Pages

Who understands 'Inclusive'?

Fury as Green Party mayor bans meat from menu to save planet and be more 'inclusive'
Just the kind of thing you'd expect from the Green Party. A total lack of understanding of both green issues and inclusivity
The first Green Party mayor of Worcester has been criticised for removing meat from the menu at mayoral receptions to be more 'inclusive'.
Councillor Louis Stephen said that only vegetarian or vegan food would be available after full council meetings at the Mayor's Parlour in Worcester Guildhall. He argued that plant-based food is "more inclusive" as many non-Christians do not eat pork.
The only argument he makes here, is that he's an imbecile
 
If some 'non-Christians' don't eat pork, the way to be inclusive is to offer a no pork option. Removing all meat for all people is the total opposite of inclusive
The councillor asked: "Why has a decision been made to deny any choice for the 93 per cent at post-Council receptions by instructing that no meat option for the 93 per cent should be provided?" He questioned: "Who made this decision? Who else was consulted? Is this another example of the tyranny of the illiberal Left?"
It is. It's also an example of the brainlessness of the liberal left. To normal people like us, being inclusive, means including everyone
To the left, being inclusive means only including the people they approve of and excluding everyone else
The councillor, who was a mayor between 2014 and 2015, added: "We always had an option for vegetarians and an option for vegans.
That's inclusive
Green councillor Marjory Bisset, joint leader of the city council, hit back saying he did not believe it was a "diversity and equality issue".

She explained: "I do not think not being able to eat meat at a particular event is a diversity and equality issue. There are only six such meetings a year, is it really such an imposition to be deprived of meat on these six occasions?"
Yes it is. Because it absolutely will not end there

Bananas

I just ate a banana. It was surprisingly good. So I had to work out why that was surprising. Doing the maths, it's been at least six years since I ate a banana

I might do it more often

Crazytown

We don't use that word to describe nutjobs anymore. We say 'Trans People'
Transgender people in England are much more likely to have a long-term mental health condition, the first study of its kind shows, with some facing a risk five times higher than cisgender people.
Ok. So I have a question 
Are trans people more likely to develope a mental illness becuase they are trans?
Or are people trans because they have a mental illness?

I reckon the people that think you can change gender as you please and men can get pregnant and have periods, started life on the crazy train
The Guardian believes they boarded at a later junction, because causation / correlation, or something

Oh, and there is no such thing as Cisgender. Sod off with that already

Sustainabollocks

Sustainable. Carped on about by every single issue charity and pressure group, spouted by MPs and the public sector, and written into every companies mission statement and even painted on the sifde of all the vans
 
But what does it mean? Buggered if I know. It might have meant something one day, but now it's just a word that everybody uses to pretend they're environmentally friendly
Move to sustainable food systems could bring $10tn benefits a year, study finds
Of course it's also used in many headlines in The Guardian
A shift towards a more sustainable global food system could create up to $10tn (£7.9tn) of benefits a year, improve human health and ease the climate crisis, according to the most comprehensive economic study of its type.
You'd be forgiven, on reading that, for asking what type of food system do they mean, what would be the economic benefits, how would it improve human health and what would it do to prevent climate change?

You'd be forgiven, but you really should know better
It found that existing food systems destroyed more value than they created due to hidden environmental and medical costs, in effect, borrowing from the future to take profits today.
Food is causing health problems. food is causing climate change. Food makes profit. The first two are unlikely and unproven, and the third one is the pinnacle of all evil, according to the Guardian
God forbid, the people who create food for us, should be paid for their labours. 
Food systems drive a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on course for 2.7C of warming by the end of the century. This creates a vicious cycle, as higher temperatures bring more extreme weather and greater damage to harvests.
Greenhouse gas being carbon dioxide. Now it's been a while since I did basic science at high school, so please help me out here. There's a gas that all plant based life breathes, just like we breathe oxygen, and this gas is absolutely essential for growing food. It's on the tip of my tongue...

And speaking of greenhouses, they're what we use in colder countries, to grow food that requires higher temperatures. Am I right? As for extreme weather, when it's cold they tell us that weather isn't climate, but when the weather whips up a bit, they tell us it's cow farts
Food insecurity also puts a burden on medical systems. The study predicted a business-as-usual approach would leave 640 million people underweight by 2050, while obesity would increase by 70%.
How do you even respond to that? Schrodinger's fat whap? Sure, food insecurity might leave some people with not enough, but maybe that could be dealt with by encouraging people not to live and breed so much in the deserts of the world, where it's quite difficut to grow stuff

We still haven't got to some kind of proposal
The study proposes a shift of subsidies and tax incentives away from destructive large-scale monocultures that rely on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance. Instead, financial incentives should be directed towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife.
They want to stop subsidising Big Farmer (See what I did there?) and give the money to people with a large back garden?
To be honest, I don't actually understand what they mean by this, if anything

And what the blithering fuck is a carbon sink? Growing food, by it's very nature, is something that uses up carbon dioxide, if that's what they mean
A change of diet is another key element
Ahh! I suspect that is where all this bollocks was leading us
Overall, they estimate the costs of the transformation at between 0.2% and 0.4% of global GDP per year.
The ten trillion in benefits mentioned in the headline, actually not being financial benefits, but intangible nonsense about how much money could be saved by not being fat or not having climate change. In actual fact, the only financial impact would be a huge monetary cost
As well at the climate impact, it is a major driver of land-use change and biodiversity decline, and is responsible for 70% of freshwater drawdown.
It's also responsible for keeping eight billion people alive, so there's that
Numerous other studies have demonstrated the health and climate benefits of a shift towards a plant-based diet.
Yes, this whole thing has been another push to force everyone to go vegan
A report last year by the Climate Observatory notes that Brazil’s beef industry – and its related deforestation – now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan.
The only thing that says to me, is that we don't need to worry about the carbon footprint of all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan
Changing the ways we produce and consume food will be critical to tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, and building a better future. It is time for radical change.”
What radical change? Do tell, because this is getting tedious
The new study is not prescriptive about vegetarianism, but Rockström said demand for beef and most other meat would fall if hidden health and environmental costs were included in the price.
They want to raise the tax on meat to get us to stop eating it. That's it, isn't it? These people think they're so clever, but all they ever do is regurgitate the same old crap
The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes.
Political dexterity? I assume that means either more lies, or police with batons. So he can see that artificially inflating the price of food for no reason may result in civil unrest, but he's right, so he wants to do it anyway
This opportunity should capture the attention of any policymaker who wants to secure a healthier future for the planet and for people.”
In my ideal world, any policymaker whose attention this cpatured, would be swinging from a lamppost, post haste

Not Doing Brexit

Let's face it, we voted to leave the EU in 2016, but we're never going to go. It first became apparent to me when Theresa May enshrined all EU law into Uk law, then told us they would repeal anything that we didn't really need

Brexit had been dragging on for ages before that, then we're told we're having all the laws anyway? EU Regulations were the main reason I voted for Brext. And when have you ever seen a Government repeal a law?

Brexit could have been a wonderful thing if the powers that be, both here and over there, didn't choose to act like a bunch of toddlers having a tantrum in a supermarket

Now this:
New Brexit border rules could cut the shelf life of fresh food from mainland Europe by a fifth and leave some deliveries from the EU unsaleable, major food bodies have warned.

The SPS Certification Working group, which represents 30 trade bodies covering £100bn of the UK’s food supply, has said new rules requiring importers to notify authorities a day before they arrive in the UK was “unfeasible” and could mean that some European businesses decide to stop supplying the UK.
More unneccessary regulation, not less. Tim Worstall says:
No reason for this other than the convenience of the bureaucrats who process the paperwork.
Fire them all.
Fire them all indeed, I would be 100% behind that, but I don't think keeping bureaucrats in gainful employment is the real reason

It's so that Remoaners can complain the shelves are empty and the prices have increased 'because of Brexit', and the UK Government can be seen to be doing something, when they one day claim Brexit has failed, and take us back into the EU

We may rejoin officially or just behind the scenes, but it will be without the few minor benefits of membership and without another referendum

Get in line

Something has just made me remember a (boring) story from when I recently went on holiday
 
We had little choice but to fly with Ryanair this time. I've give over saying I'll never use them again, as we always do, and to be honest, they were actually quite good this time. Anyhoo, they fly from Terminal three, which we don't often visit

The last time we were at terminal three was when covid restrictions were still in place and we were advised to turn up three hours before departure, because of all the delays with check in and security

Check in took ten minutes and security took fifteen. When we got to the bar though, there was a huge queue going all around the perimeter of the pub (if you've been, you'll know the layout). It took me an hour to get through the queue and get some beers

If it wasn't for all the doom-mongering about delays, we may not have had time for a couple of beers, so thanks to the packickers for that

Anyway, we're back there in December, Mrs Bucko got us some kick arse seats, while I went up for beers. There were roughly seven people in front of me and they were all forming an orderly queue, starting three or four meters away from the bar, due to people walking past with cases and stuff

It's quite a big bar and in your average boozer, people normally just walk up to the bar to get served, they don't queue. I joined the queue but it felt really awkward. It felt wrong to be queuing and it felt like a normal person at any minute, might just bypass the queue and walk up to the bar, so you would have to say something or uncomfortably look away like you hadn't noticed

So I got the beers, sat with Mrs Bucko and pointed it out. She also thought it unusual, but what the hell?

When it was time for a second beer, there was one person being served at the bar and no queue, so I just walked up to the bar. Someone popped up and served me, but while doing so, two other people walked up to the bar

When I got back to the table, there were a few at the bar again, but all waiting at the bar rather than queuing. I pointed it out to Mrs Bucko, as I felt responsible for this little act of rebellion and return to the normal way of doing things

It didn't last long. After that rush had been dealt with, people started forming an orderly queue again. Is it just that one bar in Terminal 3 where people are weird, as I've never seen that before?

So we got on the plane...