Punch Drunk

Those business geniuses at Punch Taverns are in confident mood according to the FT.

Punch Taverns says it now has the necessary “momentum behind” its debt restructuring proposal that aims to slash a quarter off the pub group’s £2.3bn debt burden. 

Stephen Billingham, executive chairman of Punch, said: “We have more people on side than we did on June 26. I think the company is optimistic that it is now on the road to completing the restructuring".

If I were an investor in Punch, I'd be running scared right now. You see, they've been "optimistic" before.

Francis Patton, [Punch Taverns] customer services director said: “Too many people are looking at the smoking ban as a threat, but we know this is a huge opportunity. The smoking ban is a great opportunity to get new customers (who want to eat) into pubs and also keep people there who go regularly.”

And didn't that turn out hunky dory, eh? The "great opportunity" led to their business collapsing, and their share price hurtling downwards from £11.50 in July 2007 to such a low that Paddy Power were offering odds-on that they would trade at 1p in 2009.

The FT are well aware of where the blame lies, even if it hasn't registered with Punch yet.

Punch Taverns’ troubles have their roots in structural changes within the pub industry such as the smoking ban and Britons drinking less. Its net debt stood at nearly £5bn at one point.

This is what happens when you get in bed with prohibitionist health advocates, Punch. You're not running health clubs; they're not your friends. D'you see?

Still, at least they have recovered from the paltry 10.81p per share value the last time I wrote about them in 2011. Oops, my mistake, no they haven't, it's 9.5p now.

Hmm, perhaps something to do with 31 pubs per week still closing despite all those hordes of extra customers Punch were expecting in 2007?

Mugs.

Go On Then, Just One More Giggle

Seeing as 'Ex Democrat' mentioned it in yesterday's comments, how about a little chuckle at Punch's expense. Last time, I promise.

2007.

Francis Patton, [Punch Taverns] customer services director said: “Too many people are looking at the smoking ban as a threat, but we know this is a huge opportunity. The smoking ban is a great opportunity to get new customers (who want to eat) into pubs and also keep people there who go regularly.”

And now (click to enlarge for full schadenfreude joy).


Punch Taverns grabbed that 'opportunity' of a 99% collapse in their share price with both hands, so they did. Well done, you sage Captains of industry, you.

After supping with the Devil, what else did they really expect?

And in case that didn't make you laugh enough, here's the comedian who tops the bill in these parts of late (you may want to hum the Benny Hill theme tune as you read this utter crud from Linda Bauld).

Impact on the Hospitality Industry

Annual Business Inquiry data were only available to 2008 at the time the scoping study was conducted. These data showed that turnover fell in 2007 for bars but not for restaurants or hotels.

Data on consumer spending showed some signs of a small decline in the third quarter of 2007 in the period following the introduction of smokefree legislation, but the size of this fall did not reach statistical significance

See, that chart from above is just an illusion. It didn't happen. Professional anti-smoker Linda Bauld says so, so it must be true.

Because when Labour were looking to ascertain the effect of the Health Act 2006 (smoking ban, to you and me) and paying nearly £50,000 for the 'expert' opinion, who do you think they hired to do so?

Was it ...

A) An eminent accountant
B) An accomplished economist, or
C) A dedicated anti-smoking health professional with no grounding whatsoever in business or financial affairs, and with a track record of producing bullshit?

Hmmm, that's not as funny, is it? The joke's on all of us instead for having to put up with such blatant manipulation and mendacity.

The Joke That Keeps Giving

Call it rubber-necking if you like, but it's difficult not to look on as the car crash continues to hurtle over the cliff.

Embattled pubs group Punch Taverns said a demerger of its Spirit unit was one of the options it considered in a strategic review initiated to find ways to cut its 3 billion pounds ($4.9 billion) debt.

Punch's tenanted pubs have been hit by a UK smoking ban, duty increases and the economic downturn and Dyson had previously said he wanted to reduce the estate from a peak of 7,500 pubs to a core of 4,700.

Punch shares, which have slumped from a high of 1,150 pence in 2007, were up 4.9 percent to 72.3 pence at 1356GMT, valuing the business at 465 million pounds, well below the level of the company's debt.

Crikey! How things have changed since those chipper comments in 2007, eh?

Francis Patton, [Punch Taverns] customer services director said: “Too many people are looking at the smoking ban as a threat, but we know this is a huge opportunity. The smoking ban is a great opportunity to get new customers (who want to eat) into pubs and also keep people there who go regularly.”

Pffft!

And the best bit?

Punch said a number of options had been considered as part of a review of its strategy, performance and structure including a spin-off of its Spirit unit.

Fighting back against one of the fundamental, state-enforced, reasons for their predicament might bring them a more profitable result. But they seem intent on continuing to make us laugh, bless 'em.

Seriously, It's Cruel To Laugh

I've kinda giggled a bit at Punch 'the smoking ban is a huge opportunity' Taverns in the past, on more than one occasion. So by way of update, here's a bit more hilarity.

Future of Punch pubs in balance

The UK arm of Ambac, a bond insurer, has hired debt restructuring experts ahead of a battle over the future of the indebted pubs group Punch Taverns.

Just as a reminder for those who don't investigate all linked text, let's reproduce this graph of their share price I first published in 2009 (click to go large, as per usual).


As Rolf might say, d'you see what it is yet?

In contrast, some busineses are doing extremely well right now.

Tobacco stocks have returned more to investors in the last decade than any sector in the IMA universe, a new study from Financial Express has revealed.

The FTSE 350 Tobacco has returned 539.43 per cent in the last 10 years, outperforming the FTSE All Share by 495 per cent. The best performing IMA sector in this time period, China/Greater China, has returned less than half of this figure to investors.

Talk about backing the wrong horse, eh?

H/T F2C

Another One Bites The Dust

In his capacity as Health Secretary in July 2007, there were few facets more putrid about the implementation of the smoking ban than Alan Johnson's triumphant rejoicing in front of the British media. Sporting a satisfied grin, he gleefully revelled in legislatively re-casting more than a fifth of the population as second class citizens.

How gratifying it is, then, to watch his very public cuckolding whilst at the very height of his political powers. Following in the filth-strewn path trodden by David Chaytor, Margaret Moran and other rancid fucks, Johnson heads back to obscurity in gloriously humiliating fashion.

Quite right too.

Each time one of these odious, anti-social, community vandals gets their comeuppance, I always feel someone up above is enjoying a hearty chuckle.

The Boy Done Good

Some may remember that last year my company retained the services of a tax consultant, out of spite as much as anything, really. Instead of just shifting outgoings from the government's coffers into the consultant's (as I expected but which was perfectly fine by me), he predicted quite a handsome saving.

He's just reported back to advise that he'll be saving us over £20,000 ... every year.

He under-estimated, it would seem, as we were given notice today that HMRC is giving us back £37k+ for last year.

OK, we've had to shell out around £8k for fees, disbursements, and other costs of the process, but that's still £37k which can no longer be spent by the state on bullying their electorate.

I've had worse days.

CAMRA Members Are 'Immoral'

Satire or serious?

A few years ago, one would have guessed the former, but now? Who knows?

I have just returned from the Campaign for Real Ale's annual Great British Beer Festival in London, to which I was invited in order to see 'responsible drinking' being undertaken.

This disgusting experience merely confirmed that making alcohol expensive is not any kind of answer.

It cost £10 for admission and another £3 to obtain a glass before a single drop could be sampled, yet I could see considerable numbers of people whose consumption had been such that they would not have been legally (and, in several cases, physically) capable of driving a motor vehicle.

Only complete prohibition can save the health and morality of our nation.

JOHN EOIN DOUGLAS

Edinburgh

CAMRA binge-drinkers had better get used to this sort of treatment from now on. Maybe, instead of rolling over, they should have fought harder to help keep the righteous's box shut when they had the chance.

UPDATE: Lawson alerts us to the fact that John Eoin Douglas has a blog. And having read it, I'm still none the wiser.

Whaddya reckon?

Hitting 'Em Where It Hurts

In light of the fact that government are treating us with contempt, last month saw the ball set rolling on some modest retaliation. Just for the hell of it.

I like your idea about taxes too, but again, since yesterday, I don't feel like paying too much of that. So a tax specialist is popping by my company next week to work out ways I can prevent you from getting it. I'll probably pay him as much as I'll save, but the tax consultant will respect me for giving it to him, whereas ... well, you can fill in the rest, can't you?

Turns out it isn't so modest after all. He's just reported back to advise that he'll be saving us over £20,000 ... every year.

And Boy, does it feel good!

Do Unto Others ...

Oh joy!

Reports from Westminster that some MPs were so strapped for cash under the new expenses regime that they were dossing down in their offices were, I assumed, apocryphal. Not a bit of it. The Clerk of the House, Michael Jack, has been forced to issue an edict warning that sleeping on the premises is strictly verboten.

And the best bit? To stop the poor, innocent, destitute, borassic souls from dossing in their offices, Jack is invoking the nation's catch-all precautionary leviathan for anything that isn't strictly illegal but which someone, somewhere, doesn't particularly approve of. Yep ... health and safety.

the Clerk if the House has seized on health and safety, pointing out that the Palace of Westminster has no overnight fire marshal cover [...]. He adds: “So, in the event of a fire in the quiet hours, we could not ensure building evacuation, nor could we tell search and rescue teams from the emergency services of anyone trapped in a building

Such a small story, so much schadenfreude.

1) £65k salary, extra living allowance if you're a London MP, a second home if you're not, subsidised food and drink, but you need to sleep in your office? You've got to be shitting me?
2) How are those overweening health and safety regs - which you fuckers inflicted on us - working for ya', boys and girls?

and, of course ...

3) Remember that you're not being banned from a legal activity ... you are merely required to step outside the building to do so. Not much to ask, is it?

The other foot bloody enjoys wearing the boot occasionally.

Smoke Signals

Now we've finally stopped laughing at Gillian Merron being booted out, it's time for some more comedy.

So here's a list of Labour MPs who voted enthusiastically for the smoking ban but would probably have cried out for smoker support last Thursday.

Roger Berry (Kingswood) -10.6% LOST
Dawn Butler (Brent South) -8.9% LOST
Paul Clark (Gillingham) -13.1% LOST
Charles Clarke (Norwich South) -8.7% LOST
Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) -12.4% LOST
Andrew Dismore (Hendon) -3% LOST
David Drew (Stroud) -1.5% LOST
Michael Foster (Hastings & Rye) -3.5% LOST
Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North) -15.7% LOST
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth Sutton) -9% LOST
Patrick Hall (Bedford) -5.7% LOST
Phil Hope (Corby) -4.5% LOST
Sally Keeble (Northampton North) -9.4% LOST
Ann Keen (Feltham & Heston) -5.4% LOST
David Kidney (Stafford) -10.2% LOST
Jim Knight (Dorset South) -11.4% LOST
Stephen Ladyman (Thanet South) -8.1% LOST
David Lepper (Brighton Pavilion) -7.5% LOST
Martin Linton (Battersea) -5.6% LOST
Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Portsmouth North) -10.8% LOST
Tony McNulty (Harrow East) -7.9% LOST
Shahid Malik (Dewsbury) -8.4% LOST
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley) -9% LOST
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) -4.5% LOST
Eric Martlew (Carlisle) -9.6% LOST
Chris Mole (Ipswich) -8.2% LOST
Julie Morgan (Cardiff North) -1.9% LOST
Dan Norris (Wansdyke) -7% LOST
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) -3.4% LOST
Gordon Prentice (Pendle) -6.2% LOST
Gwyn Prosser (Dover) -11.8% LOST
Bill Rammell (Harlow) -7.7% LOST
Andy Reed (Loughborough) -6.7% LOST
Terry Rooney (Bradford North) -11.3% LOST
Martin Salter (Reading West) -14.5% LOST
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham & Aylesford) -12.7% LOST
Angela Smith (Basildon) -9.7% LOST
Jacqui Smith (Redditch) -13.4% LOST
Anne Snelgrove (Swindon South) -6.2% LOST
Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West) -8.6% LOST
Howard Stoate (Dartford) -15.5% LOST
Dari Taylor (Stockton South) -9.4% LOST
Desmond Turner (Brighton Kemptown) -4.1% LOST
Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge) -10.4% LOST
Anthony Wright (Great Yarmouth) -12.7% LOST

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahaha.

Good riddance to the stinking lot of them.

Interestingly, in Scotland where there was already a ban imposed by Holyrood not Westminster (but Scottish MPs were allowed to vote on an English ban nonetheless), the trend was reversed. Of the 26 Scottish Labour MPs who voted for the Health Act 2006, only Jim Devine (-2.6) and Ann Begg (-0.2) experienced a reduction in their share of the vote. The average increase between them all was 3.4%.

Funny, that.

What A Shame!

What happens when you are an MP and you completely ignore your constituents and also defend corruption in government?

Why, you're told to fuck off, of course.

It's not nice losing one's job (or business) due to the actions of others, though (Lincoln landlords know all about that), so if you're on Twitter, you can offer your sincere commiserations to Gillian here, or by e-mail here.

Either that or just spark up a cigar in quiet celebration, your choice.

Twas The Night Before Election And .... DON'T VOTE LABOUR

The Labour Nannyfesto (click to enlarge)

In the spirit of openness, I am declaring an interest here.

It's only right to point out, as I urge - in fact, plead with - all and sundry not to vote Labour tomorrow, that I truly despise them. With every bone in my body. Just the thought of waking up on Friday with Brown and Clegg beaming outside number 10 makes me want to chew my knuckles off.

That's why I, personally, wouldn't vote for them. But, why should you not vote for the British political equivalent of genital warts (as if it should really need explaining)?

Well, His Grace points to all the high-fallutin' reasons but, as I've mentioned before, I've been dubbed a blogosphere tabloid writer so you probably don't come here for clever stuff like that.

Instead, let's start by going all unashamedly tabloid (Daily Sport, even).

For a start, they want to BAN YOUR DAILY TITS!

SIXTEEN Page 3 Girls in all their glory represent the very image of freedom in this country. But if Labour or the Lib Dems win the election, this could be the last time they are allowed to pose together.

MPs Harriet Harman and Lynne Featherstone will move swiftly to change the law and ban Page 3 forever.

Dullard wastrel Labour tweeters and pompous Graun commenters are very condescending about this. It's an irrelevance, they say, and even if it could happen in the future, they pull the Ed Balls line. So what? They, personally, wouldn't be bothered one way or another, so where's the problem?

But there is a problem. They know full well that Harriet Harman and her fat lezzer friends would ban page 3 in a heartbeat if they could. Degrading to wimmin, innit. Either that, or the sight of a pair of boobs is likely to turn the chiiildren into predatory sex cases. They don't know how they're going to spin it yet, but the proof will be overwhelming when they do ... it damn well should be considering they will be paying a lot of your money for it.

Tiny issue it may be, but it's part of a Labour trend. All the pursuits enjoyed by the average working guy/girl, with whom I have associated for most of my life, are being systematically attacked by these joyless tax-spongers.

The smoking ban was a doozy for Labour. What a great trick that was, punishing the working man for his love of tobacco while simultaneously killing off those nasty little pubs which he used to enjoy. No wonder they were puffing their chests and preening themselves when they passed that one. It must have been high fives all round at Millbank before celebrating over a skinny latte and oyster salad at the nearest highly-polished gastropub.

There are some wet-led pubs still struggling along, but Labour's ban on happy hour, and promotions designed to increase trade, will soon put a stop to that if they are re-elected.

They wouldn't actually dream of going to a working man's pub themselves, you understand, far too lowbrow. But they 'saved' the proles from a life that they used to enjoy. All those 'health inequalities' extinguished in one fell swoop was too tempting to resist. Who cares if enjoyment of life, itself, is diminished? They were making the wrong choices ... ones which Labour don't enjoy, and that just won't do.

Because the mentality of a Pinot-sipping Guardianista is that the best way of tackling the unhealthy choices of the working class is by eradicating such choices altogether. Why would they need them anyway? There's always that delightful Pret a Manger round the corner, and instead of a pint and a cigarette, the modern day Marie Antionettes suggest they should try the delights of sushi and Kirsch.

You see, smokers don't enjoy a cigarette, Labour tell us, they just think they do. Much as the road worker who breathes in bitumen fumes every day thinks he likes a mid morning blowout breakfast at the Turkish caff. He'd be much more likely to enjoy a cannellini bean wrap, like Labour do. So it's Labour's job to ensure that those foods are off the menu.

MacDonalds has to go, too. We can't have kids growing up eating affordable things that they find tasty, especially not if they are sold by a multi-national conglomerate despised by lefties worldwide. Nope, carrot sticks and de-sugared fruit smoothies it will have to be. They're all the rage in Islington, doncha know? And any whiff of child-friendly food in schools must be taken off the menu, too. Hypocritical mockney cock, Comrade Oliver, is all over that like a rash - the £1bn spent so far is well worth it if it produces a future full of pallid beanstalk bores in the image of Kerry fucking McCarthy.

Of course, there will always be those who resist, so packed lunches must be monitored to prevent non-compliance with Labour diktat. As Brendan O'Neill points out in an excellent Speccie article, this leads us onto a related matter. That of personal privacy and self-determination.

We can’t put sweets in our children’s lunch boxes. Such items are increasingly being confiscated as contraband under the government Obesity Strategy’s ‘healthy lunch box policy’. Even the lunch box, that special bond between a parent and child when they are parted during the day, has been invaded and colonised by New Labour.

Compliance must be all-encompassing in a country filled with people who Labour consider to be homogenous.

No exceptions, no exemptions, and no considered decisions allowed by anyone but Labour wonks in their 'progressive' ivory towers. Education isn't the chosen tool because that would make people think - a dangerous scenario. Nope, only coercion will work to bring a future fair for all selfish, ideological, bansturbatory, anti-social Labour hoons.

A country moulded in the image of Mary Whitehouse. A life of unwavering allegiance to government directive, administered by an army of clipboard-wielding, state-paid prodnoses with ever-increasing powers to intrude on your life, work, and home. The new East Germany.

And all this before Labour bring in the full force of the EU cavalry about which we were refused the right to raise democratic objection.

As Tom Paine states, this should all end here. Tomorrow should be the day that we all reject the idea that the state has full control of our lives. Give Labour a fourth term and by 2015 they'll be telling you how you should be wiping your arse ... and I'm not kidding.

If you value any semblance of freedom or control of your own life and choices, you know what to do.

DON'T VOTE LABOUR tomorrow. Don't tactically vote if it gives Labour an advantage. Vote for the other two main parties if you must, but not if it helps Labour and certainly not if the candidate even hints that interfering in your life choices is something they would support.

Vote wise, and vote in the knowledge that this is the only chance we get before these hideous people go back to another 5 years of dictating how we are supposed to live in their laughable model of a free country.

Oh yeah, and did I mention that it's probably not a good idea to vote Labour?

pic H/T Mike Furby

Move Over, Kinnock. There's A New King Of Shame In Town

Neil Kinnock's life became a little easier today.

As the election descended into quite hilarious farce, a new icon of political suicide has presented itself. As images go, this is stark.

Forget Kinnock's fall on a Brighton beach, consign to history his cringeworthy Sheffield jig, there's a new poster boy for Labour ineptitude.

Just look at that image. You're going to see it over and over again in the next couple of decades. A man completely humiliated by a 66 year old pensioner who was just out to get some bread.

Well, actually, it wasn't her fault, it was obviously his. Not that you'd get that impression from the way Brown feebly fumbled around trying to place the blame elsewhere. But the evident resignation in the pose is almost pitiful, almost pathetic - in the very true sense of the word.

But 'almost' is the operative word.

As events unfolded; as it was trailed by every media outlet, including the BBC, the election took on a new turn. A previously turgid process became superb fun!

E-mails and texts were flying in to congratulate radio 5 on 'one of the most entertaining afternoons ever'. As Brown was tearing up his meticulously planned schedule to drag himself, and his intra-legs-located tail, back to Rochdale to deliver an abject apology, the country just shook its collective head and muttered "good grief" along with a satisfying "pffft".

There was little pity for someone who, for three years, has led a government which has intimidated, marginalised, denormalised, lectured, disenfranchised, and dictated to the public at every turn.

It was the moment when the playground bully was dragged by his ear to the head's office as grateful kids jeered at his dramatic descent from arrogance to public humiliation. It was the little guy kicking the neighbourhood thug in the family jewels. Much like the expenses anger, which wasn't anything to do with the paltry sums involved, it was a catharsis for every persecuted grouping that Brown's party have targeted.

And it happened in a way that couldn't possibly have been more apposite. Someone held an opposing view to Gordon's, so he instinctively spewed out the racism insult.

It's hard-wired in lefties and their preferred quangoes. If challenged, don't bother with trying to engage in a constructive manner, just throw accusations and smears.

If you worry about immigration, you're a racist. If you object to government spending, you want the poor to rot in the streets. If you are sceptical about climate change hyperbole, you are happy to see third world countries drown and/or are paid by oil companies. If you disagree with bans on smoking or fox hunting, you're quite happy to see kids die or you're a bloodthirsty butcher. If you believe ID cards are an outrage to civil liberties, you have something to hide. Et cetera to fade.

When a party has made so many enemies from differing spheres, there's little natural pity left when confronted by such a pathetic image. It's just natural justice.

Kinnock, you can breathe easy again. We haven't forgotten how funny your public gaffes were, it's just that this time it's more personal ... and oh so much sweeter.

A Warning Ignored

Just over a year ago, I attempted to impart some of the wisdom gained from over 5 years fighting the righteous. It was in response to this post on an e-cig forum.

Please could you make suggestions about organisations we would like to associate ourselves with. Some might be controversial, bear in mind that this isn't about you or your allegiances, it must reflect what is best for our community and the future of vaping.

Anti smoking organisations -
Action on Smoking and Health - ASH.

The proposal was countered by another member, but was vehemently, and repeatedly, rebuffed. So I registered and politely offered my experience-based opinion.

[...] if you are considering consorting with ASH, you will be killing your industry stone dead.

If your product isn't provided by their paymasters, you will be hounded out of business by whatever means. In the UK, they are already pushing for bans on e-cigs. If they are not made by pharma, they will kill them.

They will bankrupt you without losing sleep, believe me.

The reply was surprising, to say the least.

Hi Dick, thanks for your concern but you are presenting false information.

I'm finding myself arguing, not because I like ASH or have any loyalty for them but because of the misinformation that has been presented to stop Right to Vape considering potentially useful allies.

OK, I tried, but it really isn't worth it when someone refuses to have a clue.

Fair enough Kate. You believe your nonsense, I'll carry on with what I know.

I'm not wasting any more time on you.

You were warned. Best of luck.

And that was about it.

Take it to the police Dick.

I don't believe you about anything.

So, I wonder if she will believe this gleeful press release from ASH.

The importation of e-cigarettes will be banned indefinitely as the result of a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals [...] reports public interest law professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), who participated in the legal proceeding.

The FDA had warned that e-cig use poses "acute health risks," that "the dangers posed by their toxic chemicals . . . cannot seriously be questioned," and that they have caused a wide variety of potentially serious symptoms "including racing pulse, dizziness, slurred speech, mouth ulcers, heartburn, coughing, diarrhea, and sore throat."

The FDA had found that samples it tested contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could be exposed. The FDA said the toxic chemicals included diethylene glycol, “an ingredient used in antifreeze, [which] is toxic to humans”; “certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens”; and that “tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans -- anabasine, myosmine, and B-nicotyrine -- were detected in a majority of the samples tested.” The FDA does not currently monitor or license e-cigs, and indeed considers them "illegal."

Consider yourself 'indefinitely' denormalised, love.

If e-cigs are ever sold without opposition in this country, or the USA, it will be the pharmaceutical industry who will control the entire market, not some daft woman who thinks ASH is somehow anything else but a marketing department for big pharma.

None so blind etc.

Righteous Fun With Cooking

If you don't read Cooking Lager's blog regularly, you really should.

There has been a dearth of good supermarket offers on of late. Recently I had to buy a 10 pack of Stella 4% for £6, that’s 60p a can! All because that was the cheapest lout I could find in Tesco. For someone used to paying 40p a can the checkout was painful.

Cooking lager enthusiasm, you see, isn’t just about loving the lovely lout; it’s about loving paying buttons for it. Buying it dirt cheap is part of the fun.

That's how to fight the righteous. Not by self-shaming, but by heartily defending one's own choices or even, as Cooking Lager does, glorying in them.

Go read the whole thing for more defiant delight plus tips on cheap supermarket deals.

Nothing To Hide, Nothing To Fear. Surely?

What could possibly be the problem here?

MPs' food and drink debts to be published

The move follows a Freedom of Information Act request by the Press Association which sparked six months of wrangling between Commons officials, MPs and lawyers over how to respond.

MPs objected and demanded further legal advice after being told last autumn that the details of their unpaid bills were set to be published.

Six months of stalling? Wriggling wildly to stop details of what they have been eating and drinking being publicised?

Could it, perhaps, expose some jaw-dropping hypocrisy from those who like to righteously dictate lifestyles to we poor proles?

The general election is expected on May 6, less than two months away, and disclosures before then would be unhelpful for MPs campaigning for re-election.

Hmmm. Whaddya think?

Enjoy Your Day, Gentlemen

February 14th is long gone, now it's our turn.

Lucky it's a Sunday as the link may not be SFW ... if your boss is a humourless prick/prickess.

Impossible To Resist

We recently found out that the wife of one of Mrs Puddlecote's acquaintances had sneered at the Puddlecote habit of re-filling plastic water bottles. The reasoning being that it causes cancer, apparently. So adamant was she that, at the weekend, her 'public duty' was to thrust a printout of this page into Mrs P's hand, with all the alarmist phrases highlighted in dayglo green. Some chemicals were even neatly double underlined in black.

"I'm extremely worried about cancer", she gushed, "you should throw your bottles away and not let your children drink out of them".

Now, this hectoring ball of festering panic lives in a flat above a print shop from which the smell of ink fumes is significantly noticeable. So, this afternoon, Mrs P handed her a printout of this page, which I had kindly printed off, highlighted, and appropriately underlined.

The "ink" in a copier is a very fine black powder known as toner, or by its chemical name, carbon black. Carbon Black usually comes in a replaceable cartridge, and is classified a carcinogen, which means it is "capable of inducing cancer." Very special care must be taken when handling toner cartridges, and they must be disposed of properly, not, for instance, simply tossed into a trash can.

Honestly, you've got to read the rest as it's an object lesson in hysterical alarmism.

Mrs P calmly pointed out the difference in toner volume between a humble office photocopier and a hard-working print shop, and between a few hours in an office compared to living, breathing and sleeping directly above industrial printing equipment. The horrified intake of breath was reportedly heard in the post office five doors down.

I think the letting agents will be getting a call in the morning, if they haven't had one already, of course.

Does this make us bad people?

It Must Be Done

Tim Worstall is feeling rather mischievous, so let's go with it.

FEMINIST Labour MP Harriet Harman is in line for the annual Rear of the Year award.

Nominations were continuing to pour in today for the politician who is also Minister for Women and wants pictures of Page 3 girls banned from the workplace to protect the sensitivity of some staff.

Forget Rage Against The Machine, pricking the pompous, and inflicting unfortunate predicaments, doesn't get more lark-worthy than this.

Nominate and/or vote here.

Time To Start Bullying The Bully State

One can only hope that the [officially] recently-launched Big Brother Watch increases its influence in coming years if this is a taster of policy.

... media criticism is all our masters care about. Well, I accept their terms. Using those tools, we can and must turn that fear around – so that in a few years' time, when the jobsworth is on the verge of handing out that illiberal fine, he feels the chilling effect himself.

Donning the uniform of office doesn't – or shouldn't – entail unlimited power to exact petty bureaucracy. It ought to come with discretion, with common sense. Failing that, let's try to bully them back.

Of course, this requires a hand-in-hand reduction in government adherence to fake charities and well-funded righteous groups, but it's a line of attack which should be adopted enthusiastically nonetheless.

It is a skill which we seem to have lost in recent years. The proud refusal to bow in front of bullies and unfair authoritarianism. Instead, we have a largely indolent nation who wish to keep out of it and hope they aren't next for the chop (hello CAMRA).

Years ago, I worked in the public sector, and you should have seen the terrified scampering that went on if even the local paper got wind of a story which reflected badly on the local authority who paid me. Councillors would soil themselves at the thought of lost votes and bawl officers out at the earliest opportunity - and with the threat of livelihoods being curtailed, they acted instantly. That was 20+ years ago but public sector leeches have since become wise to the fact that 1) they can shift blame around until the storm dies down, 2) that the public are not as ferocious as they used to be, and 3) they can back down without any hint of apology.

The spirit of stubborn refusal to put up with their shit badly needs rekindling.

Complain. Annoy. Object. Irritate. Pester ... constantly.

Don't give them a fucking inch. Bully them as they are bullying us.

Perhaps one day they might get the message.