Tuesday 30 June 2009

Time For Lie 'B'

What does one do when your entire set up is geared around lying, and one of the lies is detected? Go to lie 'B', of course.

National Trust-accredited 'Outstanding lying cunt to be preserved for English historical posterity', Alan Johnson, today donned his sequin-encrusted, spandex drainpipes and has been dazzling the media judges with his genial, see-I'm-not-as-authoritarian-as-the-others, foxtrot of mendacious guff about ID cards.

Mr Johnson added: "People who worked airside were resenting the fact there was compulsion involved.

Now we can have a much more constructive discussion about the issue if we remove that one element of compulsion."

So they won't be compulsory, then. Ever. Apparently.


Sorry, but if Labour, by some miracle, do manage to forge enough postal votes persuade enough of the gullible to give them the keys to the economy, which they have irrevocably broken, at the next GE, the emphasis (aka coercion) on ID cards will merely shift sidewise.

I mean, for Chrissakes, haven't we learned how they work yet? By 'we', I mean the pleblic and the fucking newspapers. Didn't the Iraq balls-up highlight their methods enough?

WMDs? Did we say WMDs? We meant regime change actually. Sorry.

There's even a clue in the way the ID cards fiasco was pitched to, and finally rejected by, BALPA members.

... the government announced there would be an 18-month trial, for airside workers at Manchester and London City airports only.

But the pilots union Balpa had complained that its members had effectively been forced into signing up for the cards.

A class piece of work by the airline pilots union, who to their credit, are going to continue to point out to their industry that these baubles (because that's all they are without compulsion) should not be used as a bar to members who don't sign up.

But Labour are spending £5bn on this. Does anyone truly believe they are going to just cut their losses and carry on regardless in pushing a pretty-looking card, which costs a shitload of money to own, if they intend it to be entirely voluntary, and therefore ... err ... irrelevant?

Nope. After all, this shower own half of the banks. It's not going to take much effort to utter a few quiet words in a handful of strategic ears to edge us towards ID cards becoming the 'preferred' (ie obligatory) method of over-the-counter identity.

Customer: But you used to accept my debit card as proof of who I am.
Customer Service Wonk: Not anymore, Sir. If you really need that loan/overdraft/mortgage/insurance**, I'm afraid we insist on an ID card

Shafted, I think it is termed.

'Jive Bunny' Johnson did reveal, again, a plank of Labour's MO, though. Not that many will have noticed it during their brief time away from Facebook or Heat magazine, I expect.

Mr Johnson said they should not have been sold as the "panacea for tackling terrorism" which he said had been responsible for "messing up" the debate.

For 'panacea', read 'excuse' and you have Labour policy and lying persuasion wrapped up in a walnut husk, and decorated with a pretty red bow.

Like the panacea for tackling paedophilia is business-crippling wholesale CRB checks. Like the panacea for tackling road deaths is extensive average speed cameras on deserted country roads. Like the panacea for tackling anti-social behaviour is making the middle classes stop drinking wine. Like the panacea for tackling smoking rates is destroying businesses with absurd legislation. Like the panacea for tackling obesity is forcing kids to eat shit they don't want to at school. Like the panacea to fix a failing welfare system is rewarding the feckless with the tax receipts of the working. Like the panacea for tackling crime is to record the DNA of law-abiding citizens.

And, dare we say it, like the panacea to tackle an economy on its fucking knees is to throw stellar sums of money at bloated public services which the country simply can't fucking afford!

Messed up the debate? Labour have deliberately messed up every debate the country has faced in the past decade by their insistence that they, and their state-sponsored righteous chums, know better than 44 million voters.

They don't talk to us anymore. They don't bother listening when we object. They simply follow their own path. If polls confirm public approval, they shout it from the rooftops, if the public disagree in their millions, they sweep it into some sub-committee or delete the evidence entirely from the debate.

The public have been bent over the political Prius in the parliamentary dogging spot, being gang-fucked by the Labour front bench, for so long now that it's beginning to get very sore down there.

Forgive me, then, if I don't volunteer for sloppy seconds on the promise of a proven, incompetent, liar whose agenda is merely that he wants to take control of the shagging rota.

** Delete as appropriate, natch.

UPDATE: Laugh out loud fuckwittery in the same article. Apologies for not incorporating it earlier.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said:

"This is another nail in the coffin for the government's illiberal ID cards policy"

... says one of the prime movers in the incredibly 'illiberal' Social Democrats.

Seriously, can anyone point to anything 'liberal' that the Parliamentary Lib Dems haven't opposed? They have their truly liberal elements in Progressive Vision and Liberal Vision, but none of them ever get to hear the division bell. It would be helpful if the yellow menace would dump their fence-sitting, fuck-faced, media-friendly cocks in favour of representatives who were ... I dunno ... liberal, perhaps?


Via The Lords Blog, comes an internet joke from the peerage.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as a person over 60, I am continually bombarded with spam emails? They are always the same and are usually about penile extensions, Viagra or inkjet cartridges. Do I look like a man who requires inkjet cartridges?

Ho, ho, ho.

This is the same Lord MacKenzie who has fair pissed off the righteous in the past.

Lord Mackenzie, a former chief superintendent who advises the Home Office on law and order issues, claimed he had been out of the country at the time and had not been driving the car.

The decision infuriated road safety campaigners

Amy Aeron-Thomas, director of Roadpeace, said: 'It might not have involved a gun or a knife, but at 45mph, Lord Mackenzie's car would have killed any pedestrian in its path.'

Except that it didn't, of course.

And he is also the same Lord MacKenzie who, after being linked with a prostitute in 2003, let his hormones get the better of him again soon after.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate walked out on his childhood sweetheart Jean and now lives with Debbie Glaister – described by his estranged wife as ‘a stick-thin Barbie-doll lookalike’.

Good Lord!

Monday 29 June 2009

Helping Kerry McCarthy Out (2)

Kerry McCarthy was pushing the veggie agenda again on her blog last week.

I'm tempted to start lobbying for a Meat Free Monday in the Commons dining rooms. If there's one thing guaranteed to get Tory blood boiling - even more than a Bercow Speakership - it would surely be that.

Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, and as illiberal, lefty, bansturbating hectors go, she isn't that bad.

However, as an advocate of forsaking meat, one would assume she would comment on all aspects of the campaign. For example, it was mentioned here a while back that she was slow in condemning PETA when it emerged in the Telegraph that they were slaughtering pets in their thousands.

Animal charity PETA accused of slaughtering thousands of pets placed in their care

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which boasts Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson among its supporters, are accused of only finding homes for seven pets last year. Since 1998 more than 20,000 pets handed to PETA have been put down.

In 2008 official figures show that the charity put down 2,124 animals that had been given to them.

The charity, which collects over £25m in donations, does not run an adoption shelter.

She has also not noticed, it seems, the latest astonishingly heartless stunt perpetuated by the British arm of these truly sick individuals.

So, here you go, Kerry. Dick can help you out again (oo-err, Sid James is back).

On the same day that Kerry was talking up the joys of a vegetarian diet, PETA were boasting on their blog about the placing of this 'mahoosive' advertisement outside Glasgow's Southern General Hospital.

This is the same hospital which initially treated Jacqueline Fleming, the first British death attributed to swine flu. Oh yeah, and seeing as she was pregnant at the time, her baby was induced prematurely and also died.

The partner of the first person in the UK to die of swine flu suffered a second loss last night when his premature son died in hospital. William McCann said Jack, aged 14 days, died after a “brave fight” at the special-care baby unit at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, Renfrewshire.

His partner, Jacqueline Fleming, 38, died at the same hospital on Sunday. Last night Mr McCann said: “Coming so soon after the death of his mum, this is an extremely distressing and difficult time for our family.”

Unfortunate coincidence? Nothing of the sort. PETA are quite proud of it, in fact.

Poorva Joshipura, director of special projects at PETA Europe, said:

"The billboard was placed by Southern General Hospital because this is an important health issue for Glasgow and indeed everyone on the planet."

If there are a more sick and deluded set of individuals than PETA, it would be interesting to hear of them. Yet the vacuous celebs such as Paul McCartney, Ricky Gervais and Pink still come flocking.

Flaying and dipping in salt is too good for such hideous creatures. What says Kerry? We shall have to be expert breath-holders to find that out.

Proportional Implementation

You can see now how fair British justice is, can't you? Kill three young people, get fined £640. Drop a fag end, get fined £400.

There's a fine deconstruction available of this story about self-aggrandisement at Cambridge Council, if you enjoy good writing.

"The council says butts are difficult for street cleaners to pick up, and they can be dangerous for birds and other wildlife, which pick them up thinking they are food".

Difficult to pick up, eh? Tell you what, take some of that £9 BILLION we give you every year and buy some street vacuum cleaners.

The whole piece is here. Enjoy (or get angry, one of the two).

Business Deal Of The Week

I'll bet Gary Lineker wouldn't go this far.

A prostitute in Oklahoma was so desperate for business that she was caught having sex with a man in exchange for a box of crisps.

She told officers that the man asked for her sex but did not have any cash so they struck a deal by which he gave her the crisps.

Seems fair payment for a feel of her grab bags and a bit of prawn cocktail.

Crikey! I appear to have turned into Sid James.

Sunday 28 June 2009

Less Is More

Mr Puddlecote senior was always a whizz at maths. He picked it up from his father, and in turn, passed it on to me. Whilst Gramps Puddlecote could work out returns from a full house 50p each way Yankee in about 20 seconds, could 'see' exactly what was in your hand at dominoes or cribbage in a startingly short space of time, and could assess that it was exactly 12p cheaper pro rata buying 20 cigarettes over the road instead of 17 (prime number, remember) in the vending machine, all off the top of his head, my modest grasp of mental arithmetic isn't so outstanding. But still acute thanks to a few simple rules.

One of them is that to understand a big number, bring the sum down to something more manageable. Preferably something that relates in a ratio with the number 1.

The same principle applies to understanding the methods of the righteous. Flaws in reasoning are more obvious on a local level, rather than jumping straight into the deep end and challenging the big lie of national, or even international, bansturbators.

For example, here is a microcosm of how stifling authoritarian nannyism works.

A group of pensioners have been banned from holding a coffee morning at a public library for health and safety reasons - in case they spill hot drinks on children.

The seven members of the Over 50s coffee morning have been meeting every Tuesday for the past four years without incident at the Eye Library in Eye, near Peterborough, Cambridgeshire.

But council officials have now axed the meetings claiming that toddlers from a nearby nursery who use the library at the same time could be injured if hot coffee spilt on them.

Here we go again, you say, health and safety gone mad. Not so, actually. It's merely the use of H&S as an excuse for something else.

'However, we understand that is not the case at all, because we have always finished our drinks before the children even arrive, and that it is the case that the librarian doesn't want to wash up extra cups.'

As we know from wider 'bans', the excuse for implementation is never anything to do with the motivation of those promoting it. It's just that they have to sell it somehow. And in a way which cannot be argued against.

The great thing about a Labour government is that there are now so many minor petty rules and guidelines that can be called upon, the job of stopping something that an individual is irked by is very simple. And irreversible.

In this particular case, RoSPA agree that it is bloody stupid, but stop short of over-ruling. After all, they are on the same side and even perpetuate the myth a little further.

'While the last thing anyone would want is a toddler getting scalded, risk assessments shouldn't only be based on hazards,' said the group's spokesman Carl Christopher.

'They should also be based on the probability of these hazards occurring.

'This would seem to be a disproportionate reaction to risk. I'm sure a sensible compromise could be found that does not leave these pensioners on the streets.'

Firstly, no. The last thing anyone would want is not that a toddler might get scalded. This is a library remember. Pensioners don't tend to run around having 'water' fights with scalding hot coffee. If a child got scalded, it would suggest that their ickle bubble-wrapped selves were running around and bumping into people minding their own business. Yes, it's what kids do, but are they not supervised on these visits? If so, surely the blame would lie not with the pensioners but with the parents or carers.

It might be unfashionable to say so, but if one of them got a mug of hot coffee on its bonce it might be a valuable lesson for the future not to fucking run around in a fucking library!

And then the unquestionable presumption. A 'compromise' must be found.

No, no, no. A compromise does not need to be found. The pensioners were there first. They are in a library having a quiet cup of coffee. Times should not be changed to suit the kids. Either the kids are told that if they run around and annoy other users of the facility (ie the ones who actually paid for the bloody thing, unlike kids), they won't be able to use it anymore, or, if there is a danger, perhaps the kids shouldn't be allowed in there at all.

Why should everyone bend to poor supervision or unruly kids? On a side note, cafés don't ban kids from entering, nor do Starbucks tell everyone who uses their stores that should a toddler walk in, they must all leave. No. Tell the kids they must behave or fuck off, quite simple.

Harsh? Not really. It should be the way life works. Unfortunately, the righteous have everything skewed to buggery. And in their odd, utopian world, it's always someone else's fault.

This opens the way quite favourably for the lazy, state-paid shit who can't be arsed to clean a few coffee cups. Simply quote H&S and you have an immovable ally, especially where chiiildren are involved.

Now let's move this onto something less parochial. As The Filthy Smoker mentions at The Kitchen, a Professor who hates alcohol, named Ian Gilmour, is a proper cunt, and is using every lie in his armoury to convince us that just imbibing a Sambuca after a meal is going to lead to a slow, lingering death.

"The big message is treat alcohol like tobacco ... not as a substance that is relatively benign except for those bad alcoholics. That is not true."

Remember that they have already set up the gullible British public into believing that there is no such thing as 'benign' smoking. You smoke, you will die - that's it. So, by extension, Gilmour is advocating not just moderation, but total abstention.

It's also worth mentioning that the 'Framework' he mentions in the piece is the World Health Organisation's 'Framework for Tobacco Control'. This is a document produced by an unelected body which is being adopted to excess by another unelected body, the EU Commission.

The European Commission says the current bar on smoking in enclosed public places does not go far enough. It says non-smokers in outdoor areas are still in danger from passive smoking.

It comes after a World Health Organisation report said ...

Did you vote for any of these people who like to interfere with your life? Nope, nor did I.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes. That cunt Gilmour.

The lie is that he cares about people. He doesn't. He just wants what he wants. And what he wants is more money from government.

Now, a quick search of fakecharities.org for "Alcohol Health Alliance" throws up such definitely fake charities as Sustain, the Institute for Alcohol Studies and the Alliance House Foundation (formerly the UK Alliance for the Suppression of the Traffic in All Intoxicating Liquors); all of these organisations are heavily funded by the state which means, of course, that the Alcohol Health Alliance is also heavily funded by the state.

As such, Professor Ian Gilmore is a mouthpiece for the government and should probably have his tongue ripped from his lying head before being hanged by his testicles in a tank full of ravenous piranas. The cunt.

Then we have the presumptions, the use of dodgy stats, and the implication that alcohol costs us all money.

Minimum alcohol price 'could halve hospital admissions for drinking'

Prof Gilmore, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, said the move could reduce the numbers admitted for alcohol problems by around 100,000.

In 2007, just over 207,000 people were taken into hospital because of the effects of drinking.

Much like the local lazy librarian doesn't want to wash coffee cups and invokes H&S to achieve their goal, so does the high-profile bansturbator tap into the minds of the weak-willed to stimulate the previously-deposited, press-released lie that drinking doesn't just harm the individual.

So how is Gilmour able to peddle such bollocks? Why, it's cos we are all drinking too much of course. Except that isn't really the case, as recent figures, kindly analysed by the excellent Costigan Quist, prove.

Are we drinking more now than a decade ago?
No. You can look at all the data and see that pretty much everyone, men and women, all age groups, are drinking about the same as we were in 1992 and in 1996.

Has binge drinking for women doubled?
The shock headline is that twice as many women are binge drinking, but that appears to be utter rubbish.

It relies on this new units system. Funnily enough, if you count a glass of wine as 1.5 units instead of 1, the number of women drinking more that six units in any day suddenly rises. What a shock!

Does it matter?
For the majority of people who are moderate drinkers, even if we might "binge" on occasion, there's no real evidence to say that drinking a bit more is bad and a bit less is good. There's some evidence that drinking in moderation is healthier than being teetotal, and that being a consistent heavy drinker over many years is bad for your health.

So, Gilmour's raison d'etre is bollocks then? Ya don't say. Not that the new clergy of the doctorate will ever see it. Nor will the pleblic once it is widely disseminated via NHS surgeries up and down the country.

They have worked out exactly which buttons to press, and even when crazy situations like the one in Peterborough are highlighted, the subtle implication is rolled out to ensure that no-one complains too much.

After all, if they do, they must agree with kids being horrifically burned. And if you disagree with restrictions on alcohol, you must be in favour of wholesale deaths and unsustainable cost to the NHS.

Neither of these are the original motivation for illiberal bullshit, and they are fully aware of that. All they need is for a few more to believe it every time and you end up with the apology for a perfectly acceptable pastime ... or the compromise.

When, in reality, no compromise but the head of the cunt who came up with the idea should be on the agenda.

Clever fuckers, aren't they?

Friday 26 June 2009

Things I Want To Do Someday

Don't tell our MPs, but they've been using our money to pay for screens which just aren't big enough. Why piss around with £1,800 TVs when you can have fun with a 72 x 160ft Jumbotron instead, as the Jonas Brothers' producer did at the Dallas Cowboys stadium before setting up.

H/T One of the little Puddlecotes. The girl.

Max Clifford Turns Green

Someone really famous just died

Thursday 25 June 2009


I once engaged in online debate with an arrogant, self-serving beardy from CAMRA (yes, he did have a beard, seriously). Having mentioned that his smug defence of the smoking ban might come back to haunt his particular vice at some point in the future, he replied with words to the effect of "most of the public like a drink, so that will never happen".

That was in March. This is an article in the Times, in June. My, that was quick!

Leg-Iron (via Counting Cats) has fisked most of it, eloquently as usual, but seeing as this is my territory also, and despite a walk in the cool night air to calm down, there is still more to be said about this.

And it is very simple.

Target: Unacceptable drunken behaviour
Laws that applied pre-1997: Plenty
Ridiculous solution: Restrict the substance
Result: More law-abiding harmed than was the case with the original problem.

Let's talk Boris Johnson here. What a breath of fresh air he brought to the post of London Mayor. Except that his first move was to ban drinking on the tube. Why?

Travelling back from the O2 on Saturday, three very well-dressed and articulate guys boarded the train, each with a can in their grasp. They weren't remotely threatening, just on a night out. As one would expect, the Puddlecotes were happy with their presence, but - incredibly - just the sight of their beverages caused a noticeable bristling in our fellow travellers.

Were they drunk or abusive? Of course not. If they had been carrying cans of Pepsi Max instead, would the carriage have been so worried? No. Could their drinking beer have resulted in poor behaviour? Again, no. They were only there for two stops so unless the human digestive system has evolved dramatically, and they were suffering a rare intolerance to alcohol which turned them into violent animals in the space of 4 minutes, no-one was remotely in danger. And even if that were to happen, there are laws which would cover it.

If, however, a drunk chav with a record of violent assault boarded the train having disposed of his can outside, we would apparently, according to Boris, have been perfectly safe.

See the problem here? It's not drinking per se, but the behaviour of the individual. What's more, the substance itself has been elevated into the criminal by legislators who seem to have a slim grasp of human nature.

The Home Office acknowledged that there was a problem with the law, and pointed to revised guidelines issued to police and local authorities in December last year to try to curb over-zealous policing.

“The law is clear that these powers should only be used to address nuisance associated with drinking alcohol in a public place, not to disrupt peaceful activities such as family picnics or to challenge people consuming alcohol who are not causing a problem. We expect local police forces to use common sense in the application of these powers,” a Home Office spokesman said.

He said that the zones were never intended to cover entire boroughs.

Note that these 'revised guidelines' were issued in December. Six months ago. Have they acted to censure any of those misapplying the rules? Whaddya reckon?

As usual, it is the Soviet Republic of Brighton and Hove leading the way.

Police in Brighton and Hove appear to be the most energetic in the country. Their 45 community support officers are making 25 confiscations a week. The Manifesto Club was inundated with claims of over-zealous enforcement, such as two young women forced to pour away glasses of wine that they were drinking on the beach, and three men having cans of lager confiscated as they stood on the promenade. Researchers observed drinks being confiscated from people having a quiet drink while admiring the plants in the Pavilion Gardens.

Dan Travis was leaving an off-licence in Brighton at 7pm with two cans of Kronenberg in his hand when two community support officers asked him to stop.

“They asked me if I knew about alcohol restriction zones and I said I didn’t,” said Mr Travis, a tennis coach. “They said, ‘We have to stop people who we think are drinking, not just drunk’. I pointed out that the cans were not even open, and they said that didn’t matter because they thought I was going to drink them in a public place. They asked me to pour it down the drain.”

Well, at least that settles the argument about which is the most idiotic council in the country, then.

The inaction of the DoH to call such morons to account, the willingness of even a Tory loose cannon to fall in meekly behind the temperance agenda, and the sly increases in beer tax on the back of Alistair Darling's VAT decrease, must surely make even beardy CAMRA stooges sit up and wonder if they might be adversely affected by the new temperance movement. They may well be thinking about it as they shop for their latest cardigan, but while they remain blissfully ignorant of the same tactics being used in other areas, they are doomed to relive the experiences of gun club enthusiasts, hunters, and smokers, all of whom have seen the righteous tramp all over their personal freedoms without any recourse to common sense, and with spin and lies leading the debate over and above reality of life.

If you can make Brighton on Saturday, join the Manifesto Club and dare the fuckers at Brighton council to arrest you.

Brighton members of the Manifesto Club will hold a picnic to protest against the city council's regulation of drinking and social life, and to speak out for Brighton as a free and fun city.

Time: From 1pm on Saturday 27 June
Place: Brighton Beach, by Hove Lawns, between third and fourth avenues. Download a map.

See the Facebook Group

Oh, by the way, the Countryside Alliance and Freedom2Choose did warn you. Time to perk up and object, no?

Take Your Eye Off Them For Just A Second And ...

A desperate plea in a neighbouring road.

Searching 'far and wide' somehow seems inappropriate.

Wednesday 24 June 2009

State-sanctioned Enmity

The Libertarian Party blog carries an interesting article regarding the restrictions on free speech encountered by the Christian Institute [Video. Buffers a bit].

Young Mr Brown makes an excellent point that the police are acting on ideologically formulated laws which put the crime of being 'offended' as top priority.

The gent in the video speaks about the action of the police as being a disproportionate response, and a large waste of police time, and that strikes me as a bit of an understatement. The actions of the police were completely silly, and one rather suspects that the officers involved knew perfectly well that they were silly, but that they had no choice but to follow orders.

The comment about wasting police time is well made. The police seem to have plenty of resources for certain purposes - including, er, ahem, those which seem to be involved in restricting freedom of speech and freedom to protest peacefully. These things, however, are not what most people see as priorities for policing.

The 'crime' being committed was that Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin. Not a belief I'd particularly subscribe to, in fact I find it quite laughable. However, surely free speech should mean that they are allowed to make their point without hindrance. It's not like Christians are going to be wearing DMs and going on a gay-bashing rampage anytime soon, is it? If they do, there are ample existing laws which cover that eventuality.

As Steve Hughes said in his stand-up routine recently.

When did 'sticks and stones will break my bones cease to be relevant'?

We seem to be in the grip of an array of different single-issue interests who not only feel it is their right not to be offended, but also that they should be able, with the backing of the state and police, to silence any opposing views.

Sadly, legislation apparently exists which makes their stance enforceable, and Christians are able to be bothered on the street simply for espousing their beliefs.

A close friend of mine once asked a neighbour (politely) if they would refrain from playing music at ungodly hours of the morning, on weekdays, in a room which was adjacent to her 2 year old child's bedroom. After an initial favourable response, the neighbour came to her house the next day and threatened to 'slit your daughter's throat' if she spoke up again. Undertandably, she raised the issue with the police, who replied that unless an assault has occurred, they can do nothing about it. This was in 2002 and hopefully things have changed for the better in that regard since then, but how pro-active must the police be now that an offence can be committed merely by someone being offended by speech, which will not physically harm anyone?

Isn't that thought crime?

As I mentioned in the comments at the LPUK blog, though, Christians aren't averse to crying about being offended when it suits them, as in the curious case of the atheist bus adverts.

The advertising regulator has received almost 150 complaints that an atheist ad campaign, proclaiming "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life", is offensive to Christians and other religions that believe in a single God.

Altogether now in a sing-a-long stylee. I hate you, you hate me, oh how happy we shall be. Not.

It is heart-breaking to see so many anal and selfish Britons gutting each other over matters which really shouldn't bother them. It's almost tit-for-tat. You get offended over what I say? Fuck it. I'll use the same avenues to be 'offended' by you too, motherfucker.

This modern intolerant mindset has been fostered and encouraged in recent years, and can also explain the rise of the 'anonymous complainant' (as were the ones who halted the Christian preachers, natch).

The Penguin touched on one of the latest examples.

A retired florist has been threatened with criminal prosecution by a council after planting a flower garden on a neglected patch of land in a car park.

A spokesman for the council said: "In this particular case no agreement was sought to carry out the works. Several complaints from residents have been received concerning the planting."

Complaining about something being improved? That's a new and disturbing development!

It follows countless other examples as commented on here ...

Miss Wilkinson's number plate was immediately taken down and handed to Kirklees Council who later issued her with a fixed penalty notice for £75.

and, a while ago, here.

A lollipop man has been ordered to remove tinsel from his STOP sign in case it distracts drivers and puts children in danger.

An anonymous passer-by had complained the decoration might obscure the sign.

What a miserable, selfish bunch of shits we have become.

But then, why should we be remotely surprised that such hatred exists when government, in their drive to eradicate prejudice, have passed laws hand over fist that enable anyone with a grudge to take it out on people with which they disagree. With full backing of the police and enforcement-enabled local authorities.

By legislating against hate, all that has been achieved is an encouragement of new and improved forms.

Looks A Mouthful

How else would one sell 7 inches of meat and creamy mayo in Singapore?

Tuesday 23 June 2009

Outbreak Of Common Sense In SW1

Tuesday morning at 11am. An odd time to be in a Central London pub but who's complaining? Especially if it's for a good cause.

Save Our Pubs and Clubs amendthesmokingban.com is a cross-party campaign attempting to hammer a bit of common sense into the numbskulls who instigated the blanket smoking ban.

The official launch saw Greg Knight, Conservative MP for East Yorkshire, and David Clelland, Labour MP for Tyne Bridge, argue for an amendment along the lines of that enjoyed by bar owners in Spain. Celebrity chef Anthony Worrall Thompson also spoke, as did UKIP leader Nigel Farage making an impromptu appearance. Even the Illiberal Undemocrats have a representative in favour in John Hemming MP, and although he was unable to attend, Mark Littlewood of Progressive Vision, a fellow LD, was able to fill in eloquently.

More impassioned, though, were the pub-owning speakers. We can argue for an amendment because we know it makes perfect sense, but hearing these guys tell of their fear of closing down if something doesn't change, is sobering indeed. For them, it is not just desirable, but vital.

With a large turnover of MPs to come at the next election, it might be worth pointing out to the prospective legislators that this is a live issue, and perhaps they should help pull government's head out of its collective smug, self-important arse, by applying common sense to a vile law.

The site explains how you can show support via e-mail or text. Most importantly, though, spread it far and wide.

Right, now where did I leave that pint?

Monday 22 June 2009

Science With A Level Head

This book will blow a gasket at righteous HQ, no doubt.

There are too many cracking quotes to put them all here, just go read the link and enjoy.

A Nation Cowed?

We Puddlecotes went for a grand night out at the O2 in Docklands on Saturday for War of the Worlds Live. The show was excellent, highly recommended, but that is from an afficionado of Jeff Wayne's masterpiece since the time, in 1978, that my unconventional rugby-coaching english teacher decided to break up a lesson on The Go-Between, by getting his record player out and introducing us to Eve of the War instead (although the relief from class-based romance was tangible, it was compensated by being set a 500 word composition homework based on what we had imagined while listening ... the bugger).

Ex-Moody Blues singer Justin Hayward might more resemble Ken Barlow these days, but he can still belt out Forever Autumn with gusto, complete with falling leaves from the arena ceiling when viewed live. Of the other originals from the 70s recording, Chris Thompson's voice isn't as hot on Thunderchild but his enthusiasm can't be faulted, whilst the two guitarists, Chris Spedding & Herbie Flowers, can still fire a note right into your solar plexus at times.

Alexis James was superb as the Artilleryman, Jennifer Ellison surprisingly good in her role as Beth, while Shannon Noll did his best to emulate Parson Nathaniel's madness, a difficult job after the incomparable Phil Lynott nailed it so perfectly on vinyl.

So, why was the whole experience so underwhelming?

Well, because the whole experience was.

OK, it wasn't a good start that the Jubilee Line was shut, making it incredibly difficult to get to and from the venue. No grumble about that though as the work has to be done sometime, I suppose. But as a concert venue, the O2 makes a bloody good library.

It was striking that during the performance, I could easily hear the people next to me talking to one another. Not shouting, just talking. I'm not having a pop at them as they are entitled to do as they please, but it illustrates how low the sound level must have been for such to be audible. One can only assume that health and safety had a hand in it.

• There is evidence that exposure to live music can cause hearing damage
• Noise Regulations require each employer to manage the risk to their employees and, where possible, freelancers
• Control, reduce and monitor exposure to noise
• Many of the controls are simple and cost-effective
• The audience can still enjoy the performance with the controls in place

Perhaps, just aurally, that might have been possible, but health and safety are there before you again when it comes to vision too.

Long gone, it seems, are the days where your focus was fixed on the stage by blackened lighting. In fact, thanks to the large amount of emergency illumination and the many exits remaining open during the performance, lights ablaze outside, it was perfectly possible to pick out facial features in the crowd, not only in the close environ, but throughout the auditorium.

And considering that it was £50 per ticket, one would have thought that there would be a nodding head, a tapping foot, or some such amongst a 20,000 crowd of WoTW fans? Not that I could see.

Admittedly, the make-up of the crowd was more middle-age than young, but it just seemed that the atmosphere was stifled. Exhiliarating music with not even a flicker of passion from the audience. Was it the airport-style security on the way to the escalator entrance which calmed the party mood? Or were my fellow concert-goers anaesthatised by bellies full of homogenised fare from Nandos, Zizzi, Hertha or Pizza Express?

Finally, as the cast were being re-assembled for the 'curtain call', a lone female broke rank and jumped up, dancing to the strains of the triumphal ending. Not in her seat, of course, instead she leapt into the aisle to release what can only assume was her pent-up enthusiasm ... to be greeted initially by the bristling of four 'safety wardens' (not stewards or ushers anymore).

This is the generation which embraced punk and new wave. Where did the passion go? Have the righteous cowed us so much that abandonment to sound and vision is too dangerous to contemplate for fear of potential tutting and dirty looks?

Or maybe not. Perhaps it was just me and everyone else is quite happy with it all. I'll just turn the lights off, crank the volume up, and watch the DVD at home next time.

Sunday 21 June 2009

Comedy? Or Social Commentary?

Steve Hughes on shady charities, health & safety, PC, and 'control'.

He delivers his observational humour well ... but is it too close to the truth to be funny?

H/T F2C forum

A Sheltered Life

If you've blogged, you must have done it. Thought something would make a great article, but having done the research, realised it just didn't work (that is unless you're Mary Honeyball or Paul Flynn, of course, they just write any old crap).

Well, MSN were running with an article yesterday entitled

When the whole world turned on the TV

... there are moments when television switches from servant to master. When it demands to be watched, no matter what we're doing, no matter where we are.

Starting with OJ's slow-motion car chase, they listed all the times we have been glued to our sets ... before explaining why we weren't actually doing so at the time.

I reckon it might work well as a meme though, so here's MSN's stuff and what I was doing, side by side.

OJ, June 17th, 1994

MSN: As such, the chase became a textbook 'where-were-you?' moment.
Dick P: Where was I? Haven't a fucking clue.

Death of Diana, August 31st, 1997

MSN: It being a Sunday, virtually the entire nation was having a lie-in.
Dick P: So was I, having worked late the night before.

Challenger disaster, January 28th, 1986

MSN: It being a Tuesday, this meant that the first report of it on British television occurred at 5pm in an edition of the BBC weekday children’s programme Newsround.
Dick P: It being a Tuesday, I was at work, or just finished and on the way to the pub (before pubs had TV). Don't remember watching much after that.

Resignation of Thatcher, November 22nd, 1990

MSN: Even so, for those at work or school during the day, word of mouth had to make do until a television set could be found.
Dick P: Heard something about it while I was working (again). No chance of turning the TV on in an engineering company though. Next.

England v West Germany, July 4th, 1990

MSN: It was said even Princess Diana, attending a social function in London, was being kept in touch of the score by telephone.
Dick P: Woo hoo! I watched one. I still say Shilton should have saved it.

Queen Elizabeth's Coronation, June 2nd, 1953

MSN: The coronation was the first event in British history to be seen by a mass audience on the small screen.
Dick P: Not by me it wasn't, not having been born and all that.

Iranian Embassy siege, May 5th, 1980

MSN: Their dramatic rescue attempt took place in full view of the ITN cameras. Footage, however, was not broadcast live.
Dick P: Nor did I watch it live. It was a bank holiday and there was a fair up the road.

September 11th, 2001

MSN: It was a weekday afternoon, so most people didn’t see pictures of the attacks until they got home from school or work.
Dick P: I was at work, so didn't see the pictures until ...

Assassination of JFK, November 22nd, 1963

MSN: It wasn’t until 11pm that the BBC was sufficiently organised to broadcast a proper tribute programme.
Dick P: Not born but heard about it years later from Mr P senior who was entertaining an air stewardess at the time. Mrs P senior wasn't happy.

So, not really 'The whole world turning on the TV' at all. Or is it just me?

Friday 19 June 2009

Let's Get Ready To Rumble

Ladies and gentlemen. We have a contest of heavyweight proportion for you, as a challenger for the title of "Top Local Authority Illiberal Fucknuts and Assorted Arrogant Ladybits" has emerged.

In the blue, red and green corner, we have the current Champions, Brighton & Hove, whose previous heavy-hitting in this category have included banning (deep breath) patio heaters, dogs, carrier bags, music, keep-fit clubs, estate agents' boards, signs on trees and supermarket alcohol.

They recently beefed up their credentials by evicting a guy from a cave he had lived in for 16 years because it only had one entrance and exit. Their prior attempts to interfere in the life of someone who was causing no harm to anyone had foundered, despite their accusing him of running an illegal shop (someone bought some sprouts) and keeping chickens and bees.

Perhaps they thought this latest piece of world class meddling might discourage pretenders to their throne, but not so.

In the blue, red and yellow corner is the challenger, Kirklees Council. Not yet as experienced in the martial art of breath-taking fuckwittery, but hungry for notoriety and learning fast.

Fresh from extending environ-mentalism to the dead ...

Grieving relatives have been left distraught after a council banned them from dressing loved ones in their favourite outfits in a crackdown on pollution.
It means an end to people being cremated wearing their football shirts, or parents placing soft toys in children's coffins.

One man, who did not want to be named, was shocked to find his relative could not wear the 100 per cent cotton outfit she had chosen before she died.

He said: 'We knew it had to be natural fibres so she chose a top and slip that was 100 per cent cotton.

'But when the funeral director came we were told she would have to wear a special shroud. He pulled out a swatch of different colours to choose from.
'We didn't know what it looked like and when we went to see her in the chapel of rest, we couldn't believe it.

'It was all fluffy and frilly. The deceased would not have wanted to have been seen dead in it - unfortunately she was.'

... they have now excelled themselves in wasting thousands of pounds attempting to prosecute over a 14 month old baby dropping a sweet wrapper.

Larissa Wilkinson, 19, appeared at Crown Court accused of 'depositing controlled waste' after her misdemeanour was reported by a passer-by last March.

She was driving her Fiat Punto in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, when her niece, Lyla Henderson, picked up the wrapper from her car seat and dropped it from the window.

Miss Wilkinson's number plate was immediately taken down and handed to Kirklees Council who later issued her with a fixed penalty notice for £75.

Finally, in February this year, they sent her a court summons charging her with dropping litter from a vehicle and demanded she appear before magistrates in Huddersfield.

The case was adjourned and after two further appearances she chose to be tried by a jury at Crown Court, as is her right under British law.

It's a battle between an experienced, jaw-dropping local dictatorship, and a young and eager challenger keen to exhibit the very worst that British humanity can offer.

What will worry Brighton, though, is the astonishing adherence to indefensible public-bashing exhibited by Kirklees.

A spokesman for Kirklees Council defended its extraordinary actions.

He said: 'The judge at Bradford Crown Court felt that it couldn't be classed as controlled waste and his view has been noted.

Translation: He may be 'the judiciary', and his word is final, but he irritates us. This won't derail our crusade to criminalise every taxpayer we encounter, though.

'It was always the intention of the local authority that this matter would be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court.

'However, Miss Wilkinson herself chose to have the matter heard in the Crown Court.'

Translation: It's not our fault we wasted over £5,000 on this, it's hers. How dare she use her statutory right to complain!

OK, flippancy mode off for a minute. Two things are deeply worrying here. Firstly, as has become customary, it is yet again a fucking snoopy, self-righteous, hideous cunt of a citizen who has taken time out of their sad, curtain-twitching existence to anonymously and vindictively report this 'offence' (complete with hastily-scribbled registration number) to the disgusting knob-jockeys at Kirklees council.

Secondly, how does one go about kicking these shits out of power? Who on earth do you vote for if you are in the Brighton or Kirklees catchment area?

Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and even the Greens, are equally to blame for such weapons grade cuntishness.

Seriously, unless some decency is suggested to - no, demanded from - these local authority cock-sockets, such overarching authoritarianism will continue unabated.

Maybe one of the predominantly Conservative, Labour, or Liberal Democrat MPs in Westmonster might propose such a measure someday.

You spotted the flaw in my reverie, then? Yes, we are fucked. And I mean, truly fucked. Forever.

Bargain For The Innumerate

Stocks at stores in safe Labour constituencies are selling out fast, allegedly.

H/T The Telegraph

Analogy Of The Week

From Ian B over at Charlotte Gore's place.

I think the single biggest problem libertarians have is that we can only talk about liberty abstractly because most people have never really experienced it very much. It’s like offering freedom to the inmates of an institution… you open the doors and beckon them outside, but they stay inside, scared that leaving means nobody will make them jam roly-poly on Tuesdays.

The problem in a nutshell.

Thursday 18 June 2009

The Taxpayer: An MP's No Win, No Fee Safety Net

Fido at The Lone Voice has unearthed an interesting claim from Paul Flynn, Labour shitarse for Newport West.

Just been having a look through Paul Flynn MP's expenses, Paul who was sued for libel and had to pay Endowment Justice damages of 36K, did he use his own funds for this or public funds? Also if he used his own money did he claim that back off of the taxpayer?

Now he claimed £10k for professional fees in Nov 2005 - was this for the solicitor in the libel action? Yes it looks like it was!

Flynn claimed expenses on the solicitor fees!

It doesn't just look like it was. It ... err ... was.


Flynn was sued for defamatory comments, despite meetings with the company concerned, and many requests for a retraction, prior to legal proceedings.

Endowment Justice launched legal proceedings against Mr Flynn this year after he criticised the growing number of complaints handling firms that work with endowment mis-selling victims. The company had previously held talks with Mr Flynn over its concerns about bad practices at several complaints handling firms. But the MP subsequently named Endowment Justice in accusations he made about the whole sector.

Marianne Fitzjohn, a director of Endowment Justice, said the company had been angry about being criticised for sharp practices because it believed it had played a leading role in campaigning against such behaviour. "We repeatedly asked Paul Flynn to apologise and withdraw his comments"

The ignorant, stubborn pillock refused to give in and was made to shell out just under £36,000.

You may remember that Flynn was the MP who complained on his blog about having to actually work while Obama was being invested.

'It would not happen if it was a football match' an irritated fellow Labour MP told me in the Lobby.

Two minutes into Obama's speech, the division bell rang and we were all dragged from the mesmerising television pictures to vote in the Commons Chamber. The whips decided these things and their timing stank today.

The difference being, of course, that if England were playing a football match (or even Wales) it would at least be something to do with the country which Flynn is employed to govern. A rubber-stamping across the Atlantic was apparently more important to him at the time than doing the job for which he is handsomely (and then some) paid.

He could have Sky+'d it of course, like those of us who have to miss big occasions through work have to do, and claimed Murdoch's subscription from the Fees Office.

Anyway, I digress.

I suppose we should be thankful that Flynn didn't claim the full £36k penalty from us in his 'Incidental Expenses'. His charging the cost of his defence is very ironic though.

Flynn repeatedly mouths off about a no-win no-fee solicitor and gets in trouble. Then employs a solicitor to argue his case without the need to worry about having to pay legal fees should he lose.

Why should he? He just reclaims the fee from us, the taxpayer.


They're Learning

The happy-clappy environ-mentalists have found a way around the need to delete opposing views. Perhaps they learned from the pullovers at Earth Hour.

They simply stop you from making up your own pledge and ask you to pick from an approved list instead.

I pledged anyway but thus far haven't received my confirmation e-mail. I haven't seen my pledge appear on the site either. Perhaps I did something wrong, I dunno.

H/T Al Jahom

Keep Up The Good Work, Señor

I'm concerned that Alcohol Concern aren't concerned with telling us about studies such as this.

It's Better To Drink Beer After Exercise Than Water

Professor Manuel Garzon, a member of Granada's medical faculty, made the finding after tests on 25 students over several months. Researchers believe that it is the sugars, salts, and bubbles in a beer that may help people absorb fluids more quickly.

The subjects in the study were asked to run on a treadmill at temperatures of 104F (40C) until they were close to exhaustion. Once they had reached the point of giving up, researchers measured their hydration levels, motor skills, and concentration ability.

Half of the subjects were given two half pints of Spanish lager to drink, and the other half were given just water.

Garzon said that the rehydration effection in those who were given beer was "slightly better" than those who were given only water.

Based on the results of the study, researchers recommend moderate consumption of beer as a part of athletes' diets.

I feel very athletic all of a sudden. Pass me my running shoes and crack open the San Miguel.

Wednesday 17 June 2009

Why Simply Report Hate, When The BBC Can Create It?

They had been so quiet for so long, hadn't they? Then a triumverate of righteous all turned up at once like speaker-equipped buses announcing shit-babble.

The Manc twat clubbed his keyboard to smithereens again, laughably insisting he was previously employing some obscure kind of hate-satire which missed its target (he must be more of a piss poor writer than we thought, then, as well as a missing link with learning difficulties which we already knew).

Complainants against the hate-filled nurse who wants all smokers dead have received a reference number for the upcoming whitewash investigation. If you don't know what that was about? Listen again below and e-mail your friends.

Now Comrade Beeb have decided to join in the smoker bashing too.

And get this. They self-report their own invited opinion piece as a bona fide news item, whilst simultaneously bumping dissenting voices.

I received a call from Five Live late last night telling me that my interview at 7.40 this morning had been cancelled because of "three breaking news stories". It slipped out however that Five Live Breakfast was still going to interview Professor Terence Stephenson, the new head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, whose blog on the BBC website calls for a ban on smoking in cars when children are present.

Three news stories which only resulted in the dropping of one small rebuttal? Can't have been that big really, can they, seeing as a BBC commissioned columnist was allowed his one-sided view in its entirety? And on Radio 4, and on the lunchtime TV news (complete with congenital liars ASH quoted as a truthful source), and on ... etc etc.

Funnily enough, mine and many others' comments didn't appear on the BBC web-site today either, so Mr Clark wasn't alone by any means.

The Telegraph picked up the story and ... err ... didn't add anything to it at all. It's a straight lift from the Beeb.

It must have caught the fake charities as cold as it caught Forest though, as they were all wibbling at cross purposes.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said the charity was in favour of a ban on smoking in cars.

The risks were not just to children but to adults suffering from conditions like heart disease, she said.

That's the problem with being caught off-guard, Debs wasn't able to tailor her junk science quickly enough to the nonsense in hand so had to just grab what she was working on at the time - the total ban on smoking in cars, with or without children present. An interesting view into the future, I thought.

Then there was the very odd contribution from BRAKE. They didn't seem to know what they were supposed to be agreeing with. Less did they know what 'evidence' to use ... so they didn't bother with any.

She said: "There is no specific offence at the moment which says you can be charged with smoking at the wheel."

That'll be because it's not illegal, dear.

"But you can be prosecuted for not having proper control of your vehicle."

Whether smoking or not, one must presume?

"Having one hand off the wheel and dropping ash over yourself, or obstructing your view with smoking, means you are not concentrating on your driving."

Having one hand off the wheel? Like when changing gear, you mean? Obstructing your view with smoking? How fucking big are the cigarettes she has seen?

And then the very, very, very best bit.

"I think we would be in favour of a ban because there's some confusion at the moment whether it's dangerous."

Was this dozy mare on the lash last night or something? Was she hopping around this morning, phone stuck one-handedly to her ear, desperately trying to get her keks on when being asked for her 'expert' opinion?

She 'thinks' they would be in favour of a ban, probably because they haven't yet discussed it, but seeing as it has been brought up, her natural response is to say yes, even though she doesn't know if it dangerous or not.

Well, if that doesn't sum up righteous logic to a tee, I don't know what does.

One thing that is certain is that it's more wasted taxpayers' cash. No-one is asking for this, as usual, except fake charities and the BBC, and guess who pays for them? It will be brought in, there's no doubt, but will be as unenforceable as the ban on mobile phone use, the law on kids using booster seats that the police can't be arsed to bother with, and going back to 1983, the seat belt laws.

Just another spiteful, illiberal, doctrine proposed by ignorant, hate-mongers with skewed agendas. Fortunately, it might wake those who have thus far been in a stupor as to the Stalinist nature of Labour and their trot friends at Comrade Beeb, and drain the leftist vote away a little more, so I'm all for it.

UPDATE: The Beeb left no stone unturned with their propaganda this time. They even threw it onto the kids' news too, complete with quotes from children who had been, in no way, fed leading questions. Oh no.

Not Fit For Purpose? Simply Throw More Cash At It

A huge variety of businesses have experienced the, at times, almost insurmountable obstacle of the lumbering Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) placed in front of them since the Soham murders, not to mention employees who may be accepted at interview, only to be prevented from actually earning money until a pretty worthless document finally passes umpteen degrees of lethargy and inefficiency. Why worthless? Well, perhaps one might ask why the database doesn't cover Plymouth, for example.

Lord knows my business has been hampered significantly by the CRB and no amount of letters or phone calls will ever speed them up. Perhaps that's why I felt sympathy with this woman, who was, last week, prevented from helping on a school trip despite already holding three other CRB clearances.

“This has caused great inconvenience to the school, and inconvenience to myself and my little boy.

"I cannot believe why it has taken so long to process someone who has no criminal convictions and who has been CRB-checked for Cub Scouts, my work and another school.”

“It means the months of ‘investigating’ by police have been for absolutely nothing - what a waste of resources and time.

Indeed. Strangely enough, the idea of CRB's being 'portable' from one job to the next, or from one organisation to another was raised by us with our local MP. He was in agreement but didn't envisage much success in advocating the measure, though he said he'd try, bless his little cotton socks.

Perhaps the brick wall he was anticipating can be adequately explained by this.

The Home Office expressed regret that some enhanced disclosure checks were being delayed after a surge in applications to the CRB.

"As a result of the increase in demand the CRB has taken on additional resources.”

Kerching! All aboard the gravy train.

Tuesday 16 June 2009

Viennese Pearl

Sacha Baron Cohen's campaign to piss off every nation on earth continues apace.

"Ve're all proud of our country und are raised to try and achieve ze Austrian dream - find a job, get a dungeon und raise a family in it."


Monday 15 June 2009

Public Or Private? Make Your Minds Up

Remember that smoking ban, where privately owned premises were deemed to be public?

Well, the rules have just changed (because it suited the NHS).

Now, publicly-owned NHS premises are deemed to be private property. And they will take you to court or withhold treatment if you disagree.

Blackpool NHS

Wouldn't it be nice, in a supposedly free country, if a business owner were to be able to ignore the law and dictate his own rules as to what he allows on premises he has paid for, like the NHS are apparently able to do with premises which WE have paid for?

Their contempt for you is stunning.

It's Been A Long Time Coming

Today, the Puddlecotes shall mostly be at the Oval hoping for no more of this nonsense.

The tickets pre-date this blog, but finally it's cucumber sandwiches all round, and no doubt plenty of Pimms or some such.

Now where did I put my hard hat?

Sunday 14 June 2009

Brown, The Fencepost Tortoise

Received by e-mail this morning.

While stitching up the hand of a 75 year old Devon farmer, who had cut it on a gate, the rural doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Gordon Brown and his appointment as Prime Minister.

“Well, you know,” drawled the old farmer, “this Brown fellow is what they call a fencepost tortoise.”

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a fencepost tortoise was.

The old farmer said, “When you’re driving along a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that’s called a fencepost tortoise.”

The old farmer saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain, “You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he definitely doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just have to wonder what kind of idiot put him up there in the first place.”

Yep. That just about sums him up.

Dumping Through Hoops

Following the extensive makeover of Chez Puddlecote, a trip to the dump was necessary yesterday to dispose of the various items of building waste, wood, surplus plasterboard and flooring, old appliances, and discarded cabinets. I've read about the fact that the word 'dump' isn't an accurate description anymore (no longer do you turn up, dump your rubbish, then go home) but had not thus far experienced for myself the exercise of running around over a dozen mega-skips, putting each different material in its rightful place. And if you turn up with old kitchen appliances, as we did, you are viewed almost as an eco-terrorist.

It was aptly amusing, then, to see this guy on TV last night talking of the same subject. In particular, the disposal of a fridge. It's a funny clip throughout but the part that struck a chord with us is at 5 minutes onward.

Saturday 13 June 2009

Giant Cock Seen From Space

It was rock hard too.

A school in Surrey recently discovered an interesting piece of artwork on its roof courtesy of eagle eyed users of Google Earth: a 12ft cock.

The gigantic todger made out of bricks appears to have been 'sculpted' on the top of Sutton Grammar School some years back by a former student.

Puerile, yes, but amusing, no? Puns and innuendos welcome.

Right To Reply

Yes, it's probably not 'cool' to ridicule the cerebrally-challenged, but seeing as some Manc twat (I say that, but he only actually admits to being a Manchester United fan, so he could be from Cornwall for all we know) has decided to throw sweeping generalisations around, I claim the right to reply in equal manner.

Attention smokers: I hope you burn in hell

Why, fuck you very much, Paul, nice to meet you too. Interesting use of spiteful hatred in your opening gambit, duly noted.

I hate smokers. Not like I hate paedophiles or Liverpool fans, but right up there with war criminals and boat shoes.

See, we have a problem already. Once we encounter some lads' mag moron equating paedophiles with Liverpool fans, and smokers with war criminals, there is obviously going to be a poor argument to follow. We'll go with it though. After all, he is entirely entitled to his opinion as long as it is based in fact.

Unfortunately, he further loses touch with reality by relying on his confirmation bias to regurgitate one-sided equations pushed by vested interests, not that he would have noticed that salient point (he could have investigated further, but then why should he? He hates smokers so anything that backs up his bigotry isn't worth casual checking).

That's about 5.5 per cent of the entire NHS budget. I'm not sure how many children with leukaemia that would treat, but I'm guessing you'd still have change left over to help a few adults who had acquired a disease accidentally rather than deliberately and systematically.

Ah, thinking of the chiiildren, I see.

5.5% of the budget you say, Paul? Wow! Quite shocking. Except that if you had engaged brain before employing keyboard you could have avoided some embarrassment.

According to national statistics, the population at the last census was just shy of 61 million, 11.7 million of whom were kids. Smoker prevalence is 21% of adults which equates to 17% of the population as a whole.

Let's revisit your idiot argument about kids with leukaemia again, shall we? Smokers pay, according to official statistics (and I'm being conservative here), more than twice that £5bn cost in tobacco duty alone. This doesn't take into account national insurance contributions or savings in pension payouts. On the basis of such truths instead of prejudicial vagaries, 17% of NHS users costing only 5.5% of the NHS budget (using the inflated BHF figure and ignoring any contribution from smokers whatsoever) looks like a bona fide bargain once the incontrovertible facts are looked at, doncha think Paul? In fact, it's a massive profit.

Just think of how many kids with leukaemia have benefitted from smoker contributions, eh? I know it doesn't fit with your knuckle-dragging bullshit stats, but then, that's why you're a bread and circuses chimp and I'm not.

What is quite funny about your nonsense piece, Paul, is that the evidence was there for you but you just didn't have the mental capacity to see it. Remember writing this?

The survey reports that in the UK, 21 per cent of adults smoke.

A maths lesson for you. 21 minus 5.5 equals? Come on Paul, it's not difficult. I know 21 presents a problem when relying on fingers and toes, but use some initiative, sunshine.

OK, I have replied with a sweeping generalisation, as you did, you may even have spotted it if you weren't picking fleas out of your simian navel at the time, now for the spiteful hatred by return.

Just my opinion, and all that, but you sir, are a rancid, shallow fucktard who deserves to be fisted up the ringpiece with a sandpaper and broken glass-encrusted glove, for using sick kids to justify your selfish and puerile dislikes. Just stick to talking about overpaid men in shorts in future, eh?

Friday 12 June 2009

Labour Lied? You Don't Say

Tell us something we don't know.

Ms Harman was criticised for claiming men earn 23 per cent more than women while the Office for National Statistics puts the figure at less than 13 per cent.

A source said Ms Harman's department was warned about using the figure beforehand but went ahead anyway.

Sir Michael Scholar, head of the UK Statistics Authority, has now written to Ms Harman warning she had been potentially misleading and could "undermine public trust in official statistics".

I hate to be the one to tell you, Sir Michael, but that trust sailed away on the HMS Disgust a few years ago.

"It is the Statistics Authority's view that the use of the 23 per cent on its own, without qualification, risks giving a misleading quantification of the gender pay gap."

Sir Michael, they didn't 'risk' giving a misleading figure, they 'intended' it. It's what Labour do.

They lie.

Thursday 11 June 2009

Rounding Up Potential Free Thinkers

The government has found a way of sorting out the sticky problem of children who are mercifully free from the clutches of Labour's brainwashing programme school system.

Home educating families in England will have to register annually and demonstrate they are providing a suitable education, a report says.

A review of home education recommends children be sent back to school if parents do not meet certain standards.

Perhaps home educators aren't holding enough diversity/equality lessons, or are failing to teach their kids how to spot a terrorist on every street corner.

Remember that this move is in addition to ContactPoint, the database the government holds on every child in the UK from birth. The reasoning for ContactPoint, according to the DCSF, is ...

ContactPoint is a quick way for practitioners to find out who else is working with the same child or young person, making it easier to deliver coordinated support.

The programme's goal is to improve the health, well-being and safety of all children.

So, comprehensive details of every kid in the land are required to be logged by government to ensure their safety. Yet they are still not safe it would seem, seeing as the same scare tactic is being used to grease the wheels of this idea too, as usual with the help from the state-sponsored 'charity' sector.

Vijay Patel, policy adviser for the NSPCC children's charity, also sees the need for a review. "Some people use home education to hide. Look at the Victoria Climbié case. No one asked where she was at school."

How shocking! It doesn't matter that Victoria Climbié wasn't home educated, which led to a low-key apology from the NSPCC earlier this month, as effective press placement had already created the scare and spread it widely on the back of an untruth. Job done.

Still, maybe it won't be so bad as long as there isn't an overbearing authority heavily dictating how parents should teach their kids.

Mr Badman said he did not wish to be overly prescriptive regarding what constituted a suitable education, and has asked the government to review a statutory definition.

One can almost hear the orgasmic cries from the civil service as huge rolls of red tape are ordered, and sturdy pens prepared for marathon box-ticking sessions.

Wednesday 10 June 2009

Working Today To Instil Fear In Our Future

Please, no. Is this indoctrination, or merely misguided?

Primary school pupils are to be shown a film about the dangers of terrorists as part of an organised safety day.

More than 2,000 10 and 11-year-olds will see a short film, which urges them to tell the police, their parents or a teacher if they hear anyone expressing extremist views.

Beg pardon? An extremist view for that age group is a classmate saying that Drake and Josh are better than Zack and Cody. Using kids of 10 and 11 for surveillance is not only worrying, it's downright obscene. Some may even term it child abuse as it necessarily strips away a child's natural innocence and instead instils suspicion and fear in its place.

I'm one of the 'some'.

It uses cartoon animals to get across safety messages.

A lion explains that terrorists can look like anyone, while a cat tells pupils that should get help if they are being bullied and a toad tells them how to cross the road.

Terrorists can look like anyone? And this is being fed to pre-pubescents? For Chrissake anyone with any agenda can look like anyone else. MPs sometimes look like respectable members of the public, for example.

What on earth were those who dreamed up this initiative thinking? And since when did a toad become the expert on crossing the fucking road?

Kids that young being subjected to this is nothing but a sinister and errant waste of time and resources. I have two of about the same age and their eyes glaze over when the news is on, it may as well be broadcast in Greek. Yet Lancashire police think kids who haven't yet reached secondary school are able to accurately identify the surreptitious verbal signals of a potential terrorist?

Expect a host of tip-offs to the police soon, from terrified kids in East Lancs, who believe Joel's mum is a terrorist because one of them heard her say she wanted to bang Kyle's dad.

You couldn't make ... nope, must resist that cliché.

H/T Alex Massie

Quote Of The Day

Brown’s approach is to speak loftily of all the things that are going to happen in the future, as though he had a future.

Lord Tyler writing on Lords of the Blog.

Not bad for a Liberal Socialist Democrat.

Banana Skins - Sunhats For Starfish

Oh yes.

COMPANIES. Instead of employing over paid IT staff, simply buy a load of parrots and teach them to say 'turn it off and then on again'.

GENTLEMEN. Next time you are making love with a lady, cross your eyes and Hey Presto! That 3some with twins that you've always dreamed of!

HOMELESS people. Lighten your load by not buying a dog.

GIRLS. GET those old 70s bell-bottoms from the wardrobe, cut the legs off and sew them back on upside down. They will then fit you once more

MUMS. Confuse your children by mixing butter with "I can't Believe It's Not Butter" They won't know what to believe.

Phew! Life just got that little bit easier as Viz Top Tips are now available via Twitter.

Updated very regularly too, so best viewed as additional lunchtime reading along with the Mash.

H/T Liberal England

Tuesday 9 June 2009

"They'll Just Have To Die"

At least the fictional DeVille only wanted Dalmatians dead, the real one (above) is happy to see humans dying in order to save a little bit of NHS money.

The clip below is what Jane DeVille-Almond (not only unspeakably evil, but a nut too) came out with on live radio this morning. Anti-smokers have always been bigoted, hateful cunts, but I think this woman has reached new depths, don't you?

She describes herself as a 'Nurse Consultant' on her web-site, where she advertises her services.

Jane runs training courses for nurses, doctors and other health care professionals throughout the UK and has also worked in Europe and the Far East.

Yes, that's right. She advocates a policy of allowing people to die and she trains nurses and doctors. I'm not sure the National Death Service blog quite intended the description to be as literal as that, but there you go.

This anti-smoker jihad, because that's about the only way to describe it, is reaching fanatical proportions now. When someone, anyone, feels that it is acceptable to talk about allowing others to die simply because they disagree with their lifestyle, we are talking a new healthist religion based on pure hatred and the power of money over humanity.

It wouldn't be quite so stunningly vile if there was any credibility in the mathematics. As Mark Wadsworth quite rightly points out, these are merely one-sided statistics designed to further stigmatise a perfectly legal activity. Smokers pay many times more into the tax system than they take out.

The originators are the British Heart Foundation, by the way. You may wish to remember that the next time someone asks you to sponsor them for the London to Brighton bike ride, or when one of their little red tins is rattled in your face outside Tesco. Your pennies would be better spent on a proper charity which doesn't stir up prejudice and bigotry on the back of over £4m of our taxes.

On the plus side. A thick, blinkered shitstick, as is Cruella, will be blissfully unaware that setting off along this road is a start to a completely privatised health service where demand for her services will be more strictly monitored. Once the precedent is set, drinkers, those who eat the wrong foods, participants in dangerous sports, all are fair game for extra charges. Then onto those who injure themselves doing something they shouldn't ... and how long before not adhering to health and safety directives makes your injury 'self-inflicted' and liable to an extra charge?

If it brings down the archaic structure of a health service that is 60 years out-of-date and unfit for purpose, in favour of something sensible which cuts out waste including, dare I say it, idiotic 'nurse consultants' who add no value whatso-fucking-ever, then I'm all for it.

In the meantime, though, let's hope this disgusting, arrogant, hideous cunt, who has made her living leeching off the NHS, is repaid for her trousering of our taxes by contracting something MRSA-like and dying painfully on a trolley in a hospital corridor which hasn't been cleaned due to budget cuts.

Considering her earlier comments, I think I'm being quite generous there.