? Cut the price of beer, wine and mixer cans

Sainsbury’s found itself under fire yesterday after it launched a drive to encourage responsible drinking – by cutting the price of alcohol.

The first thing that jumped off the page for me here was the fact that it's not up to Sainsburys to come up with a solution to 'binge drinking'. It's up to the customer what they do with the product once purchased and is neither the responsibility nor business of the seller.

I think Sainsburys have made the mistake of trying to package an alcohol promotion as a responsibility drive in order to appease the righteous pressure groups. What businesses consistantly fail to realise is that these pressure groups are the enemy. There simply is no compromise to be had with these people, they need to be faught off with a pointy stick.

The store giant said its reductions on so-called lighter wines, bottles of beer and mixer cans of spirit, would inspire people to switch to lower alcohol products or choose smaller measures.
Campaigners, however, dismissed the move as a cynical marketing stunt. They argue that low prices encourage higher consumption.

This may well be a marketing stunt, but as responsibility drives go, I don't think this one should be dismissed so readily.

Speaking from my own experience and habits I know full well that minimum alcohol pricing would make me poorer rather than cut my consumption, however I would certainly pick a lower priced brand, even if it meant sacrificing a few percentage points of alcohol.

Where the Government would simply make me pay more tax, this promotion by a private business would nudge me into drinking lower strength booze because of the price difference. If it hadn't been publicised in the Daily Mail, I probably wouldn't realise I was doing it either.

But no, if you're a campaigner with a vested interest in keeping the binge drinking myth going, lower prices equals higher consumption. No ifs, no buts.

The promotion, which is supported by health minister Paul Burstow, runs until January 24.

Thanks, I'll make sure I pop down in plenty of time.

There will also be a 25 per cent reduction on Diageo’s alcopop-style cans of mixer drinks, such as Smirnoff and diet cola and Morgan’s spiced rum and cola.
The store will also be selling four- packs of 330ml bottles of lager, such as Heineken, for £4.
Sainsbury’s claims that encouraging people to drink spirits in a standard quantity, as in a can, helps individuals control their consumption. It also says promoting lager in 330ml bottles, rather than larger 440ml cans, encourages people to drink less.

Makes sense. Who pours a spirit at home and keeps the measure within 35cl?

However, it is also running price cut promotions on large packs. For example, a pack of four Stella Artois 440ml cans has been cut by 50p to £4, while a Foster’s lager pack of 15 440ml cans is one third off at just £9.19.

When did four beers become a 'large pack'?

Alcohol Concern chief executive Eric Appleby (New guy? One to watch*) said the campaign ‘rather cynically uses the trappings of responsibility as a promotional hook in what is really just product marketing’.

Maybe so but the message is still correct. Methods like these, product marketing or not, are more likely to have more of an effect on alcohol consumption than Alcohol Concerns holy grail, minimum pricing.

The British Medical Association said offering cheap prices on low alcohol drinks was not enough. It has called for a minimum price on units of alcohol, a move supported by Prime Minister David Cameron who is said to want to see the level set at between 40p-50p per unit.

It's been said time and time again that putting up prices will not lower consumption or stop any of the alcohol problems that we are supposed to have. Maybe dropping the price of lower strength beers and premixed spirits would actually have an effect.

A BMA spokesman said:

This should be good. Any wagers on the buzz words before he begins?

‘Alcohol misuse leads to serious ill-health, premature death and is linked to violence and anti-social behaviour.

Of course. Does it do anything else?

It also costs the NHS billions of pounds every year.’

Funny that. I recently read a good peice that debunked NHS admissions figures.

It’s largely a function of methodology. Alcohol-related admissions are calculated in such a way that if you are unlucky enough, say, to be involved in a fire and admitted to hospital for the treatment of your burns, it will count as 0.38 of an alcohol-related admission – unless you happen to be under 15, when it won’t count at all.
If you drown, it counts as 0.34 of an alcohol-related admission – though most people unlucky enough to drown aren’t admitted to hospital. Getting chilled to the bone (accidental excessive cold) counts for 0.25 of an admission, intentional self-harm to 0.20 per cent of an admission.
These fractions apply whether or not there was any evidence you had been drinking before these disasters befell you.

Of course if your livelihood depends on a serious alcohol problem, you are bound to be able to demonstrate that one exists. Lies, damn lies etc...

*A quick Google of Eric Appleby brought up this:

I don't know if it's the same Eric though. Could be anybody....

A quick(ish) moan about benefits and the workshy.

2012-01-09T12:01:00.000Z

This is a story that keeps bobbing it's head up every now and then. Many people have commented on it in the past; I'm sure I have, but I may as well have another pop as it always gets my piss boiling when it does the rounds.

The 190 families with ten children who cost you more than £11million in benefits A YEAR

That's right, 190 families with ten or more children, claiming huge amounts of benefits. It's like the 1% in reverse.

Personally I don't think any benefits should be paid out in respect of children that were born while a parent was claiming. It's way too easy for workshy folk to turn extra children into cash cows. That's no good reason for bringing a child into the world and it's no good reason for working people to be forced to pay more taxes.

Iain Duncan Smith proposes £26,000 benefit cap

That's good. Well when I say good I mean it's a good start. Julia has also pointed out another good start that is getting the feckless and lazy off benefits.

Half of those claiming unemployment benefits would prefer to lose their handouts than do a stint of unpaid work.
Figures show that 20 per cent of those ordered to take part in four-week community projects stop claiming immediately…

Good times! There is of course outrage in the comments. Shouts of, "Slave labour!", "You can't force people to work unpaid!", etc. The point that these people are missing / ignoring, is that it isn't unpaid work. It's work for benefit payments that we, other workers, have to fund.

I wasn't really going to comment on the 190 families as it's been done before. That was until I read the sentence.

Statistic show extent to which handouts condemn families to life on benefits

You see it's not their fault, it's the fault of the benefits system itself. There is some truth to that but not a lot. You could say that if you were offered a lot more money to stop at home rather than spend most of your time working for a living, are you not likely to take it?

If you are on the receiving and of the money then the moral issue is where the money comes from. If it's a lottery win or an inheritance for example, then fine, take it. When the money is actually looted from hard working people by force and handed over to you, maybe a person with a conscience would do their best to accept as little as possible and try instead to make some for themselves.

Handouts do not condemn people to a life on benefits. People make choices to have more children than they could ever afford to keep on a full time wage. People choose to keep breeding and stay at home rather than go out and find work. (I know the job situation is far from ideal at the moment but I am talking about those who refuse work because benefits pay more, not those who try but can't find work)

Scores of workless families with ten or more children are living on state benefits worth more than £60,000 a year.
Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that there are 190 families with at least ten under-18s where one or both of the parents gets an out-of-work benefit.
These families are eligible for £61,183 a year in state support – much more than they could hope to earn if they entered the job market.
A family in work would have to earn £93,000 to be left with this amount of money after tax.
The statistics illustrate the extent to which enormous handouts condemn such families to a life on benefits, because it would not be worth their while to take on work.

Not worth their while to take on work. The only reason they are in receipt of such silly amounts of money is the number of kids they have. If they were childless, or had just a couple of kids they wouldn't be receiving anywhere near that amount of money.

They put themselves in that position. No person or system 'comdemned' them to the life they now lead.

One minister has suggested that parents should think twice about having so many children if they cannot support them without the help of benefits.
Nearly 100,000 people on benefits have four or more children, with more than 900 claimants having at least eight.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith wants to impose a benefits cap of £26,000 – the income of an average family – on workless families.
Sources say the cap is essential to stop workshy families using extra children as revenue-raisers, getting more child benefit and perhaps a larger house.

Indeed it is. I would even say that the cap should lowered slightly, year on year, and I don't think benefits should go up if people choose to have children while they are claiming.

But the plan is hitting trouble in the House of Lords, with some Lib Dems arguing that the cap should be set higher.

Of course they do. The 'Liberal' Democrats love the benefits culture for reasons that I have been unable to fathom.

Now lets hear from one of the 190.

£95,000 - AND STILL THEY'RE NOT HAPPY

Pete and Sam Smith receive £95,000 a year in state benefits to look after their ten children aged one to 15. They live in a four-bedroom house rent-free and the council even pays for breakfast to be delivered.
The Smiths were evicted from their previous home in Bath, leaving it uninhabitable, according to their former landlord who claimed that mattresses and walls were stained with human and animal excrement.

I don't know if the DM just picks the worst case and embellishes it a little in order to get my goat. Probably, but even so, this family is seriously extracting the urine.

But despite being given a new home by the council in Bristol, Mrs Smith, 36, complained: ‘It’s very cramped. We have four bedrooms with bunk beds for the kids and that’s it. We’ve been told we might not be given a new house for another nine months, which is ridiculous.’

Ridiculous? You are on a waiting list for a home that most wage earners would never be able to afford. You haven't been denied this huge luxury, you just have to wait a while. What is ridiculous is that you are somehow entitled to huge wads of taxpayer cash because you chose to have your children in a box under the stairs.

She claimed they were so short of money that the children had only one Nintendo Wii games console between them.

Wha..?

She said in September 2010: ‘We do get breakfast delivered but sometimes we have to ring them to remind them and it’s not like proper hot food. ‘It’s usually beans, tinned tomatoes and cereal, which isn’t really enough for us all.’

W..Wha..?

The couple have not worked since Mr Smith, 40, resigned from the Army in 2001 to care for his wife, who has curvature of the spine. At that time they had three children.

And that's where their benefits should have been capped. If her bendy back didn't stop her from having a further seven children, then she can't be all that bad.

The family receive child benefits, disability living allowance, carer’s allowance, tax credits and income support totalling £44,954 a year. They also have a £950-a-week bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home.
This comes to £49,400, making a grand total of £94,354 a year.

We are a childless couple earning in the region of 30k before tax. If we had one child we would have to make serious cut backs to make ends meet. (Admittedly the cutbacks are there to make as we live life as a childless couple, not one who wants to have children one day.) Two children would be a serious push and anything over that would be totally impossible. Unless we got better jobs after some serious retraining, or just asked all you lot to start chipping in in the form of benefits.

It was reported last week that the Government is planning last-minute changes to the controversial cap on benefits for workless families in an attempt to quell a rebellion among Lib Dem peers.
The £26,000 figure is based on average income for all families, including those on benefits, which means it is lower than the income of a family in work. Some Lib Dems argue that the cap should be set higher, to the level of the average income of a family in work.

I think the Lib Dems should shush.

Just over a year ago, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt provoked a storm by saying it should not be the state’s responsibility to fund the ever-growing families of the workshy.
He said: ‘The number of children that you have is a choice and what we’re saying is that if people are living on benefits, then they make choices but they also have to have responsibility for those choices.
‘It’s not going to be the role of the state to finance those choices.
‘You can have children but if you are going to ask for support that is more than the average wage that people earn, then we’re saying no, the state shouldn’t support that.
‘That’s not fair on working people who have to pay the taxes to pay those benefits.’

Why did that provoke a storm. To me, them's wise words. Wise words indeed.

Best word verification

2012-01-07T22:59:00.000Z

I spotted this while commenting over at Captain Ranty's

The word verifications can be quite funny and often very topical to the post. This one I though was worth sharing, only because I'm having a few beers.

I think it's female for "Oh bollocks!"

Friday night Moose music - Those (Old) New Romantics

2012-01-06T18:00:00.001Z

Taxing Bastards 2

2012-01-06T08:01:00.002Z

The driving licence trap: 1.6m drivers at risk of £1,000 fine for not renewing photo at £20 a time

Over 1.6million drivers could be at risk of a £1,000 fine because the photograph on their driving licence has expired, a Freedom of Information request has revealed.
Sainsbury’s car insurance discovered that many motorists are at risk of a hefty fine because they may not be aware that a photograph on their driving licence needs to be updated every ten years at a cost of £20, as set out by the DVLA. Those with old-style paper licences are not affected.

I blogged about this back in November when I got a letter from the DVLA telling me I was required to pay them twenty pounds for an updated picture they want me to have on a document they insist I carry if I want to drive on the roads we pay for. I didn't actually spot the threat of a £1000 fine until The Boiling Frog pointed it out in the comments.

So like the dutiful little citizen that I am, I filled in the form and enclosed my cheque for £20.

As well as 1.6million drivers’ photographs that have expired, a further 2.9million must be renewed by the end of 2012 - and over the next five years, almost 13million drivers must renew their photograph to abide by the law.

That's a lot of cheques. keerrchiing! On my original post, a few people said they still had the paper licences and didn't need to worry. I am quite jealous of those folks but there was no way I could hold onto mine. Living by my one rule, do no harm, I have to periodically hand in my licence to have a few points put on it.

Anyway, in mid December, after my licence had expired, I got the whole package returned in the post. It seems I hadn't written 'DVLA Swansea' in the payee box on the cheque. They could have filled in that bit themselves but I suppose it's some kind of anti fraud thing. That or they are just being cu oh hi mum.

So I corrected the cheque and sent it back. Of course they hadn't supplied a reply paid envelope, the bloody cheapskates.

Failure to update your photograph carries a £1,000 fine and can be enforced by the police under Section 99 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Then why make it so bloody difficult! (I got the whole package back again this morning). Their reason this time was:

"The photo you you supplied does not meet our standards. [...] Please supply a photo that meets the standard shown in the enclosed information leaflet"

Why did they not check this before they sent it back the first time? I checked my picture against the information leaflet and it meets the standard perfectly fine as far as I can tell, so two can play at being awkward buggers. I'm sending it all back tomorrow with the following letter enclosed:

"Dear DVLA,

Please find enclosed my application*, returned unaltered.
As far as I can tell from your information leaflet, my photo does indeed meet the required standard.
Please process my application* or give me an actual reason why you believe the photo does not meet the standard so I know what to do to correct the problem.
If you should return my application* again, please do me the courtesy of checking for any other errors first so we don't have to repeat this process a fourth time.

Yours
Bucko The Moose

*Let's be honest, this isn't an application, it's a response to a demand for money with menaces.

I could keep this going for ever; stamps aren't that expensive and it's worth it for giving them the hassle. If they do return the application, which they probably will, I might correct the photo but put a new cheque in without the signature, or something. Or not.

A further 10million people do not know when their licence expires and 14 per cent of expired photo card licences have been out-of-date since 2009 or before.

If that many people can have an expired licence for so long, the threat of a £1000 fine can't have many teeth.

Time will tell

Drivers don't want 20 limits that are not fit for purpose.

2012-01-05T17:01:00.002Z

A BMW driver is threatening to sue her local council claiming plans for a blanket 20mph speed limit will damage its powerful engine.

Diane Greenwood, 47, says her £25,000 car struggles to cope in fourth gear at such low speeds and she will be forced to drive around in third, putting extra strain on the engine and creating more pollution.

Wise words. Cars are not designed to be driven around at 20mph and below. Keeping a vehicle in low gear will cause the engine to rev at unnecessarily high speeds, causing progressive internal damage and more pollution.

Let's get technical. When I drive my car at 30mph in fourth gear on the straight, it ticks over at around 1400rpm. At 20mph in third gear it will rev at around 1600 rpm. In a 2 litre, 4 cylinder engine, driven around town for one hour per day, an extra 200 revs will pump out an extra 1 million litres of exhaust gasses in one year.
(Cars and revs vary with engine size and age. I invite you to do the test with yours)
Apart from that, the extra revs will, over time, wear down the oil control rings on the pistons, allowing oil to enter the combustion chamber and be burned, causing even more pollution.

So what this woman is saying is true. Making her drive at twenty will cause more pollution, however her opinion is roundly rejected in the comments because the only thing people seem to be able to see is that she drives a BMW, so must be posh and therefore must be persecuted.

More than one commenter has said that she doesn't need a BMW to drive around town and should buy something more economical. The campaigners for the 20 limit are similarly unsympathetic.

However supporters of the new lower limits angrily dismissed her claims as selfish and ill-informed – and pointed out that they are already widespread in Germany, where BMWs are built.

I love that passage. Campaigners 'angrliy dismiss' arguments that don't conform? They call her selfish and ill-informed when her opinion, which is far more scientific than anything they have ever trotted out, doesn't match the dogma.

And look at that for science - Germany make BMW's and they have twenty limits. Ergo, you must be wrong. Now that's ill-informed.

'In fourth gear, my car tries to push to 22mph, so I have to change down to third, which uses more fuel and puts more of a strain on the car.
'It’s all very well saying I should get a smaller car, but I’ve only had my BMW for a year and it’s my pride and joy – why should I buy a small car if I don’t want one?
'If anything happens to my car, I’m going to sue the council and force them to cover the costs – it’s a matter of principle as far as I’m concerned.’

Why should she get a smaller car? Owning a big car is not doing anyone any harm so why should she be forced to change if she doesn't want to? I don't think the suing the council will get you very far though. Councils push on with their silly ideas regardless of public opinion and regardless of the unintended consequences. They never admit fault in anything either.

'I’ve been driving around this area for 30 years and seen speeds get slower and slower, and no-one’s been run over in that time,’ she said yesterday.

Yet it has been decided that all roads in East Lancashire residential areas will have 20 limits. I blogged at the beginning of last year that this decision was based on nothing more than lies.

A BLANKET 20mph speed limit is not the answer to solving the problem of Lancashire’s danger roads, according to the RAC
Lancashire County Council said that the project would halt the thousands of people killed or seriously injured.

LCC thought the 20 limit would halt (not just reduce, but halt) the thousands of people killed or seriously injured on the roads. Their very own website provides figures that tell the real truth.

As usual, a click will embiggen

Number of people killed or seriously injured on East Lancashires roads:
955 in 2001
702 in 2009

Not thousands. In decline. So why the lies?

According to the '20’s Plenty For Us’ campaign, Lancashire is the biggest of 27 local authorities covering 7.4million people currently committed to making 20mph the default speed limit for residential areas.

I had a look at the 20's plenty website. There is a handy little Google style map where you can check out accident figures for pedestrians and cyclist in your area. I was going to check it out until I read this:

Of course remember that many roads may have fewer casualties for pedestrians and cyclists because road conditions are so bad that such users rarely go on them.

Less casualties equals worse roads. You couldn't male it up. Oops, they just did.

Campaign manager Anna Semlyen dismissed Mrs Greenwood’s objections, saying they were based on prejudice and not fact.

The facts speak for themselves. How about the prejudice?

'If she’s a BMW driver, she’s not that interested in the environment, is she?’ she said. 'BMW drivers generally have them for status reasons.

Now that's prejudice! The Pot - Kettle - Black ness of these people can be astounding at times.

According to the campaign’s figures, 20mph zones can cut casualties by more than a fifth while reducing emissions by 12 per cent and increasing journey times by on average just 40 seconds.

I would love to see these figures and how they are calculated, but of course there is no reference to their origin. They do seem to be bollocks though. If sticking to 20 only increases your journey time by 40 seconds then you are probably on a road where you can't do much more than 20 anyway, making a blanket rule pretty pointless. The reduction of emissions rubbish we have covered above.

However Department for Transport analysis of a voluntary 20mph scheme introduced in Portsmouth in 2007 found average speeds dropped by barely 1mph while deaths and serious injuries actually increased.

Really? So an actual study of a live situation by people who know a bit about transport, rubbishes all the crap that the campaign groups are spouting. Well I'll go t't foot of our stairs!

In Lancashire, a group of motorists are planning a 5mph go-slow protest to highlight what they say is the harmful effect of the £9million scheme.

Good luck but I doubt anyone will listen. They may take down you reg numbers for future ticketing opportunities though. And the biggest harmful affect of the £9million scheme is that it is going to cost £9million. Austerity anyone?

However Paul Binks, Lancashire County Council’s road and transport safety manager, said: 'People are much more likely to survive and have fewer injuries if involved in an accident at 20mph than 30mph.

That's largely irrelevant though. Any road could have it's limit cut by any amount by that reasoning. Surely it would be better to go back to teaching children road safety. You can't get killed or seriously injured if you are not in the road in the first place.

'The impact on the environment is likely to be neutral as the roads included in the scheme already have relatively low average speeds and a further small reduction will have a minimal effect on air quality.

If the speeds are already low, why bring in a law that will just set many drivers up for fines? But you are about to contradict yourself anyway:

'It is quite difficult to drive efficiently at 30mph on many residential roads as the busy environment requires repeated acceleration and braking – driving at 20mph encourages a smoother driving style resulting in lower emissions.’

On a lot of residential streets it is difficult to go over 15, whereas on some, 30 is fine. Why not just let common sense decide? As for the braking and acceleration, cars have a thing called a gearbox that helps keep engine revolutions to a minimum. If you force everyone to stop using the top two gears then revs go up and so does pollution.

Wider support for 20mph zones is understood to be a condition agreed by the Lib Dems in return for backing an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80mph.

The Lib Dems eh? What is Lib short for again?

The Lawrence trial

2012-01-04T20:06:00.000Z

I have tried to avoid doing a post about the whole Steven Lawrence affair. I try to avoid speculation about trials that I did not attend. When a jury decides guilty or not guilty, I tend to accept that when I have no more facts about the case than the media see fit to tell me. If OJ Simpson is not guilty then so be it.

That should be the case here too, yet this whole thing has been so badly handled by the police, the media and Parliament that I have a nagging feeling that they may just have got it wrong.

Still, they were found guilty and I didn't intend to comment here until I had my look at the Daily Mail website this morning. Endless articles claiming full credit for the convictions, and endless cries that this is justice and the other three should get the same.

I'm sorry but this is far from justice. In order to get this verdict, double jeopardy had to be scrapped so they could be brought before the courts once again for a crime they had already been acquitted of.

Not only that, which is bad enough in itself, they did it retrospectively. After they had made the new rule abolishing double jeopardy, they then re-tried someone who had been acquitted before the rules changed.

The double jeopardy rule is a mainstay of the British justice system. It means that if we are found guilty of a crime we cannot be re-tried again until we get found guilty. Once the police have made an arrest and brought a suspect to trial, they fully believe they have found their man. If that man is then found not guilty, they no longer have to take the investigation back to the drawing board and find the real culprit, they can just keep going to trial until they get a sympathetic jury.

After double jeopardy was scrapped they didn't even bring in a rule that says the original jury must sit again for the re-trial. That at least would have been something.

Anyway, for someone who wasn't going to comment, I'm rambling a bit. I think this is a very dark day for all of us. In the quest for a successful conviction of two killers, we have lost something far more important; a vital protection of the innocent person from the state.

As a footnote, if any one is planning to say, "But if it was your [insert family member], you wouldn't be saying that.", then I will say this to you:
When I complain about the all the new laws being brought in so 'this doesn't happen again', or when I speak out against witch hunts for scapegoats when a tragic accident has happened, I always put myself in the position of the victim before commenting.
In this case, a boy is dead and his parents are grieving. If this happened to me then I would be demanding justice with bells on it, but only as far as it didn't harm anyone else. If my quest meant that justice may be denied to others in the future, then I would not pursue that avenue.
The scrapping of double jeopardy may have secured justice for Stephen Lawrence, but it pushed it further away for everyone else. That price is too high.

Racism. It can never die if we keep it alive in our hearts.

2012-01-04T17:00:00.001Z

What's the most racist thing that's ever happened to you?

When a US writer asked noted Americans this question, the answers showed that prejudice, if not always overt, is ever-present. Putting the same one to black Britons produces disturbing results

Racism used to be rampant in the west, yet people have grown up a little since the bad old days. Where bigotry has not met it's demise through education and better understanding, the law will now step in.

The law has even gone too far in some respects, looking for racism where none exists and even ignoring it when committed by minorities against white folk.

For some people though, the issue of racism will always exist. If they can't find actual examples they will imply racism couched in supposition and speculation.

Back in 2005, Oprah Winfrey, one of the world's best-known celebrities, travelled to Paris. Like many well-to-do tourists, she made for Fauborg Saint-Honoré, a street famed for its exclusive stores. Winfrey stopped at a designer store just after it had closed its doors at 6.30pm. The star is reported to have asked the door staff whether she could pop in to make a purchase. The answer was a resounding no.

Sounds fair. The shop had already closed it's doors and the staff were not ready to allow another punter on site at that time, even if she was a well known celebrity. Is there more to this?

End of story... or not. Staff insisted they were busy preparing for an after-hours event in-store. But an unnamed "friend" of Winfrey's was subsequently quoted in a New York newspaper, saying the term racism hadn't been used but they suggested if Céline Dion or Barbra Streisand had made a similar request that there may not have been a problem.

Oprah Winfrey was not denied access to the shop because it was closed, she was denied access because she was black. The passage even says that there is no evidence of racism here, there is only the supposition that a white celebrity may have been granted access.

The staff's insistence that there was a perfectly valid reason, other than the perfectly valid reason of being closed, holds no weight with those who see racism where it does not exist.

Also, if the staff were in the habit of granting favours to celebrities, I would suggest that Celine Dion and Barbera Streisand are much bigger celebrities than an American talk show host. But that's by the by, they were preparing for an after hours event so why am I making excuses where none are necessary?

Racism. It's no longer as simple as black and white. There was a time when it was. "No blacks allowed" was pasted on the doors that greeted my parents when they arrived in Britain as part of the Windrush generation. They were spat on in the streets, attacked on the way home and refused service in certain shops. Back then, racism ran through society in a direct and easy-to-read way.

Now fortunately, this is no longer so, but that is not good enough for some people. They want to gain entry into that exclusive club, 'The Victims', and in order to do so they must prove that racism still in sufficient quantity to put them there.

Times have changed; the racism faced by my parents and their generation has gone, in its place is a "fog of racism". The Oprah moment is a classic example of this fog. Was the decision not to open up motivated by racism? Would the store have opened up for Céline? We know it's there, we feel it, smell it, but we just can't just pin it down. The phrase "fog of racism" was coined by the American journalist, Touré, and speaking from New York he explains it: "With this form of racism there is no smoking gun. There is no one calling you a nigger to your face. There's no sign saying you can't enter this building. It's subtle, it's blurred, but more often than not, it's there." It has "become difficult for all sides to pinpoint, discuss and deal with", he says.

Maybe it isn't there. Maybe the Opera moment is a classic example of nothing other than shop staff not being bullied by a celebrity. Even if she is black.

Maybe the only way you can claim racism still poses a massive problem is to turn it into something that can neither be seen or be defended against by those accused. But if you can't see it, how can it be affecting you? If there is no one calling you a nigger to your face, that surely is a good thing. Maybe your feeling is something created in your own head and something that only you can deal with.

Unless you propose further laws that say black people can now dictate the opening times of shops.

[In his book] Touré attempts to unpick modern-day racism and define what it is to be black today. In doing so, he asks 105 celebrated African-American figures from the world of politics, sport, business and entertainment the simple, yet powerful, question: "What is the most racist thing that has ever happened to you?" For the older generation, experiences were shaped by the naked racism of the past. For the younger generation it was often a more nuanced form.

What is the most racist thing that ever happened to you? This question presupposes that not only must something racist have happened to you, but it must have happened on more than one occasion.

But the question made me think. What is the most racist thing that has ever happened to me? And how would other figures in Britain's black community answer such a potent question? Intrigued, I set about seeking their answers.

You can see the answers by following the link to the article. Most of them are tales of true racism, but told as memories from the past and from a more intolerant era.

But what about the chap asking the question? What is the most racist thing to happen to him?

There are many contenders vying for the No 1 spot in my racism hall of shame. The overt racism of being surrounded by a gang of Leeds football fans and having them chant, "Nigger, nigger, nigger, you're a long way from London now, boy," springs to mind.

Yep. That sounds like a racist incident. He doesn't say how he ended up surrounded by Leeds fans and that they knew he was from London. Unfortunately racism does still exist as that real rather than 'felt' half a story shows. Is there more?

Giving that moment a run for its money would be the incident 20 years ago when I made a pub in Stockton-on-Tees go tumbleweed quiet as I walked through its doors. I know it's petty and I should be bigger than this, but I've had a dislike for Yorkshire and the north-east since.

And you were doing so well. I've walked into pubs that have seemed to go quiet and I'm not black. I've been in quite a lot of pubs on my travels where the locals are not racist but don't accept you instantly and are even sometimes surprised to see a new face as it doesn't happen often.

I walked in a pub in a little village whose name I can't remember with a friend a few years back. The reception was just like the Slaughtered Lamb in American Werewolf. After a couple of pints, we didn't ask about the star on the wall but a photo of a rugby team with a chap who looked like our host. By the third pint we were drinking with the locals as though we had done it all our lives.

This chap doesn't say what pub in Yorkshire he received that reception, but sometimes a close knit group of people will want to weigh you up a bit if you are a stranger to them. That doesn't imply racism but I notice he says that he is now racist when it comes to Yorkshire.

I haven't delved into the answers from the other celebrities asked because they are mainly tales of the past, however I will highlight this one:

Danny John-Jules
Actor, Cat in Red Dwarf
One day I woke up and realised I was black, that I was always going to be black and that racism will always be there.

How can you argue with that. Black actor says there will always be racism, so racism there must always be.

Smack my kids up!

2012-01-04T12:08:00.000Z

Ban on parents smacking children considered

AN OUTRIGHT ban on the smacking of children by their parents is under consideration by Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald.
A new law to ban corporal punishment in the home is one of two options under consideration. The other is an amendment to existing laws to restrict the circumstances in which parents can plead a defence of “reasonable chastisement” of their children.

Great. So what are parents supposed to use? Harsh language? But that's probably banned too.
Why do these muppets think reasonable chastisement of children is wrong? Child abuse is already against the law. Beating your children is illegal and there are laws in place to deal with it, however parents need to be able to teach their children discipline or they just end up raising little terrors who get away with what they want because they can't be punished.

The Children’s Act, 1908, gave parents the right to use “reasonable and moderate chastisement” in disciplining children but this provision was repealed by the 2001 Children’s Act. However, removal of the common law defence requires an explicit provision in new legislation.

It's how this ban might be policed that worries me the most. Coppers won't be entering peoples homes to check if they are smacking their kids. CCTV won't be used to monitor children in the home so what will it be? It will be the schools won't it. Primary school children will be encouraged to tell their teachers if their parents are smacking them. Children will be encouraged to inform on their parents.

Corporal punishment of children is prohibited in all settings, including the home, in 18 of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, but in Ireland outlawing physical punishment is seen as problematic given the constitutional guarantees regarding the family. The council and other international bodies have repeatedly criticised the absence of a ban in Irish law.

What has it come to when the Government views constitutional guarantees as 'problematic'?

The Daily Mail hates me...

2012-01-03T18:40:00.000Z

...and wants to make me look silly.

I posted a comment on this article which I also blogged about yesterday.

My comment was about how ASH themselves are a lobby group and should have their funding stopped if they think tobacco companies lobbying government is a bad thing.

I popped back to see if my comment had been published, only to find they had printed this:

One rule for them and another for us. Time do away with these new year titles we are supposed to be all equal. they are more interested in lining their own pockets and claiming maximum expenses than representing us.

- BuckoTheMoose, Far from liberty, 2/1/2012 16:53

WTF is that!

The same comment also appeared later, appended to a, 'Up in smoke' from Chepstow.

If anyone who knows me saw that, I didn't bloody write it.

In denial

2012-01-03T14:01:00.001Z

Many Britons 'In Denial' About Obesity

Britain is a nation in denial about obesity, according to a new survey.
Just under a quarter of the UK population is officially obese, but only 6% of people believe their weight problem is severe enough to warrant that description, the National Slimming Survey suggested.

Isn't the saying something along the lines of if you deny you're an alcoholic then that's the first sign that you are one? So most of the people who were surveyed think they are not obese, and probably think the whole obsession with weight is bollocks anyway, so those who have a vested interest in public health just put it down to us being in denial. Nicely done.

The public health industry becomes more and more like a religion every day. You can't argue 'faith' with facts any more than you can argue this.

Surely the people who were questioned for this survey can tell if they are obese or not. The 'quarter of the UK population' statistic is rubbish anyway. Obesity used to mean very fat, now it just means anyone who fails the highly flawed BMI test. But that's just me speaking from behind my denial.

Now the Government is launching a healthy eating campaign called Supermeals, which offers help with planning meals as well as discounts on ingredients.
Recipe packs are being distributed to four million homes. Everyone else can take part online.

Good. More tax money down the tube.

Public Health Minister Anne Milton said: "Over 60% of adults are either overweight or obese and we have to turn that around.

Two answers to that.
1) It's not the place of the Government to be pestering people about their weight, even if, (quotes Monty Python) and I want to be absolutely clear on this, even if they are obese.
2) 60% of adults are not fat. Sure there are quite a few fatties about, but if you go into any public place and open your eyes you can see that it isn't over half of us.

The Mitchell Waite family, from Newcastle-under-Lyme in Staffordshire, are living proof of what healthy eating can achieve.
Mum Jo has lost four-and-a-half stone, and she welcomes the Supermeals campaign.
"Money off would help because then more people would be able to afford fresh ingredients rather than opting for pizzas and unhealthy food," she said.

Yes I'm sure you wouldn't mind a bit of money off. Pizzas and unhealthy food do not cost more than cooking for yourself though. Me and Mrs Bucko have a take away roughly once a week as a little treat to ourselves. We can't afford to do it daily because it costs roughly twice the amount of a home cooked meal.

It's not just the cost though. We don't want to get fat. If we were to turn into huge fat whaps after gorging daily on kebeb shop tucker it would be our own fault though, not some problem we could blame on society or lack of Government 'help'. Yes it is nice to stop at the chippy on the way home occasionally after a long hard day rather than cooking, yet doing so remains a treat as we are aware of the consequences of doing so too often.

I'm not having a go at fat people who do these things that we don't, that's their choice. My only problem is those who believe the Government should put a stop to it, or those that think the Government should protect them from themselves.

Son Josh has also lost weight. Both Jo and Josh aim to lose more weight with the help of Supermeals.

Good for you. And when you can fit into it, would you also like the shirt off my back?

The BBC also has the story

Families encouraged to eat healthily on the cheap

An effort to convince families in England that they can eat healthily on a budget is being launched.
Four million recipe leaflets will be mailed to families already signed up to the government's Change 4 Life public health campaign.
Three supermarket chains have also agreed to offer discounts on products such as fruit, vegetables and fish.

I don't see the need for the expense of 4million leaflets. Why doesn't the health minister just get on the telly box during the X-Factor and say, "You can eat healthily on a budget. Look into it". Jobs done then isn't.

There's no point in mailing out four million recipe leaflets when recipes for everything imaginable are freely available on the internet.

You don't even have to look hard. Watch this. Julia? Do you have a good recipe for rabbit? Check the comments box in a while.

But Labour criticised the move.

Of course they did. Unnecessary spending of public money? Labour must be dead against that.

Shadow public health minister Diane Abbott said: "They're calling this public health but it's just a glorified advertisement for big business. This is a government that doesn't take its responsibility around public health seriously.

My mistake. Not spending enough is the problem. When will these people get it? The Government has no responsibility to public health. There is no public health. There is my health and there is your health. We bear our own responsibility to the two and they never join up.

Dale Rees, a spokesman for the British Dietetic Association, said the initiative was a positive step because the recipes would help those who wanted to cook but did not know the ingredients involved, the steps needed to prepare them or how to cook adhering to a budget.

Here's another 'initiative'. 1268 recipes, all for free and at no cost to the taxpayer. Isn't private enterprise amazing.

dietician.

Evidence yes, we know all that. Now why not leave people alone to make their own choices and deal with them, before we have a nation of totally state dependent imbeciles.

On a final note, here is a picture of Diane Abbot, the Shadow Health minister.

Not obese

What a picture of 'public health' she is, eh? Maybe those who like to nanny should be thinking more about getting their own houses in order.

High hopes

2012-01-03T08:30:00.002Z

Giving up alcohol or going on a detox for one month is pointless, especially after the excesses of the festive season, says a liver charity.

Yes of course it is. But I bet the answer is total abstinence or something to do with Government guidelines?

No?

Instead, the British Liver Trust says drinkers should make a decision to stay off alcohol for a few days every week throughout the whole year.

Experts agree that a short period of complete abstinence will not improve liver health.
A longer-term attitude to alcohol is more desirable, the charity said.

Sound enough advice. Do we possibly have a charity that isn't all about nannying and government intervention?

*Checks other news*

Government-led policies on alcohol throughout the UK have been branded a joke by the chief executive of the charity the British Liver Trust.

"We need to see direct action to prevent the daily death rate from liver cancer increasing," said Mr Langford.
"At the moment all we are seeing are weak policies or no action at all. However, there are so many solutions to the problem."

Nope!

Lobbying the Government is bad, says ASH. But the irony goes unnoticed.

2012-01-02T18:02:00.000Z

Plans to ban cigarette displays in shops 'disrupted after Tory peer contacted lobbying group for tobacco giant' says the Daily Mail

Plans to ban cigarette displays in shops were disrupted after a Tory peer contacted a lobbying group for a major tobacco firm, it has been claimed.
And the relationship between ministers and groups representing the interests of powerful industries has now been called into question after emails between Lord Howe and Philip Morris International were leaked.

Newspaper articles of this kind can only come about because the general population have been sold the idea that 'Big Tobacco' are an evil empire intent on pushing hard drugs on children.

In other areas of lawmaking it is normal to provide a fully rounded view. When a new motoring law is proposed for example, it is normal to see a quote in the press from the RAC, on behalf of the motorists that will be affected. This is simply viewed as providing balance. Propose an illiberal law that will penalise smokers however, and any attempts to give a voice to the tobacco industry is seen as doing a deal with the Devil himself.

The correspondence shows that the hereditary peer wrote to Gardant - the Westminster lobbyist for tobacco giant PMI - in March 2009, forwarding a letter from anti-smoking campaigners.

According to a report in today's Observer, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) had written to the then-Shadow Health Minister warning that planned legislation to sell cigarettes in plain packets risked being bypassed by unscrupulous tobacco manufacturers taking advantage of loopholes in trading laws.

Yes. ASH, the anti smoking fake charity that is funded out of our pockets wrote to Lord Howe, lobbying him in effect, to voice concerns over what they perceive to be a 'loophole' in the law. Of course this is no loophole. By enforcing plain packaging, the Government could be interfering with the intellectual property rights of manufacturers, something which may well be illegal and definitely needs testing in court.

To ASH though, this is something which stands in the way of their prohibitionist agenda. To them it's a loophole, they care nothing for property rights as has already been demonstrated with the smoking ban which they lobbied for.

Lord Howe, quite rightly, then contacted Philip Morris via Gardant, their publicity arm, and requested their views on the letter. Cue outrage from ASH.

Just two days before the House of Lords was to debate the legislation on March 9, 2009, Lord Howe forwarded the letter to Gardant, asking for a reaction to ASH's claims. Within 24 hours, Morris executives were able to provide the peer with a briefing - just ahead of the crucial Lords debate.
According to the newspaper, the Shadow Minister, alongside Labour peer Lord Borrie, subsequently attended a series of private meetings with Gardant to discuss how the new legislation could be amended.
And the emails - leaked by a PMI whistleblower - also reveal that Lord Howe intended to kill the proposal for a display ban.

The display ban will not do a thing to bring down smoking levels but will harm traders at a time when business is already pretty dire. The anti smokers know and accept this as it's all a part of prohibition. Groups like ASH do not care about individual choice, property rights, business or livelihoods as they have demonstrated many times. Occasionally an MP or Lord with a little common sense will pop along and try to do the right thing. In order for this to happen they must have the full story from both sides.

That's what Lord Howe wanted and that's why he contacted Phillip Morris with ASH's letter and then engaged in dialogue with them.

The emails also show how manufacturers were behind a campign claiming that a display ban would harm retailers. Cigarette manufacturers ploughed money into organisations such as the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, which later warned that commercial factors needed to 'outweigh other criteria' when the new law was being considered.

The National Federation of Retail Newsagents did indeed campaign along those lines. They may well have also been helped by money from the tobacco companies. The Government were proposing as scheme that would do a great deal of damage to their members so of course they were going to campaign against it and of course they were going to accept money from another group of people who were similarly due to be hit hard by the proposals.

It's only through the twisted use of words and the addition of emotive language such as this article that you can make any of this sound like a big conspiracy by the tobacco companies. What about the money poured into anti smoking groups like ASH, and the lobbying of Government for further tobacco restrictions from the pharmaceutical industry? No mention.

MPs were also advised of a poll claiming that 80 per cent of shopkeepers believed a ban would harm their businesses. The poll was produced by a retail organisation which is supported by the tobacco industry.

Claiming? Who cares what involvement the tobacco industry has in the poll. As long as the data presented is complete and accurate (Something you never see from anti tobacco) then it is valid. Who better than a shop keeper to tell you what effect the display ban is likely to have?

And the leaked documents also show how, just before the 2010 General Election, MPs came under further pressure from tobacco lobbyists who recommended that the proposals should be delayed.

Lets not forget that these proposals along with all the other tobacco prohibitionist claptrap have come about by pressure from anti tobacco lobbyists. ASH and Big Pharma.

After the Coalition came to power in May 2010, a compromise was reached whereby a display ban will be introduced in supermarkets later this year - but newsagents will not have to follow suite until 2015. A planned consultation on plain packaging has also been delayed.
Although Lord Howe denied that the delays are the result of pressure from Gardant or the tobacco industry, the Government's relationship with lobbysists is now being questioned.

If the Government relationship with lobbyists is being questioned then let's do it right. ASH are nothing more than lobbyists themselves, and paid for from the taxpayers pocket. If you want to stop lobbying by the tobacco giants then fine, do it. But stop all public payments to ASH, along with all the other fake charities that get our money and use it to shape Government policy. Every one of them.

If you must close your ears to industry interests then stop listening to all these groups altogether.

ASH chief executive Deborah Arnott told the Observer: 'The Coalition Government has committed to live up to its legal obligations to protect its public health policy from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry, but it cannot do so if industry lobbying is covert and hidden from public scrutiny.'

*WHAP!*

That was me slapping Debs in the face with the irony stick. Let's see the actions of ASH opened up to public scrutiny then. Let's see the Stirling University data made public as requested by FOI.

The commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry may do harm to public health policy. That's ok with me because the commercial and vested interests of public health policy has done immeasurable harm to liberty. Something which I value a lot higher.

Friday night Moose music - Honky tonk boot scootin' Rednecks

2011-12-30T18:00:00.012Z

Christmas was good but it's gone. The new year is still to come but it's only the beginning of another year of Government sponsored crap. It would be very easy to let a bit of depression set in right about now. I find there's nothing better than a bit of Redneck honkey tonk to lift the spirits when needed.

I'll start you off with one that's perfect for the righteous. Enjoy.

Great big buzz in a little bitty glass! And all for pocket money prices. Listen and weap, bansturbators.

What kind of hairdo is that? I'm sure I know, I'll have to mull it over while I listen to the next one.

I had fish for tea. A lovely piece of mullet.

The best of 2011

2011-12-29T14:00:00.001Z

This is now my second Christmas / New year as a blogger. Last year I said,

New year is nearly upon us, though I don't hold out any hope for much in the way of change. I am hoping for a complete restoration of civil liberties, an end to socialism, no more taxes and a lottery win. I'll probably settle for a new car.

Well we did get a lot of change, and all of it bad. The smoking ban is still with us and now they want to stop us smoking in our cars and even our homes. We can't really defy the ban by smoking in pubs because the landlords have been forced to police it, and we all know what happened to Nick Hogan. No threats of force however, will stop me smoking in my car. It's my property and as long as I'm not putting others at risk, I will do what I want in it.

Obviously the restoration of liberties and end to socialism and taxes was a bit of a pipe dream, but I would have hoped for at least a little progress in that direction. To date I have seen none.

I did manage a new car or two though. Anyway, enough about the bad, let's have some of the good.

My highlight of 2010's blogging year was the Ciggy Busters fiasco. Everyone got involved in that and we beat some righteous anti smokers into submission. This year we got together again, organised by Dick Puddlecote, and defeated a nasty local councillor in Stony Stratford who wanted to ban smoking in the open air.

This was a councillor by the name of Paul Bartlett. He proposed a ban on smoking in the streets of the town, all to save the kiddies and the environment. After a protest in one of the local pubs, with guest speakers and the press, his motion was voted out unanimously.

At the time, bloggers and commenters alike had taken to calling councillor Bartlett, 'Herr Bartlett'. I think this was just a way of comparing him to a Nazi, although over Christmas we dusted off a copy of that classic Christmas film, 'The Great Escape', and watched it. It turns out there is more than one Herr Bartlett.

Steinach: Herr Bartlett-!
[Bartlett turns around and says something in German]
Steinach: Your German is good. And I hear, also, your French. Your arms...
[pulls a gun]
Steinach: UP!
[Bartlett surrenders]

One of them was the guy who arranged an escape from a German prisoner of war camp that was immortalised in film. A Christmas film that has nothing to do with Christmas none the less. The other one thinks more like the guards in that same camp.

One died the death of a hero while fighting for freedom, the other ended up with a vote of no confidence for fighting against it. Ooh the irony.

Roger Bartlett played by Richard Attenborough

Herr Bartlett as himself

In fact the film character of Roget Bartlett
must be considered fiction because the
name of the real person was Roger Bushell.

But let's not argue semantics.

Anyway, here are some of my favourite blogs from the year, in no particular order:
Velvet Glove, Iron Fist. Excellent analysis of anti smoker statistical nonsense.
Ambush Predator. Full and forthright attack on the broken British police and justice system.
Underdogs Bite Upwards. Battering the anti smokers whith a healthy dose of humour.
Nothing 2 Declare. Invaluable advice on cross boarder shopping, plus you get invited on cool ferry trips.
Orphans of Liberty Excellent multi author blog, for whom I have written a few pieces.
Tea and cigarettes. Giving the anti smokers a very passionate whooping.

And there are of course, many more. See my blogroll for my daily reads.

Other highlights of the year:

Best film: None, they were all crap. (As last year). Terminator 1 and 2 still rank as my favourites of all time. The only film of note I've watched recently was Soylent Green. It's people!
Worst film: Harry Potter. All of them. Not because they are particularly bad films but because they are about a child wizzard, yet have a very high audience of otherwise adults, who can't stop raving about them. Also, any remakes of classic films. There seems to be a lot of it about recently.
Best tune: Rhianna - S and M
Worst tune: Anything by Justin Beiber
Best book: Once again I've not read any new books. I did read 'Nothing to Envy', a factual tale about life in North Korea under Kim Il Sung and Jim Jong Il. That was a sad story that has a lot of relevance now with the death of Kim Jong Il in the media.
Pavlov's Cat asked the question, 'Does every home have a kim flap?

Well I can't answer that one, but I can tell you from the book, every home has a picture of Kim which must be kept in pristine condition. The authorities have the right to enter your home just to check that the picture is being looked after.

Writing like this should remind us all of the evils of socialism, yet it never does. The modern socialist still beleives it would be paradise if only it was done thier way.

Worst book: I've not read a bad one this year. It seems I've chosen wisely :-)
Best TV: Supernatural, season seven. Also the Walking Dead season one. We've just started season two though, and it's a bit pants so far. Hopefully it will pick up.
Worst TV: The X Factor, I'm a celebrity, Come dancing and any rubbish reality crap about slappers.
Best blog post: That's a tough one. Lat year I picked What exactly is a doctorate? from The Waspsnest as it was an unusual post as they go, and it was a thinker.
There are two things in particular that have really wound me up this year; anti smokers and multiculturalism. If I was going to pick an anti smoker post then it would probably be something by Velvet Glove or Leg Iron. I vist Velvet Glove to get the facts on the statistics that the antis trot out when they want another ban. I go to Leg Iron for a good old ranty fisking of the latest round of bollocks. His writing can really lift your spirits.
But I'm not going to pick them. Instead I've chosen Julias Twelve Days Of Multiculturalism series. Considering she intended to garnish older posts to make up the full twelve, but real time events ended up supplying all she needed, just goes to show how bad the situation is, why it needs highlighting and why something needs to be done. Now if not yesterday. Well done Julia.
Worst blog post: Anything found here.

Here's to 2012. Keep fighting the good fight.

Back to normal

2011-12-28T14:46:00.002Z

Ah well, that's that then.

Some people get all humbuggy about Christmas. Some people think that if you are not religious then you shouldn't get involved. Some people think that it is just way to commercialised.

I must admit, I'm all of the above to a certain extent.

I opted out of Christmas once, back when I still lived with my parents. It took a couple of years for it to sink in with all the family but they eventually got the message.When I started working in pubs full time, I was even less involved in the family Christmas because I would generally be working on Christmas morning serving dinners to other folk.

Mrs Bucko is different though. She loves Christmas, so when we left the pub trade I found myself involved in it once again.

I do enjoy it now though, a lot more than back in my early twenties. Mrs Bucko does all the prezzie buying and she doesn't go mad, just little token gifts that people will appreciate. We get pretty much the same in return. Mrs B says I'm hard to buy for because if there is something I want I will just go out and buy it rather than wait until Christmas. If there is something I don't want, she will buy it me.

What I like about Christmas now is the family get together that happens but once a year. I like tucking into a great pile of food and booze while everyone is together, and I like that it's only once a year. Although I wouldn't complain if it was every four years like the Olympics.

Me and Mrs Bucko cooked the Christmas meal this year. It was our first time and I just wanted to be able to say we've done it. Well we've done it and it was a success, but what a nightmare.

With the advantage of a large kitchen and a full compliment of staff, we've catered for 1000 people on Mothers Day, but catering for 13 people at home was a much more complicated logistical operation. And it took two days to clean up. That's why I've not been around here since Christmas eve.

Anyway, like the title says, everything is now back to normal. With a vengeance. I had a quick look round the blogs and the papers this morning, only to find that the concept of peace and goodwill to all men didn't manage to last longer than a day.

When a person is stabbed to death in a gang feud and the police need to fend off angry shoppers (see comments) who don't want their crap buying spree interrupted, you just know Britain is broken beyond repair.

The victim was a member of the notorious London street gang ABM, which stands for ‘All ’Bout Money’, and the killer was believed to have been involved with the rival 031 Bloods. Territorial clashes between the two South London gangs have claimed several lives since 2007.

Does this sound like England or some third world hellhole? It really is time we started throwing people out. I don't care where they were born, where they go or if this makes me sound a racist. If they can't function as civilised members of society, throw them out.

Known by the nicknames ‘Nutz’ and ‘TunaRaw’, he was an active gang member for at least two years.

No loss there then, but I bet the Facebook page is already up describing him as an angel.

The crowd didn't seem to think it was any loss either. The police apparently had to draw tasers to keep the crowds of vultures back. Old Holborn has the video.

I've had enough of this country. A few days off to forget all the crap has been good, but it never really goes away does it.

I hope you all enjoyed your Christmases in your own way. A few posts will appear here in the next week but I doubt full time blogging will resume until the 3rd Jan. Be excellent to each other.

Christmas Eve Moose music

2011-12-24T18:44:00.000Z

Some Christmas favourites and a couple you might not be familliar with. Merry Christmas to all.

Friday night Moose music - Dance like yer dad 3

2011-12-23T19:18:00.000Z

Because the last two were so successful, here's another. Devil you know and all that. Requests encouraged.

Coming tomorrow: Christmas Moose music (for if you haven't heard enough of it yet)

War - The American cash crop

2011-12-23T10:14:00.000Z

Many countries have relied on a single main export for their income and economic stability. For the Americans, this export is war.

The great depression that began in the USA with the Wall St crash of 1929 caused unprecedented levels of unemployment and destroyed heavy industry. Sweeping political changes followed with the landslide election of Roosevelt, the New Deal programs, the suspension of the gold standard, and the recession of 1937, which after a period of sharp growth, returned unemployment to depression levels.

Wikipedia

The Americans were in a bad state, but it wasn't long before the second world war broke out in Europe.

This war would solve many problems in the USA with the revitalisation of their economy and the beginning of an unprecedented period of growth.

They joined the war in 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbour. While many American men were away fighting in Europe and the Pacific, the people back home were enjoying a new period of prosperity and consumerism. This was the answer to the economic prayers of the USA.

Since World War 2, the USA has been in a constant state of war until the present day.

Occupations of parts of Europe, Japan and parts of the Far East Axis continued until 1955. The Korean war kicked off in 1950 and military involvement in Vietnam began in 1959.

Military action ensured the continuation of economic prosperity as tax money was taken from the people and handed over the military industrial contractors. It also had the added bonus of ensuring the backing of the people for the state. American patriotism during conflict saw that the policies of intervention went (mostly) unquestioned.

When there wasn't any actual military conflict to be had, there was the Cold War.

The Cold War never escalated beyond name calling and sabre rattling, yet cost billions to wage and galvanised the spirit of the Americans against the new foe of Communism.

World War 2 had supposedly been fought in the name of freedom against Fascism, yet the cold war saw a reaction to communism worthy of any paranoid dictatorship. Communism was a political ideology, yet was not dealt with in a political manner. The carrying of a Communist party membership card would result in arrest an imprisonment. Even allegations without evidence became enough to persecute those suspected of Communist sympathies.

The Cold War continued the practise of huge military spending and expansion through the production and testing of atom bombs, hydrogen bombs and delivery and protection systems. It was this level of spending that would bring down the enemies in Russia through financial collapse rather than military conquest.

This period of anti Communist feeling also served to bolster the idea of patriotism in the average American, ensuring they don't question the policies of Government for fear of being unpatriotic or even denounced as a communist.

Another fundamental part of the Cold War, aside from the arms race, was the space race. The quest to put the first man on the moon resulted in massive spending coupled with huge technological advances.

As 500 million people around the world watched Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon (And goof his pre prepared line) America was one.

The Apollo missions were never about science. They were about beating the Russians, solidifying the patriotism of a nation and continuing economic stability. No more moon missions are planned and space exploration has stagnated. It is no longer politically necessary. Now we have other means to achieve the same goals with even better results.

When the Cold War finally ended in the early nineties with the collapse of communism, America was fresh out of wars. They were involved in UN spats such as the Gulf, Somalia and Kosovo, but had no wars to call their own.

To remedy this situation we were given a new concept - The War on Terror.

The war on terror is a totally new concept in military conflict. It is similar to the Cold War but includes armed confrontation. The new enemy is Al Quaeda, an invisible group that encompasses any terrorist action. The war cannot be won and is not supposed to be. It is a perpetual conflict that will keep the USA at war for as long as they deem necessary.

Two nations have already been invaded and conquered, and the current President has his eyes on a third. In between the armed incursions, there are the domestic operations. The American people are for the first time, treated as enemy combatants.

When the enemy is not in some foreign country that you can invade, but living in your country, among your own people, unseen and undetected, you can treat every citizen as the enemy until they can prove other wise.

The War on Terror has not only caused conflict outside American borders, but it has removed most of the basic freedoms of those living within.

Of course the average American citizen is a patriot. They don't want to be branded a terrorist any more than they wanted to be branded a Communist. That's why they let it happen. The military spending continues, the American people stand as one against the new foe.

War. What is it good for? The power and influence of the strongest nation on earth since 1941.

Protesting

2011-12-22T15:51:00.002Z

Half arsed blog post

2011-12-22T13:28:00.003Z

Food firms 'market to children online'

Unhealthy food is being "shamelessly" promoted to children online to get around bans on television adverts, campaigners have claimed.

Oh really? Yawn.

The British Heart Foundation cited websites by Cadbury's and Nestle as examples of "cynical marketing".
Sites used childish language, games and free gifts to appeal to children, according to the report.

I was going to do a big fisking of this article but I came across an obstruction. I decided to check out these websites to see if the claims were true. I stumbled across, The Impossible Hoop Game, at the Cadburys website and spent the rest of my dinner hour playing it.

My score is currently 5860.

Not much else to see here.

Oh. And I won't bother spending my money in BHF charity shops anymore.

I don't see how they can ban this one...

2011-12-22T08:50:00.001Z

...but as soon as they figure it out, 'eating and driving' will be next on the agenda.

How a heavy lunch can be a menace to motorists: A big meal makes it harder to concentrate on the road

Eating a big meal will not only lead to you dozing off in the armchair. It could make you drift off behind the wheel.
A study found that a big lunch, even without the effect of alcohol, can make it harder to concentrate on the road, leading to potentially dangerous mistakes.

Who comes up with the ideas for these rubbishy studies? They must have grant money to burn. This one kills two target groups with one stone - fatties and drivers. They even throw in a reference to alcohol.

Young men who did a test drive in a simulator after a fatty and sugary meal were more likely to drift into another lane than those who had a lighter lunch.
While the effect of alcohol on motoring skills has been much researched, this study is one of the first to look at the impact of a full stomach.
Twelve healthy young men attended Loughborough University’s sleep research centre for a lunch of beef lasagne and a toffee yoghurt.

A driving simulator? Where presumably you can't turn on the radio or wind down the window.

Half were given diet versions, totalling 305 calories. The others ate the normal versions, which were much fattier and full of carbs, and had a calorie count of 922.
All normally slept well but had only slept for five hours the previous night, something the researchers say would not be unusual.

Five hours sleep? I get at least seven per night. This study seems tainted from the start. Should they not have done it with well rested people then they could be sure the results were purely down to the food and not last nights lack of sleep?

After lunch, they were put in a driving simulator and tasked with a two-hour-long, dull, monotonous ‘drive’ along a dual carriageway with long straight sections and gradual bends.

With traffic lights stopping you every 500 yards, HGV's to pass etc?

Those who had the heavy lunch were more likely to drift into the other lane. They started off not too badly, making just as many mistakes as the light lunchers for the first half hour but after that there was no doubt that they were sleepier.

You know what I find to be best if I'm a bit weary of a long journey? Having a fag. Oh wait...

Writing in the journal Physiology and; Behavior (CORR), she said: ‘Although the effects of monotonous driving of such a heavy lunch combined with blood alcohol limits well within legal limits have yet to be determined, the indications are that this would be a dangerous combination after a night’s disturbed sleep.’

Translation - While the police get those roadside calorie counters ready, we need lots more money for further studies.

There goes my last little bit of respect for British justice

2011-12-21T22:23:00.000Z

Police have charged a man with assault after an alleged fare-dodger was removed from a train by a passenger.

British Transport Police said a 35-year-old man from Stirling had been charged with assault.
The man is understood to be Alan Pollock.

I hope his case gets batted right out of court with the police left looking like the utter morons they are.

I'm too annoyed to turn this post into a rant. I'm off to bed instead. I hate this country!

Cheap booze, fake fags and clueless politicians.

2011-12-21T14:23:00.000Z

We will kick off with this article from the Burton Mail which has been expertly fisked by Man Widdicome here.

Supermarkets encourage drinking with lowprices

BINGE drinking among young people is being encouraged by rock bottom supermarket prices, Burton’s MP has claimed in a House of Commons debate.
Mr Griffiths, chairman of the parliamentary beer group, which lobbies the Government to support the brewing industry, believes cheap drink prices in supermarkets are encouraging irresponsible drinking and destroying community pubs.

As Man Widdicome points out, supermarket prices are not rock bottom and the smoking ban destroyed the pubs.

During the Commons debate, a four pack of ASDA Smart Price bitter was held up as an example of cheap supermarket prices. I once drank 16 cans of Sainsburys Basics Bitter (similar stuff) and all it did was give me a sore throat. Beer like that is so weak you can't drink it fast enough to get drunk.

Sarah Wollaston (alleged Conservative) With a four-pack of bitter for 68p, the price was just 17p a unit.
Asda Smart Price Bitter, at 2.1% ABV, which works out to 0.9 units of alcohol per can or, after rounding, 19p per unit (not 17p as claimed), and tastes like dishwater. A decent beer, such as Thornbridge Jaipur, is £2.39 a pint in a supermarket. It costs £3.20 in my local.
Sarah Wollaston (alleged Conservative)I particularly objected to the labelling. It said, “Asda Smart Price”. I put it to hon. Members that there is nothing smart about charging 68p for four units of alcohol. That would send a woman well over the safe limit for a single day for just 68p.

If four cans of lager at 2.1% volume would take a woman well over her safe daily limit, then daily limits need to be revised. We're not talking pure alcohol here either. We're talking about a can of water with a tiny bit of alcohol in it, all of which you have to drink to get the alcohol. Unless you neck it, you can't really drink it fast enough to have much of an effect.

“Today a pint costs £3.10, £3.20 or £3.30 in a pub, whereas in a supermarket it remains at about 70p or 80p.
“That has encouraged people to drink more and more at home and discouraged them from drinking in a safe, supervised environment such as the community pub that is at the heart of many of our towns and villages.”

It astounds me that the political class actually believe this claptrap. When was the last time this moron went into a supermarket? Some of the weaker session drinks may be around that price if you buy a bulk pack. Most of what's on offer is a lot dearer. The John Smiths that I buy ranges between £1 and £1.40 a pint depending on the offers.

He also has the cheek to suggest that we should only drink beer when supervised, and to drink in our own home is somehow irresponsible. We are drinking more at home these days but it's nowt to do with the price. It's because the smoking ban has closed all the pubs. People like myself who smoke, no longer find pubs a welcoming place to be, so we drink at home with friends. Our friends are made up of smokers who feel the same, but also non smokers who don't bother with the pubs any more because their smoking friends don't go or the local has actually shut down through lack of custom.

The cheap price of supermarket booze is just an added bonus, although If I'm honest, I would rather pay pub price and take advantage of all the amenities that aren't available in my home.

Dr Wollaston called for an Act of Parliament to regulate the price of alcohol. She suggested England could followScotland’s lead in making it illegal for shops to sell booze for below 45p per unit.

Increasing the price for all will not solve any of your perceived problems. Those that want to drink to excess will find ways to ignore your nannying and do it anyway, sometimes with even worse consequences.

Look at the problems you've had from increasing the price of tobacco to silly levels. It hasn't stopped people smoking but it has increased smuggling and fake tobacco. (More later)

MPs just don't learn from the obvious though, do they.

“Alcohol is the single largest cause of mortality in young people, accounting for one in four deaths among 15 to 24-yearolds, far more than die as a result of knife crime.

Oh no that sounds terrible! But it isn't though, is it? Mortality in 15-24 year olds just isn't that high. And you're lying. Traffic accidents and other injuries are responsible for the majority of deaths in that age group, closely followed by violence and suicide.

I presume you are fiddling the figures, for example, counting a traffic accident where the deceased had consumed an alcoholic drink as being alcohol related. The same with violence and suicide if the victims had been drinking.

As for 'far more than die as a result of knife crime', knife crime is also low, even though the government and media like to hype it up as the next extinction level event.

Your stats, although you've made them sound emotional, are nothing but meaningless tripe.

“The full costs are hard to quantify, but the bill runs to at least £20 billion a year.”

Jeez! They're easier to quantify than that! Was that figure written on a sheet of bog roll after you wiped your arse with it?

And it seems you precious 68p pack of lager is no longer in demand anyway. Blokes have given up the pub and are drinking wine at home with the Mrs.

Men give up on the pub! Beer drinking drops by a quarter in just five years as men stay at home

All that effort Alcohol Concern have put into stamping out beer. They have had their funding cut and chief honcho walk off with his tail between his legs, yet ASH, the anti smoking group have managed to do it themselves by banning smoking in pubs.

Britain is shaking off its reputation as a nation of beer drinkers.
Consumption has fallen by almost a quarter since 2006 largely because many men have given up on going to the pub, research shows.

Not according to those parliamentary muppets who want minimum booze pricing.

Increasingly, they are drinking at home with wives and girlfriends, where they are more likely to share a bottle of wine, cider or spirits.

Eesh! I drink at home now rather than going to the pub but I haven't changed to wine because I'm with the Mrs. I'll stick to bitter thanks.

The research comes from Mintel, which suggested the high cost of beer in pubs was a major reason for men staying at home.

Of course it is. There is no mention anywhere in the article of the smoking ban. It just doesn't exist. The death of the British pub is all the fault of the nasty supermarkets who are doing things the same way they have always been doing them.

The Government didn't ruin pubs by banning smoking in them. Smoking has always been banned in pubs. Oceania has always been at war with...

Many have switched to buying from supermarkets, which have been selling beer at a loss for many years.

More lies, told often enough that the public now believe them.

Mintel said alcohol sales figures are at odds with the idea that Britons routinely spend their lives binge drinking and tearing up town centres.

So are general eyeball observations but we have a huge industry reliant on the lie for their incomes.

Mr Forsyth said: 'Alcohol drinking has become so expensive and the gap between on and off trade so huge, that for many drinking out is now a luxury rather than a standard night out.
'Indeed, today, more than two in five on-trade drinkers see drinking out of home as too expensive which has meant that a once regular night out occasion has become more of an occasional luxury.

Interestingly above I was just saying that bunging up the price of supermarket booze will do nothing to stop sales. If what Mr Forsyth is saying then high prices in pubs clearly have reduced consumption. If true, I wonder who exactly is now consuming less. The terminal alcoholics and the violent knobs who can't handle their booze, or the decent folk who like to go for a pint on a Friday after a challenging day at work but can no longer afford it?

When I worked in pubs it was always those living off the generosity of the taxpayer that could afford to buy as much booze as they wanted, while those in work had to watch their budget.

Mintel said there are ways that brewers could try and halt the decline.
Its research found that against a background of a nation raised on fizzy drinks and alcopops, some 57 per cent of those aged 18-24 would like the option to buy sweet tasting lagers.

If we could just have a simple repeal of the smoking ban, brewers wouldn't have to flavour their beer with Haribo Starmix to temp the kids. Adults would start drinking it again - in pubs.

A similar proportion of young people said they would be interested in low calorie lager.

Yeah. Right.

At least the comments have spotted the obvious. Pub trade down = smoking ban. Big Brother has not pulled the wool completely over thier eyes yet.

of course drinkers drink at home its cheaper and they can smoke, i blame all the whining non smokers for the death of the great british pub, serves you right if you have no where to go in future as they have already killed off the bingo halls,,,,

- keith,,,,,,,,away from the lies and dishonesty of the uk governments, corfu, 21/12/2011 13:18

Something has to be done NOW to save our British way of life, not one more pub should be allowed to close, Get smokers back in their some how before they are all gone.

- John, Harrow, 21/12/2011 12:42

The smoking ban has killed the pubs,everyone knows that,have quit going to them myself.

- Lee, Yorkshire,UK, 21/12/2011 12:34

So up or down, alcohol consumption needs to be hit hard by minimum pricing, according to our esteemed in Parliament. So what will the net effect of punitive beer taxes be? Let's do something that politicians refuse to do, and look at another area where this has been tried. Did it work?

TENS of thousands of people in East Lancashire are smoking illegal cigarettes, according to an investigation.

Did it F...

A former top cop at Scotland Yard, who investigated the situation in Blackburn, said that counterfeit cigarettes were freely available.

Of course they are. People are sick of paying high taxes for their tobacco so they are turning to man in van. Of course this article suggests that all the tobacco that is not bought in legitimate British shops is counterfeit. None of it has been brought back from abroad, either legally or smuggled. That just doesn't happen. Oceania has...

Also, the fake tobacco funds organised criminals and terrorists.

And he said the ‘easy’ sales of fake tobacco taking place in the back streets of the town are funding organised crime.

If you buy it you are no better than a terrorist. None of it is ever sold by someone who brought a few packs back from their holidays.

County Council figures suggest an estimated 50,000 people in Lancashire smoke illegal cigarettes.

So all this regulation is working out for you then?

Officers said duty is not paid on 99 per cent of shisha and that most of it doesn’t carry the correct health warnings.

Health warnings? I don't think the shisha smokers give a shit.

Mr O’Reilly said: “My investigations showed how easily available counterfeit tobacco is in alleyways, the backs of cars and streets in Blackburn. People need to be aware that the some people bringing this into the country also traffic hard drugs, firearms and deal in terrorism. The money goes to fund other organised criminal activity which ruins people’s lives.

Hard drugs, guns and terrorists. What a great way to scare people into conformity. Refuse to pay our silly taxes and you must be funding terrorism. I'm surprised they didn't mention pedos.

“The message to the community is that the money paid for cheap cigarettes is actually costing them in other ways.”

That may be the message but it's bollocks, and I don't think people are listening anymore. If you want this problem to go away then why not charge a reasonable amount of tax on tobacco.
Make it unnecessary to go abroad for your tobacco or purchase it from the guy down the pub, people will start to buy the proper stuff in shops again. Good for the economy, good for smokers, and if 50k people in East Lancs alone are smoking cheap bacci, probably good for the treasury as the tax take starts to go back up.

But we can't have that. Ash said so.

We are all but children who need the guiding hand of the state.

2011-12-20T18:30:00.001Z

Our attitude to food and fitness 'is fixed at ten years old'
Because we are not responsible for our own actions. The state must guide us through our lives because we are but merely children. (And science must be made to prove this)

If you struggle to lose weight or to say no to an extra helping of pud, don’t blame your willpower - blame your parents.
A person’s attitude towards food and exercise is largely set by the tender age of ten, a study found.

It's not your fault you see. If you just can't say no, that's got nothing to do with willpower. Blame your parents. Blame society. Blame Canada! Just as long as you don't have to face up to your own inadequacies. And don't worry, the state is here to help.

Newcastle University researcher Heather Brown said that healthy eating habits become engrained in childhood and that is the time for parents, schools and governments to intervene.
Her advice follows study of data on hundreds of pairs of American siblings. Some were adults who lived apart from each other, others were aged between 10 and 18 and still living in the family home.
The results revealed that the diet and exercise habits we pick up in childhood stay with us throughout life.

And these habits cannot be changed of course. Us proles are way too weak and feeble to alter a habit that we leaned in childhood.

I say that in jest but one day it will be true. Our ability to choose, our capacity for rational thought is slowly being bred out of us by muppets who produce 'research' like this and the Governments who believe it all and step in to 'help'.

Writing in the journal Obesity, she said: ‘This demonstrates the importance of early childhood interventions and prevention programmes to promote a healthier population.’

And who pays for all these programs? One of the good things about children is their adaptability. Both emotionally and physically they are able to deal with great change. They heal fast, they get over adversity, they handle emotion. This doesn't all end at 10 years old. Sure, people can become set in their ways as they get on a bit (Like me) but eating habits are certainly not set in stone in childhood.

The study comes a day after official figures for England revealed that one child in three is overweight when they leave primary school at the age of 11.
Almost a fifth are classed as obese, meaning they are so fat they risk knocking years off their lives.

Depending on how you measure it. There is another characteristic of children. We would call it puppy fat, vested interests in the nannying industry would call it obesity.

Experts warn that many of these youngsters will stay fat for the rest of their lives, putting them at greater risk of heart disease, diabetes and other serious illnesses.

I doubt it. The more you lot keep saying, you're fat, you're fat, you're fat, the sooner you will have an anorexia epidemic on your hands. You see children are also impressionable. That's why smoking footballers get hanged in the press.

Tam Fry of the Child Growth Foundation and National Obesity Forum, said the key to turning the tide is to stop children from getting fat in the first place.

Or you'll do what? Take them all into care? That should be good for thier wellbeing.

Reaction to a police shooting? You're doing it wrong.

2011-12-20T16:31:00.001Z

The Police Ombudsman Al Hutchinson has found that the actions of a policeman in shooting dead the driver of a stolen car were critically flawed.

Steven Colwell, 23, failed to stop at a checkpoint in Ballynahinch on 16 April 2006.
He was shot after he ignored the police officer's commands to stop the car.

Mr Hutchinson said that while Mr Colwell's actions were reckless, the police officer's actions played "the greater part" in the tragedy.

Mr Colwell was the driver of a stolen BMW which was facing the officer with its engine revving, in what appeared to be an attempt to escape a vehicle checkpoint, having ignored the officer's commands to stop the car.
Mr Hutchinson found that the officer's actions in discharging two shots created significant risk of further casualties.

Interesting. A criminal shot by the police during the commission of a crime. Police found not to be blameless in the incident.

Why are the Irish not rioting? Why aren't towns in Ireland ablaze and why aren't the local youths out wrecking and looting? I thought that was how it was done. If you don't like something then cause mayhem and destruction because you're entitled innit.

While praising the Ombudsman report as "thorough and extensive", Mr Colwell's brother Neil said he did not think the family would ever receive justice.

Go on the rampage. The cops may even pay for a lavish funeral.

What are Navy Lieutenants made of?

2011-12-20T15:11:00.000Z

Navy lieutenant killed herself aboard warship after senior officer called her 'sweetheart'
This story provides a whole lot of emotion and unfounded supposition with a distinct lack of answers.

A female Royal Navy Royal Navy officer killed herself after her boss called her ‘sweetheart’, an inquest heard yesterday.
Lieutenant Sara Hellawell, 26, took an overdose in her locked cabin on board HMS Edinburgh.
The ‘feisty’ marine engineer had become upset with line manager Lieutenant Commander Philip Boakes when they had a cigarette together on the deck of the Type 42 destroyer.
In a statement, Lt Cdr Boakes said: ‘We had a discussion about how some people had not showed themselves in the best light on a sun downs (a break on land) and maybe they should be cancelled.
‘Later Sara appeared to be distressed. I asked her what was the matter and she said it was her mum. I said if she wanted to go home it could be arranged, but she said “No”.
‘I said “Listen, sweetheart” which I meant to be a term of endearment, but she said it was condescending.’
Lt Hellawell stormed off the deck and was found dead at 8am on June 16 after crewmate Helen Wright forced open her locked cabin door.

According to the Daily Mail we are led to beleive that a Navy Officer killed herself because she took exception to being called 'sweetheart'.

If this is true then the selection process for the armed forces needs to be reviewed. Britain may be undertaking some misguided drive to employ more females and monorities in positions where they do not traditionally serve, but we can't let that get in the way of the fact that a person not suitable for the position should not be taken on, regardless of gender, race etc.

However I get the impression that there is a lot more to this story than told.

She may have been called sweetheart and she may have taken exception to it. This would have come up at the tribunal and I think the DM are using it to write an emotive story about institutional sexism where probably none exists.

The Government and the media just love to call all us brits racist and sexist. This may have been an opportunity not to be missed. There must be a lot more to this story and a much more serious and deeper reason why this woman comitted suicide.

I find it hard to beleive that a Navy Lieutenant would take her own life simply because someone said the word 'sweetheart'.

British people haven't come to that yet.

Have they?

Lack of communication

2011-12-19T12:41:00.003Z

Here are two reporters from the same newspaper who really should compare notes before writing stories.

First up we have the story of an unexpectedly low turnout of Christmas shoppers this weekend.

Immediately following that we have the story of an unexpectedly high turnout this weekend.

Click for bad eyesight correction.

Christmas sales are up and down this year.

*Update* - The Angry Exile also has an example of journalism that just doesn't add up.

It'll be salty this Christmas

2011-12-19T07:48:00.004Z

How turkey and the trimmings can contain more than twice the recommended daily salt intake

Tucking in to turkey and all the trimmings can involve consuming more than double the daily recommended salt intake in a single meal.
A turkey dinner, plus a starter, pudding and a few nibbles could add up to 15.7g of salt, which compares to the maximum for an adult of 6g for a day.

It's one day a year FFS! Only the totally joyless can get involved in health campaigns. Scrap their funding and send them on their ~~merry~~ way.

Friday night Moose music - Cheese on toast without the toast

2011-12-16T18:00:00.002Z

Just for a change, let's have a little selection of cheesey pop.

38 degrees

2011-12-16T15:59:00.000Z

I signed up to 38 degrees a few months ago when they were doing an email your MP campaign about plain cigarette packaging.

Somebody, I think it was Chris Snowdon, suggested changing the body text of the stock email to say something about ignoring these muppets from 38 degrees and help us fight the smoking ban instead.

I did that, but since then they keep emailing me about all their crappy campaigns. The latest one is something to do with confusing energy tariffs.

The novelty has worn off.

Can the British military be used against the British people?

2011-12-15T21:06:00.000Z

London 2012: 13,500 troops to provide Olympic security

Up to 13,500 military personnel will help to provide security at the London 2012 Olympic Games, the Ministry of Defence has announced.
Security would be police-led but the military would make a "significant contribution", the MoD said.

I find it a concern that the military will be used as security against the British public. It appears they will be heavily armed too.

The defence secretary also said the military would be using its full range of capabilities and equipment to "keep London safe during the Olympics".
He added: "Military hardware will be used, we'll be deploying helicopters, we'll be deploying Typhoon fighters to defend London's airspace, we'll be deploying ground-to-air missile systems."

Is there no equivilant of Posse Comitatus in England? Not that it's looking like it will be around for much longer in America though.

“Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has 7 days of food in their house” could be treated as a potential terrorist and be subject to indefinite military detention, warned freshman Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) in a detailed and impassioned speech to the Senate opposing S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Section 1031 of that measure allows the indefinite military detention of any individual – including a U.S. citizen – who is designated a suspected terrorist or “unlawful combatant.” As Senator Paul pointed out, existing laws and official policy guidelines are replete with open-ended definitions under which law-abiding U.S. citizens could be regarded as actual or potential terrorists. (link)

Many people are preparing for a harsh future. We're seeing fiancial meltdowns, civil unrest and a general mistrust in / apathy towards the ruling classes.

They in turn are making thier own preparations for the day when the people tell them they are no longer wanted.

Military control of the population won't be accepted without question through legislation like the Civil Contingencies act or the National Defence Authorisation act. It has to be seen as normal and non theatening. It has to be introduced slowly, say by having the miltary run security at an extremely high profile event.

They will only be there to protect against terrorist threats of course. I'm sure British soldiers won't be checking attendees for beer, fags and products that aren't sold by official sponsors will they?

"They'll be working with civilians in mixed teams, searching and checking people going into the stadiums, making sure - airline style - that nothing that shouldn't get in there gets in."

When the trouble comes, the Governments of the West will have everything in place to easily declare martial law and control the population through the military.

The only question that remains is, will the army side with the six hundred or with the six million?

Mormons

2011-12-15T19:54:00.000Z

A bunch of Mormons just came out of my neighbours house as I was coming home and two of them engaged me in conversation. I spent half an hour trying to convert them to atheism but they were having none of it.

It turns out that my neighbour is a Mormon bishop.

He kept that quiet!

You live and learn.

Let's all live off benefits. It's our human right.

2011-12-15T14:20:00.000Z

Cutting dole for those who fail to take up jobs 'goes against human rights'

Plans to cut the dole for people who refuse to look for work could be contrary to their human rights, MPs warned last night.

How unbelievable is that statement? These MP's are not talking about people who can't work, but people who refuse to work. If I refuse to work to earn a living, how can somebody else refusing to give me the money instead be against my human rights? It simply can't.

Ministers want to impose a condition that those who are able to look for or prepare for work should be required to do so as a condition of receiving benefit – and those who do not should face a financial sanction.

Sounds fair. They're not even saying that people have to find work, just that they have to look for it. To make an effort.

But the parliamentary Human Rights Joint Committee has decided that to do so could put the human rights of the ‘unemployable’ at risk.

Oh so now it's the unemployable, not the refuseniks. What makes a person unemployable?

1) Disability

2) Alcohol or drug addiction.

I have met many 'unemployable' alcoholics during my time in the pub trade. Do you know why they are unemployable? Because they spend all day every day down the pub. Why do they do that? Because the benefit system gives them enough money to be able to afford it.

Reducing their benefits or even stopping them would not infringe the rights of these people. If they want to spend every day getting pissed then no body else is obliged to pay for that. If they don't want to live like that then there is plenty of help available to get themselves cleaned up*. They just need to pay one visit to a doctor.

*(I know it isn't quite that black and white but the only incentive these people will really have to make the first step is have their free money taken away)

They also said that taking away jobseekers’ allowance from these people could plunge some families into destitution – something which would amount to ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’.

Terrible use of the language there. Inhuman or degrading treatment is something you do to a person, not something you don't do.
If a person refuses to work to support their family, not giving them taxpayers money is not degrading them. They are doing that to themselves. Wiring their balls to the mains until they agree to get a job would be.

The committee also criticised Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith’s plan to impose a welfare cap of £26,000 a year, to ensure that families on benefits do not receive more than the average worker.

They're really going for it aren't they. The benefit cap makes perfect sense. Some benefit claimants are on silly money. They keep having larger families, buying more crap and demanding bigger houses because they know we will keep paying for it all. Of course there should be a limit to what those out of work can claim off the taxpayer.

And they said taking sickness benefit away from people after an assessment could also have a ‘discriminatory impact’.

You're digging now. How can not giving sickness benefit to someone who isn't sick be discrimination?

It means the committee believes Mr Duncan Smith’s new provisions could potentially be challenged in the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights.

That's fine. Tell those Strasbourg based ponces to shove their challenge where the sun don't shine and clear it back out with prunes.

Discussing the threat to cut the dole of the workshy, the report said: ‘We believe there is a risk that the conditionality and sanction provisions in the Bill might in some circumstances lead to destitution, such as would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, if the individual concerned was genuinely incapable of work.’

They're reading this totally the wrong way around. Scrapping benefits for the workshy does not lead to destitution. Refusing to work leads to destitution.

The report also criticised the housing benefit cap, saying it was wrong for the government to set the level of the cap with reference to the average income of all households. Instead, the reference should be the average income of households with children.

Whats that? Average income plus £2.50 from Johnny's paper round? Fair enough. Seriously though, aren't households with children more likely to have one parent out of work or in part time work, making the average wages lower and bring the cap even further down. Again, fair enough.

‘The changes to the welfare system will protect those who need the most help, with more support, whilst encouraging others to take responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their families.’

Sounds good. And at the risk of sounding like one of those I hate, I bet it doesn't go far enough.

Irish doc thinks we're all potential suicide cases

2011-12-15T08:00:00.002Z

Psychiatrist calls for lithium to be added to water

A consultant psychiatrist last night called on Government to add lithium salts to the public water supply in a bid to lower the suicide rate and depression among the general population.
At a mental health forum on “Depression in Rural Ireland” in Ennistymon, Co Clare, Dr Moosajee Bhamjee (Moose? Ed.) said that “there is growing scientific evidence that adding trace amounts of the drug lithium to a water supply can lower rates of suicide and depression”.
Lithium is used by doctors as a mood stabiliser in the treatment for depression.

I'm sorry but we're not all suffering from bi-polar disorders. Why treat the entire population just so you can catch a few people that would normally walk into your office and bother your golf schedule?

I don't suffer from depression and I certainly don't want to be treated for it. How the hell do I know what lithium does to you when you're not ill? Trust the Government and the medical establishment? You must be kidding me! The BMA can't even give us truthful figures on smoking; their prohibitionist agenda is propped up by downright lies.

Dr Bhamjee said: “A recent article in the British Journal of Psychiatry found the beneficial uses of lithium when it was added to the water supply in parts of Texas.”

They're already doing it? Erm, no they're not. There were studies done in Texas in the eighties that showed areas with higher naturally occurring lithium had lower suicide and crime rates. It was suggested at the time that lithium should be added to the water supply. Similar studies were also done in Japan, although it seems they didn't suggest adding it to the water.

He said the Government should consider a pilot project for a town in Ireland where lithium salts could be added to the water in very small doses and examine the results.” He said there was already strong precedent for governments intervening in the operation of public water supply for health benefits by adding fluoride.

So they do it with one thing, why not do it with another. They just can't help themselves can they? Lets add nicotine and glucose too, to help all those smokers and fatties eh?

I wonder what the people in 'a town in Ireland' would think of having their water supply spiked with drugs? I bet sales of bottled water would increase, although it's more expensive than booze, so I hear.

I suppose it may be a good way to create a population of docile Irish folk who don't break the law or even question authority. Tinfoil hat? Maybe.

He said: “There are 200,000 people suffering from depression in Ireland and the Government must think of new ways of tackling the problem.”

Erm, reduce taxes, pull out of the EU and stop meddling in peoples lives? And those suggestions are just for starters.

No shit?

2011-12-14T19:44:00.001Z

Prunes are not a laxative, EU rules

The EU has ruled that prunes do not have a laxative effect and producers cannot say that they do.
It comes after the organisation was mocked last month for a ruling that led to a ban on claims that drinking water can prevent dehydration.

Do the EU think they are God now? Do they think they can say any old rubbish they want, and so shall it come to pass?

Prunes make you shit and water re-hydrates you.

Any fool can see...

Where are all those unemployed yooofs?

2011-12-14T15:40:00.000Z

I'm listening to a crisis meeting at work.

We have more work over the next couple of weeks than we can hope to contend with. We desperately need to employ a shit load of packers but there is just no one out there who wants a job.

I thought youth unemployment was at a record high? I'm beginning to wonder whose fault that really is.

Penalising success on retirement. The LIb Dem vision.

2011-12-14T11:18:00.000Z

Nick Clegg vows to axe bus passes and free TV licences for 'rich' OAPs

Nick Clegg yesterday vowed to strip millions of pensioners of their free bus passes and television licences as a major row erupted between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives over benefits.
The Lib Dem leader said his party would fight the next election pledging to means test the handouts, to ensure they don’t go to wealthier or ‘millionaire’ pensioners.

Nick Clegg is turning into a proper shit. His Mrs is no better either.

Why do we give OAP's free bus travel and telly licences? Is it because they are supposed to be poor when they are pensioned off? I don't know, but in my opinion, if someone has been paying tax into the system all their lives, why not give them a bit of a break when they retire? What does a free buss pass cost? Probably nothing as it's not like they will be taking up seats that paying passengers could be using.

And hell, you have to be seventy five before you qualify for a free telly licence. Surely you've given enough money to the BBC by then. If you make it to seventy five, chances are you will only have a few years of free TV anyway.

If you have been paying tax all your life, it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor when you retire. Rich people will have paid more into the system than poor people. 'Millionaire' pensioners, as Cleggy Boy puts it, will probably have made it possible for a lot more people to pay tax into the system. If anyone deserves a break when they retire it's them.

Under current rules, those who reach pensionable age in England are entitled to free off-peak travel on public buses.
Councils have complained that the scheme costs millions to operate and have lobbied for restrictions to be introduced.

I doubt, I seriously doubt that the scheme should cost that much to run. It's off peak travel so pensioners are not taking seats away from paying passengers. All that is needed to operate the scheme is a basic travelcard, issued upon proof of age.

Councils are notorious for wasting money though. I bet there is a huge infrastructure of administrators and facilitators, contracting various bits out to overpriced companies etc, etc. Councils could save money in thousands of ways that they just won't touch.

The over-75s also get a free TV licence, worth £145.50, regardless of their savings, at a cost of £500million a year.

But how much have they already paid to the BBC? Whats fifty years at 500million a year? Why penalise them just because they have managed to save up rather than squandering everything?

He said: ‘I’ve been very open about that – that we should be asking millionaire pensioners to perhaps make a little sacrifice on their free TV licence or their free bus passes.’

Make a little sacrifice FFS!? Millionaire pensioners are not in that position because they won the lottery, they are there because they have been sacrificing for their entire lives, and paying huge amounts of tax to boot. I'm sure you're not just talking about target millionaires though, but all pensioners who could afford to pay for bus travel and telly licences if they were forced to. That's your Grandfolk and mine. Hard working people, possibly the penultimate generation with a work ethic, who've managed to put aside a decent nest egg for their retirement.

Chancellor George Osborne was harried by Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg and his allies into raising out of work benefits by 5.2 per cent, while freezing Working Families’ Tax Credit.
Mr Clegg openly boasted that he had insisted on the huge benefit hike for those out of work, claiming it was fairer to help the poorest in society.

Not only is Clegg a shit, he's also the spokesperson in the coalition for the lazy and feckless. A huge benefit hike will not help the poorest in society. For those who just can't be bothered to work, a huge tranche of modern society, this increase will mean they can carry on as normal. For those that do want to work, the financial incentive to do so will no longer be there. Any other incentive will drop by the wayside when they realise they can stay on the dole and get paid a decent wedge for doing it.

Benefits should be no more than a stop gap. They shouldn't provide a full and rounded lifestyle, but just enable people to survive for the short term. Increasing payouts only increases claimants, as we have seen through thirteen years of New Labour.

He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: ‘I make no apology at all for us having had to make difficult choices, but in those difficult choices prioritising the poorest.
‘If you’ve lost your job through no fault of your own, you will have benefits and support fully uprated by inflation, over 5 per cent, in order to get you back into work.’

Money for nothing does not get people back into work. Prioritising the poor is ok as long as you don't prioritise those who are in that position through their own choices; those who choose a life of benefits because it is easier than working and pays well enough.

But a ‘furious’ Mr Duncan Smith yesterday said he would reverse the perverse punishment for those in work when his universal benefit plans are introduced in 2013.He admitted ‘the differential has been reduced’ between income for those in work and those out of work.But he added: ‘It’s not going to be the permanent direction of travel.’ A senior Tory source added: ‘We’ve got to be fair to people in work.

It's people in work now, people who have worked all their lives and the 'millionaire' pensioners that are picking up the benefits bill. If you want to be fair then stop squandering their money on the undeserving and let them keep the small perks they get on retirement.

Blackberry peddling porn! Won't somebody think of the children?

2011-12-13T19:43:00.000Z

BlackBerry under fire over illegal sex content including child porn

See! Blackberry are distributing porn over their handsets. Even child porn! Something must be done immediately. Denounce Blackberry! kill the evildoers! kill them with fire!

Wait a minute... This is Blackberrys doing I take it?

Smartphone company BlackBerry faces controversy after it was revealed its customers have been able to access illegal sex content on the internet, including child pornography.
Since the summer, BlackBerry has failed to provide internet blocks which protect users, including children, from accessing a list of banned websites.

Oh...

*Calls off the angry mob*

So people can access illegal porn (And presumably legal porn) on Blackberry handsets and the company that issue them are not stopping it.

Funnily enough you can do that on pretty much anything that can access the web. Accessing illegal porn is just that - illegal. It's not up to Blackberry to stop people using their legal product for illegal purposes. You can bash someones head in with a chair but nobody blames Ikea.

The news will alarm parents since teenagers make up a large proportion of the eight million BlackBerry users in the UK.

The news will not alarm sensible parents, only those with little or no intelligence who rely on the state to do their job for them. A parent, in the true sense of the word, would regulate their child's internet access or maybe even not buy a young child a Blackberry phone when a standard handset will do.

If you think about it, Blackberrys are expensive and children don't have any money. If a parent makes the choice to buy such a phone for their offspring, then they need to take responsibility for the way it is used.

Last night, telecoms regulator Ofcom said it was ‘very concerned’ about the issue and that it was talking urgently to Canada’s Research in Motion (RIM), owners of BlackBerry, about how to solve the problem.

RIM should really be telling Ofcom to take a hike as this is neither their problem nor responsibility.

All mobile phone operators in Britain are signed up to a code of practice which ensures they apply a block on access to sex sites on the internet.

And assuming an adult buys a phone and wants to use it to access legal porn? It's been known to happen. But of course that can't be allowed to happen in case a child sees it. Eventually it will be all porn on all devices, blocked at source in the name of protecting the kiddies.

A spokesman for RIM said: ‘By the end of 2011, we will have a solution in place that blocks access to these sites.’

Why? It's up to the end user what they do with the product.

The British Government aren't too keen on Blackberry. They offer a closed messaging service that the Powers that be can't access and monitor. They hate that and think it must be stopped. Maybe this is just the next step in that process. Invoke child porn and the danger to the kiddies and who can complain?

A spokesman for the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre said: ‘All service providers have a responsibility to help safeguard the online environment and close down any opportunities for offenders.
‘If they are not doing so this would be a matter of grave concern.’

They have no such responsibility and the only matter of 'grave concern' is the level of censorship our Government is willing to go to. All with the blessing of the masses of course.

Saving the planet

2011-12-13T13:00:00.001Z

Click for biggening

♠♣♥♦ Allergies trump Deafblind. ♠♣♥♦

2011-12-13T08:00:00.002Z

Deafblind girl refuses to go to school after teachers BAN guide dog from dining hall because another pupil has allergy

A deaf and blind teenager is refusing to go to school after teachers banned her guide dog from the dining hall.
Molly Watt, 17, says she was left to eat lunch alone in a separate room because another pupil who uses the canteen is allergic to the dog.
And the pupil, who has been nominated by deafblind charity Sense to carry the Olympic flame, says she will not return until the ban is lifted.

She has since been signed off sick by a doctor after suffering a panic attack when she was separated from her black Labrador-retriever cross named Unis.
The A-level student, from Maidenhead, Berkshire, has not attended classes at Mary Hare School in Newbury, Berkshire, since November 3
‘She was shaking, having panic attacks and was unable to sleep after being asked to leave Unis in a sideroom. Her doctor has signed her off sick.

So here we have two children who cannot share a school canteen together. One because he has a dog allergy and the other because she suffers from panic attacks.

Normally a blind person would be allowed pretty much unrestricted access for a guide dog, yet apparently she has been banned from the school canteen because another pupil apparently has such a bad dog allergy that he will break out in lumps, even from the other side of the room.

On the other hand, the blind girl apparently suffers from panic attacks the minute she is separated from her pooch. Her doctor seems to think that panic attacks are a real thing but you'll never sell it to me.

The allergy guy is:

at risk of a fatal anaphylactic shock if he comes into contact with the dog.

The blind girl is:

fashion conscious and [does] not like to be seen with a cane. She would rather fall over.

The school principal says:

he consulted medical experts and charity groups before making alternative arrangements, which included re-timetabling lessons and banning the dog from the dining room.
He said it leaves Molly without Unis for less than two hours a week and he believes she could use alternative support - such as a stick or friend - to guide her during this time.

The blind girls mother says:

‘The alternative arrangements the school has put in place are not good enough.’

Personally, and without anymore facts than those printed in the Daily Mail, I think enough has been done to accommodate this girls needs.

I'm not sure the 'refusal to return to school' protest is the right way to go either, as the last time I looked, A levels were not compulsory. She may have just solved the schools problem for them.

Molly - who is studying English, textiles and performing - was born deaf and lost her sight aged 14.

And maybe that's no great loss. Unless she is hoping for a career as a literary critic of thespian costumes.

It seems for once, the lower hand in victimhood poker has come out on top. Some people are none too happy.

A petition called Justice 4 Deafblind guide-dog Owner Molly Watt has been signed by more than a thousand people, including former alumni.

Justice? What about justice for the chap who might die? I see he doesn't get an article in the newspaper.

Coffin' dodgin'

2011-12-12T21:19:00.000Z

Residents concern as coffin appears on quayside

You'll see that a coffin hasn't actually 'appeared' randomly at a quayside.

WATERFRONT: Town residents have voiced their concerns after a coffin appeared in a hearse parked on the quayside.

It was in a hearse parked at the quayside. It doesn't even have a body in it.

The vintage vehicle, which belong to tattoo company Diablo Ink, has been a common sight on the Waterfront for more than a year, however in recent weeks residents have noticed that a new hearse had parked up with a coffin on board.

It's just an advertising gimmick. A friend of mine who I haven't seen in a long time* did a similar thing. He owned a piercing studio that he used to advertise on a hearse. As it's popularity started to take off he began a chauffeur service taking people of a more Gothic persuasion to proms and weddings. He offered the service completely free and it did wonders to boost his business.

He also got his name in the local newspaper, but for good reasons, not because some yellow bellied pansies were offended by it.

Elizabeth Green, 22, of Ipswich, said she thought the coffin was out of taste.
“I think it is awful,” she said. “If my children turn around and ask me what it is – they will be scared if I say it is a coffin.
“I just think it is disturbing.”

If your kids will be frightened about that, I hope you kept them well away from the pound shops over Halloween.

How your kids are going to cope when they grow up and enter real life is beyond me. In fact it escapes me how you do, running to the newspapers just because you've seen a coffin. Someone needs to grow a pair methinks.

Temporary Sergeant Nick Rush from Ipswich Central Safer Neighbourhood Team said: “We have not received any complaints about this issue but we are aware of it.
“The vehicle is parked away from residential properties but if any members of the public have any concerns then please call Ipswich Central SNT on 101.”

No complaints eh? I bet you're just dying for the first one to come in so you can go and bully someone new rather than having to do any proper police work.

*I sold him a car. Didn't see much of him after that. Hmm...

After every election, paradise begins...

2011-12-12T13:18:00.000Z

According to Shuiab Khan

The Government always ends up blaming the last lot in charge

Well this lot have so far done a terrible job of fixing the mess we're in, making it even worse in some cases, but they didn't create the original mess.

It has been a week of strikes and strife and it doesn’t look like it’s going to get any better.
Every third person I speak to has an opinion on the subject. Not sure all of them are thought out.
But I would think they make more sense than the words those people in charge have been coming up with.
Despite having analysed everything isn’t it surprising the government always end-up blaming the last lot in charge.
You would think by now you we will have come up with better set of excuses.

Not really. The previous government created a huge mess. Who else would the new government blame for that?

I am more than certain the next government will blame the one before it. And so on and so forth.
In fifty years time the government in charge will have a regular pop at the last one.
It seems to be easiest way out of any mess.

What do you expect? We have a two party system, one left leaning and one right. That gives us two totally different styles of government. When one takes over from the other they will try to do things their way. They will tell us that the last way was wrong and needs sorting out.

In this instance, the mess that Labour left behind is self evident. No one else is going to take responsibility for that or should be made to. "Labour did this", is a valid excuse.

The only difference this time round seems to be the new Government using 'more of the same' as a solution rather than change.

In any other organisation on the planet an excuse like that would be laughed out of the office.
If I worked on the factory floor and made a huge mess of the place a few months into the job, could I really get out of it by stating it was the bloke before me who did this?

If it was the previous bloke and not yourself, and you could demonstrate that to your boss, then yes, you would get away with it as your boss would want the old mess cleaning up. If you failed to do that...

Why don’t we run governments like football teams? For instance if the results are bad you can’t blame the last man in charge. You yourself get kicked out.

Because nothing would ever get fixed if we did it like that. After a general election, the economy, employment and the welfare system etc, are not magically reset back to 'perfect', ready for the new lot to mess up. One new government takes on the legacy of the past. If we were to give them a few months to install paradise before booting them out when they failed, we would be changing governments so fast, there wouldn't even be time to make the simplest decisions.

This would make things a whole lot simpler where we were concerned. We would know exactly where we stand.

I doubt it. Our heads would be spinning. It would be simpler to get rid of Governments altogether and sort out the mess ourselves.

Mmmm. Get rid of governments. *Dream*

Who are they protesting to?

2011-12-12T09:35:00.000Z

Protests over 'stolen' election in Congo turn violent with 143 arrested in central London

More than a hundred people were arrested in central London last night at a demonstration over elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo, police said.
Most of the arrests came at about 9pm after a group broke away from the main protest and began to damage property including cars and shops as well as threatening members of the public, according to Scotland Yard.
The demonstration had started in Whitehall at about 11.30am after agreement with police for a static protest.
Officers detained the group in Lower Regent Street close to the junction with Waterloo Place and 110 people were arrested on suspicion of affray.

The bitterly contested election has sparked violence in the African country which has left at least 18 people dead.

Protests in London about an election in the Republic of Congo? What is going on here?

I'm assuming these demonstrators didn't fly over from Congo to be in London for the protests so they must live here.

They've left their home country to escape whatever it is they don't like back home, taken up residence in England with all the rights and privileges therein, and now they are protesting and breaking things because they want someone else, presumably our government, to do something about the problems they came here to escape.

At least that's how it looks to me. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Saturday free and easy night

2011-12-10T17:02:00.000Z

I was cleaning a fryer while listening to The Hucklebuck, when I came up with an invention.

(I never thought I would begin a blog post with that)

All my ideas seem to come to me when I'm doing something mind numbingly boring like cleaning a fryer. Here's The Hucklebuck, why not clean a fryer and give it a try?

Or not.

Anyway. Back to my invention. It occurred to me that jobsworths like to look in peoples bins to see if the wrong item has been put in there. They like to catch you out and give you a fine.

I came up with a design in my head for a wheelie bin lock. It needs a key to open when the bin is upright but opens automatically when the bin is turned upside down. Jobsworths can't get in, but the bin still opens when it's turned over by the bin lorry.

I know what you're about to say. It's been done. The first thing I did was check that, and here it is.

It's a lot simpler design that mine too, although it's supposed to deter arsonists rather than jobsworths. Oh well.
The reason I first checked to see if it has been done is because I have a history of inventing stuff that already exists.

Back in the early days of working in pubs I came up with a solution to the age old problem of cleaning the lines.

I was doing the lines one morning when I dropped a bucket of used line cleaner that went all over me. Even Mrs Bucko hasn't seen me get undressed that quick. Unfortunately, one of the tastiest barmaids ever, did see it. And she saw me stood there in my undercrackers frantically scrubbing myself clean.

It was good of her to feign concern rather than splitting her sides laughing. Good lass.

A couple of years later, after I had moved into relief management, I came up with a solution. (At the time I was watching Hostel with the Mrs. That film was about as entertaining as cleaning a fryer).

I designed a full, self contained system for cleaning the lines without using buckets. My mate is an engineer and I needed a special screw tap to make a prototype. I popped back home one Tuesday on my day off and met up with him for a beer. I explained the system and how it works, and he agreed to make the tap at work. We then went to the local Weatherspoons.

There was a barman cleaning the lines and you can guess what comes next. He was using my system, or one very similar.

I said, "What are you DOING!?"

He gave me a shocked look and said, "I'm cleaning the lines". He didn't say Duh!

"With THAT!?" I said.

"Yeah? You never seen this before?"

"I have. I've just invented it. How long have you had that?"

"About nine years".

"Beer me!"

My pal was rolling all over the floor pissing his sides laughing. It was about half an hour before I could get an intelligible comment out of him. Big fail.

I'm destined to work for a living for some time yet. I don't think I was meant to be rich.

I didn't do a Friday nigh Moose music post last night for that same reason. Working 9-5 and it was a very bad day. Mrs Bucko's wasn't any better either, and she suggested the pub straight after work. Apologies to my regular listener but beer was more important than music last night.

We don't go to the pub very much anymore. If we go out, we normally just go to the local Catholic club for cheep beer and pool. Last night we decided to go around Darwen just because we hadn't done it for so long.

Now we know why. The place has gone to shit.

We used to go in a pub called the White Lion very often. We knew all the staff and punters and it was a good night. It shut down after the smoking ban, then reopened a few times. It's currently open and you can see it from the Catholic club pool room. The place was swarming with coppers.

Later on when we left the Catholic club (and all the coppers had gone) we popped up for a pint to see what it was like now. We didn't even get inside. There was a chav couple with a young child having a pissed up argument in the doorway.

We went to the Millstone instead. We've both worked there in the past and it's always been a good night. Last night it was full of the dregs and looked like it had gone to the dogs. The toilets were like one big cat litter tray that hadn't been scooped in months and the bar wasn't much better.

Mrs Buckos mate opened a bar in Darwen a few years ago. It was a jazz bar with live music, so we popped off up there for a taste. It's now a standard pub with all kinds of live football. There was a fourteenth birthday party in the upstairs bar. That's right, a fourteenth birthday party. Not at someones house, not at McDonalds but in a pub.

I don't like football but I hate kids even more. At least there was beer. They still do a good hand pulled pint in there.

To top the evening off we went to the kebab shop and they gave me the wrong order.

Tonight we're going to my mums. It was my birthday on Tuesday and she's doing us a meal. We're obliged to attend. Must remember beer. (Just kidding Mum. Warm up the Wii)

I'll leave you with this.

Disaster at Moose Meadows

2011-12-08T12:31:00.000Z

I've spent the last 48 hours fighting a virus that flattened my PC and laptop. Fortunately my backups worked for the PC but I've lost everything on the Laptop.

Things are slowly getting back to normal.

Who writes these things and what kind of perverse pleasure do they get out of it? I'd like to give them a good shoeing.

Normal service will resume shortly.

How to eradicate poverty in England

2011-12-06T10:00:00.001Z

Iain Duncan Smith has said tackling child poverty by boosting family income through benefits is a narrow approach which "looks set to have failed".
The work and pensions secretary said there were problems with officially classifying child poverty as a family on 60% or less than the median income.

There are more than just problems, the entire classification system is bollocks, to delve into technical terminology.

60% or less of the median average income equals poverty? Well in that case there will always be poverty. If you were to double the wages of the top ten percent of earners, more people will be pushed into poverty because the median average will increase, even though the wages of those now supposedly in poverty have not changed, and the economy will have a net benefit because some people will be earning (and consuming) more.

If we also then double the incomes of the bottom ten percent of earners, there will still be more people in 'poverty' than before because the top wages will have increased by a higher dollar value than the bottom. Using this method we can vastly increase the wealth of the poorest in society, yet class more people as 'in poverty', because the method for calculating poverty is so fundamentally flawed.

In fact, by using the 60% median average method, the only way we can bring people out of so called poverty, would be to level out everyones wages. The surgeons would have to be paid the same as the porters, the pilots the same as the cabin crew etc. Anyone on benefits would have to be in receipt of the same income as those working. It didn't work in Mother Russia and it won't work here.

So what is the answer? Simple. Stop misrepresenting words. The dictionary definition of poverty is:

pov·er·ty

noun
1.the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor. Synonyms: privation, neediness, destitution, indigence, pauperism, penury. Antonyms: riches, wealth, plenty.

Synonyms
1. Poverty, destitution, need, want imply a state of privation and lack of necessities. Poverty denotes serious lack of the means for proper existence: living in a state of extreme poverty. Destitution, a somewhat more literary word, implies a state of having absolutely none of the necessities of life: widespread destitution in countries at war. Need emphasizes the fact that help or relief is necessary: Most of the people were in great need. Want emphasizes privations, especially lack of food and clothing: Families were suffering from want.

Or to explain in a visual context:

Picture borrowed from here.

If we calculate the number of people living in poverty in the UK based on these factors, we will quickly see that there are almost none. Whereas the 60% of median figure can create poverty as incomes and affluence increase, I have just eradicated poverty in the UK by a quick redefinition of the standard.

It is only because the standard of living is high in England, we can define people who own cars, TV's and mobile phones, and who smoke fags and drink beer as being severely poor, because there are none who cannot feed their families, wear rags for clothing, have no access to medical care and cook with an open fire in their living room.

The previous Labour government introduced a Child Poverty Act, creating a legally binding requirement for the government to end child poverty by 2020 - official figures suggest 2.8m children are living in poverty.

It's a good job that a Government can bind successive Parliaments with legislation, other wise we would be in a right mess. The only way to end child poverty would be the levelling of incomes described above, done through heavy taxation of the higher earners and huge benefit top ups for the lower.

This week the Institute for Fiscal Studies said it remained "inconceivable" that the government would hit the 2020 target.
Mr Duncan Smith made his comments in a speech in central London - arguing that the way child poverty is measured had proved "hugely expensive" and looked likely to fail.
We need to maintain our vital focus on poverty, while establishing much more effective ways of delivering on it”
He said while for some, such as people with serious disabilities, benefits would always play a "vital role" - increased income did not always mean "increased wellbeing".
In some cases, families might be pushed further into welfare dependency, meaning their children were more likely to do so later in life.
"Income through benefits maintain people on a low income, whereas income gained through work can transform lives," he said.

He seems to be almost grasping it, but not quite.

He suggested new measures of wellbeing - taking into account factors like health, education, life chances and family security - rather than an approach "narrowly focussed on income alone".
"We need to maintain our vital focus on poverty, while establishing much more effective ways of delivering on it and making a real change to families' life chances."

Well maybe not. He needs to get rid of this focus on poverty because it doesn't exist in this country in the true sense of the word. Simply being on a low income does not mean the Government needs to step in and give you more. Benefits should be a safety net only, not a means to fulfil consumerist lifestyle expectations at the expense of those who create the wealth.

Maybe Cameron understands it better?

He said it was "illogical" that child poverty was recorded relative to average income - because the state pension is going up by an unusually high £5.30 a week, it meant some households with children were less wealthy, in relation to pensioners.
"I think there is a real problem with the way we measure child poverty," he said.
"It is the right thing to do to increase the pension. It doesn't make any child in this country poorer because you are giving pensioners more money at a time when they need it."

Better. He's used the pension analogy because it will get more sympathy with the masses than my comparison between high earners and low earners, but the message is a similar one. The 60% median average is rubbish.

Later, the prime minister's spokesman said the government had no plans to change its official poverty measures but said there was a "debate to be had about whether "income transfer" or deeper causes of child poverty and social mobility should be examined.

So close.

Those self perpetuating charities, Save the Children and Action for Children will be pleased though. Without the myth of child poverty, they get no taxpayer money to feather their nests.

We need a 'zero limit' on busybodies.

2011-12-05T12:20:00.000Z

Drink-drive limit 'must be cut to zero' to cut the number of deaths
Great. Another interfering busybody wants to bring in draconian legislation in order to curb a non problem. This latest bout of righteousness is coming from a senior police officer who obviously wants her name in the papers.

You can tell the Daily Mail are behind it too. Look at the picture they published.

An old photograph, posed by a model, of a young girl drinking a bottle of Smirnoff Ice behind the wheel. If it's got that bad well, something must be done. It hasn't though. has it.

Drivers should be banned from drinking any alcohol at all before getting behind the wheel, a top police officer said last night.
Deputy Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, who is responsible for policing the roads of England and Wales, called for the drink-drive limit to be reset to zero.
She said the controversial change would drastically reduce the number killed and seriously injured on our roads each year.

But is it necessary to introduce a blanket ban on alcohol when driving to 'drastically reduce' accidents on our roads? No it isn't. In 2010, deaths caused by drink driving fell by 38% to 250. That's a fall of 38% with no further restrictions and no extra legislation. Whatever is currently being done, is obviously working

And 250 people out of a country of 60 million is not a great deal. It certainly doesn't warrant the heavy handedness being suggested by Ms Davenport.

And please don't suggest I would change my mind if my child/mother/friend/dentists flatmates dog was killed by a drunk driver. Risk is something we face in our daily lives. Mitigating that risk must be done in a sensible and measured manner. We can reduce risk by common sense actions but we can never eradicate it altogether.

Reducing the alcohjol limit to zero would do more harm than good. The arguement, "But if it saves just one life...", is not valid.

Last year more than 170,000 drivers were tested during the month-long campaign, with 6,662 arrests made, about 4 per cent of those stopped.

So 163,338 innocent drivers were stopped by police and forced to take a breath test, just to catch 6662 people who had broken the law. If we stopped 160k pedestrians and checked them for concealed weapons or drugs there would be uproar.

A review of the drink-drive laws by legal expert Sir Peter North concluded that the alcohol limit should be cut from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg.
The new limit would have put Britain in line with many other European countries but questions remain over whether strict punishments would remain in place.
Government ministers were not convinced that the change would save many lives and were fearful it could devastate the fragile rural economy.
It would also criminalise those in country areas who drink in moderation but have to drive to get to their local.

The potential for harm to the economy, criminalising more people and forcing innocent people to prove they haven't been naughty, far outwieghs any negligable benefit.

People who drink and drive do it because they don't care about the law or don't think they will get caught. Reducing the limit to zero won't stop these people, it will only criminalise those sensible drinkers whe drive to the pub and have the one. It will create another group of people who no longer bother going to the pub. Just what the industry needs right now.

Alcohol is linked to 17 per cent of road deaths in the UK. In France, where the drink-drive limit is 50mg, the proportion of fatalities involving alcohol is far higher.

So France has a lower alcohol limit but more road deaths caused by drunk drivers?
But these figures; actual statistical evidence, is not good enough for the righteous busybodies who want to control our lives. They come up with a solution, look for a problem and demand legislation.

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said lowering the drink-drive limit would save lives.
He said: ‘Lowering the limit would back up road safety messages about how and why driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous and would help to encourage people not to drink any alcohol before driving.’

It wouldn't 'help encourage' people not to drink. It would frighten people into abstinance because of the consequences of the law. That's not helping, it's bullying.

Road deaths due to alcohol are decreasing. Drinking and driving is viewed as socially unnacceptable. The system is working.

The police should stick to policing rather than lobbying for policy. They're better at it (A bit).

Saturday free and easy night.

2011-12-03T21:16:00.000Z

After last nights Anglo-Irish jig, Brickbat, a regular commenter came up with this:

A bit of Val Doonican will unblock yer ears.

I used to work in quite a large pub / restaurant about ten years ago. Just over the road was a little local boozer called the Rising Sun.

It was a proper gentleman's ale house. There weren't many of them about back then and I bet there's none now the smoking ban has killed all the local boozers.

It was busy as nuts and hard work in the early days at that pub so I didn't get out much. One Tuesday afternoon when I had the day off, I decided to pop over the road and check out the Rising Sun. I wanted to get away from the pub I worked in and I've got a thing for little local boozers.

It was very cramped with two tiny rooms, but packed out with old folk. And what a friendly pub. They all recognised me from working over the road, though I hadn't seen any of them in my gaff, and as soon as I had bought a pint I was one of the locals.

You're wondering why I'm whacking on about a local boozer when I started on Val Doonican, but this pub was where I got my first taste of the old crooner.I think I had heard of him then but I wasn't familiar with any of his stuff. All the old gents round the bar were actually singing Val Doonican records. This one in particular I remember.

Nope. I've buggered up. I've written all this about Val Doonican, then gone on Youtube to get the tune and discovered it's actually Lonnie Donnegan, not Val Doonican. Dammit! Schoolboy error. Check your facts before writing the post.

Oh well, it's still a good tune so I'll play it anyway.

So all them owd chaps were singing Lonnie Donnegan, not Val Doonican. And all those years I thought.... Oh well.

It was still a cracking little pub. I spent many an hour in there when I needed to get away from work.

I didn't work there long though, I left after about a year because the landlord was a bit of a muppet. He was too frightened of the customers and he allowed a good pub to be taken over by riff raff. He didn't last too long either.

It doesn't look anything like a pub now, it's a fancy restaurant thing. The Rising Sun is still going though. You have to go in the backyard for a fag but they've weathered the smoking ban well. They haven't even started serving food or allowing children in.

I hope it lasts. We need good boozers.

Friday night Moose music - An Anglo-Irish jig

2011-12-02T18:00:00.002Z

Probably the two most famous purveyors of Irish music are The Pogues and The Dubliners. One of which grew out of O'Donoghue's bar in Dublin, while the other hails from Sunny Kings Cross, North London.

They have many a tune to their names, and have collaborated on more than one occasion. Here are a few of my favourites.

I'm off on the works Christmas do this evening so I'll be back late and messy. Happy Friday!