I know I'm tempting the bizarre search term fates by having this entry title but never mind.
I'm intrigued by the new film that's coming out "I Want Candy" about two would be film makers who attract the "services" of the world's biggest(!) adult film start. Candy Fiveacres. Whose name is pet name and street name.
MY porn name is Misty Red, (last pet and the street I lived on when we had the lovely wee thing). I think it's fab. I won't actually tag anyone to do this, but do let me know in the comments what your porn name is.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Brown's Big Con
So he got his soundbite then "2p off income tax" - hurrah.
Despite my questioning yesterday about my political party loyalties I am still a conservative, I still believe in a low tax economy, I still believe in individual responsibilities and freedoms, and those freedoms include keeping as much of the money that you earn as possible. So I'm happy about the 2p income tax cut then? Well, no not really.
The abolition of the 10p rate cut has totally negated the benefits this will bring to the lowest paid people - who need the tax cuts most. There should never have been a 10p rate in the first place - it was a con to make people think there had been a tax cut. Any removal of this rate and the simplification of the tax system is a good thing. But this should have been matched by a raising of the lower threshold. Instead we now have a situation where those earning less than £17,000 per year will be worse off. This can never be right.
I know the apologists for Brown's leadership manifesto... sorry budget will point to the fact that tax credits will make up the shortfall. Big bloody deal. Tax credits don't help - tax cuts do. Tax credits introduce complicated forms and means testing into the system. People shouldn't have to go through multi page forms to be able to keep the money they have worked hard to earn, and if I can be a bit stereotypical but honest a sizable number of people who are earning less than £17,000 a year will not be confident with form filling and would rather not fill out these intrusive questionnaires. So the very people who most need the money will be the people who are least able to navigate the systems to ensure they get it. Good trick that.
Anyway many people don't trust the systems to work - there have been so many tax credit blunders - see here, here and here. So instead of forcing people to rely on a complicated system that doesn't work terribly well, why not make the simplification of just cutting taxes and allowing people to develop the economy through their spending choices.
To steal a statement from Dick Cheney (the first and possibly last time I will ever do this) - no nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.
Despite my questioning yesterday about my political party loyalties I am still a conservative, I still believe in a low tax economy, I still believe in individual responsibilities and freedoms, and those freedoms include keeping as much of the money that you earn as possible. So I'm happy about the 2p income tax cut then? Well, no not really.
The abolition of the 10p rate cut has totally negated the benefits this will bring to the lowest paid people - who need the tax cuts most. There should never have been a 10p rate in the first place - it was a con to make people think there had been a tax cut. Any removal of this rate and the simplification of the tax system is a good thing. But this should have been matched by a raising of the lower threshold. Instead we now have a situation where those earning less than £17,000 per year will be worse off. This can never be right.
I know the apologists for Brown's leadership manifesto... sorry budget will point to the fact that tax credits will make up the shortfall. Big bloody deal. Tax credits don't help - tax cuts do. Tax credits introduce complicated forms and means testing into the system. People shouldn't have to go through multi page forms to be able to keep the money they have worked hard to earn, and if I can be a bit stereotypical but honest a sizable number of people who are earning less than £17,000 a year will not be confident with form filling and would rather not fill out these intrusive questionnaires. So the very people who most need the money will be the people who are least able to navigate the systems to ensure they get it. Good trick that.
Anyway many people don't trust the systems to work - there have been so many tax credit blunders - see here, here and here. So instead of forcing people to rely on a complicated system that doesn't work terribly well, why not make the simplification of just cutting taxes and allowing people to develop the economy through their spending choices.
To steal a statement from Dick Cheney (the first and possibly last time I will ever do this) - no nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Independence?
Over the past couple of years my political views have been going through a bit of a change. When I was a student I was a hang em, flog em, send em back where they came from type of Tory. And (to the eternal dismay of my daddy) a staunch Unionist. Now things are very different - I am now much more liberal than I was when I was younger. The thought of the death penalty for example now fills me with dread, I would rather go to prison than carry a compulsory ID card and I think the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in Britain in one of our nation's shame.
I still regard myself (mostly) as a Conservative but I have no problem whatsoever in not voting for any candidate that I regard to be sexist, racist or homophobic. I have no loyalty to the Conservative Party anymore but of the three main parties in England they are probably the one whose views are closest to my own.
And there's the rub - in England. I don't know how I would vote if in Scotland. I am still, mostly a Unionist, but not as staunch as I was a decade or so ago. I believe the Union has been good for both Scotland and England, fiscally and culturally and I think that a larger country will always carry more weight on the world stage than a smaller one and that Scotland benefits from this.
But, but, but.... Over the last couple of years I have started to question whether this is enough to base the Union on. I am fed up with the continual patronising of Scotland (and the people of Scotland) by politicians who claim that Scotland couldn't cope as an independent nation. Of course it could. Scotland, as with any nation, has the talent and ability to achieve great things. Or it has the capacity to elect dreadful politicians who mess up the economy. No-one can actually say for sure what will happen if/when Scotland becomes independent. But as part of the Union the same is absolutely true. Isn't that what happens in every country? And isn't that the decision of the Scottish electorate?
This is, of course, partly a result of devolution. I was, and still am, opposed to devolution, it's a ridiculous half-way house which does nothing to strengthen the union. And we now have a situation where the democratically elected government of Scotland in Edinburgh has to look to the other democratically elected government of Scotland in London for permission to do anything a wee bit off New Labour message. Or where the majority of Scottish elected representatives vote against Trident but it will still be partly funded by the Scottish tax-payer and based in Scotland. I was right about devolution - it was the first step to the break-up of the UK, just I think now that's not necessarily a bad thing.
So - why shouldn't Scotland be independent? I really don't know.
I still regard myself (mostly) as a Conservative but I have no problem whatsoever in not voting for any candidate that I regard to be sexist, racist or homophobic. I have no loyalty to the Conservative Party anymore but of the three main parties in England they are probably the one whose views are closest to my own.
And there's the rub - in England. I don't know how I would vote if in Scotland. I am still, mostly a Unionist, but not as staunch as I was a decade or so ago. I believe the Union has been good for both Scotland and England, fiscally and culturally and I think that a larger country will always carry more weight on the world stage than a smaller one and that Scotland benefits from this.
But, but, but.... Over the last couple of years I have started to question whether this is enough to base the Union on. I am fed up with the continual patronising of Scotland (and the people of Scotland) by politicians who claim that Scotland couldn't cope as an independent nation. Of course it could. Scotland, as with any nation, has the talent and ability to achieve great things. Or it has the capacity to elect dreadful politicians who mess up the economy. No-one can actually say for sure what will happen if/when Scotland becomes independent. But as part of the Union the same is absolutely true. Isn't that what happens in every country? And isn't that the decision of the Scottish electorate?
This is, of course, partly a result of devolution. I was, and still am, opposed to devolution, it's a ridiculous half-way house which does nothing to strengthen the union. And we now have a situation where the democratically elected government of Scotland in Edinburgh has to look to the other democratically elected government of Scotland in London for permission to do anything a wee bit off New Labour message. Or where the majority of Scottish elected representatives vote against Trident but it will still be partly funded by the Scottish tax-payer and based in Scotland. I was right about devolution - it was the first step to the break-up of the UK, just I think now that's not necessarily a bad thing.
So - why shouldn't Scotland be independent? I really don't know.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Rise of the SNP blogger
The best political bloggers in the UK have typically come from the right wing with a few honourable mentions from the left - Paul and Kerron for example.
However the up-coming Scottish elections seem to have spurred on a bit of a rise in the SNP blogger.
I first read Grant Thoms (the Tartan Hero), but there's plenty more - Anne McLaughlin (no relation), Alison Thewliss, Lachie McNeill, Jamie Hepburn, Julie Hepburn, Chris for Pollok, Davie Hutchison and Richard Thomson to name a few. The quality varies a bit but there are a couple which I will now visit regularly - especially the Glasgow Springburn and Shettleston ones.
Interestingly, many of the posts across the board are quite similar. With many of the same graphics. I wonder if this is a deliberate campaign being supported (and possibly encouraged) by Nat High Command. Well done if it is. Many voters will be finding their SNP candidates with blogs which are (shockingly for political candidates) on-message. The SNP, unlike the Conservatives, seem to have taken the hint that public statements diametrically opposed to the Party line don't actually help. Still, hopefully after the elections the blogs will keep going and be slightly more open to varied topics rather than just party policy.
However the up-coming Scottish elections seem to have spurred on a bit of a rise in the SNP blogger.
I first read Grant Thoms (the Tartan Hero), but there's plenty more - Anne McLaughlin (no relation), Alison Thewliss, Lachie McNeill, Jamie Hepburn, Julie Hepburn, Chris for Pollok, Davie Hutchison and Richard Thomson to name a few. The quality varies a bit but there are a couple which I will now visit regularly - especially the Glasgow Springburn and Shettleston ones.
Interestingly, many of the posts across the board are quite similar. With many of the same graphics. I wonder if this is a deliberate campaign being supported (and possibly encouraged) by Nat High Command. Well done if it is. Many voters will be finding their SNP candidates with blogs which are (shockingly for political candidates) on-message. The SNP, unlike the Conservatives, seem to have taken the hint that public statements diametrically opposed to the Party line don't actually help. Still, hopefully after the elections the blogs will keep going and be slightly more open to varied topics rather than just party policy.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
How Did I Get Here?
Shamelessly stolen from Chris. I love this one.
I don't want it to be a photoshopped image, but I do have my suspicions...
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Burning Question
I received this text message a couple of days ago from a friend:
"An unpopular government hoping a new leader will revive their fortunes after a long time in power, Take That at number one, Walter Smith leading Rangers to a win at Parkhead despited being pummelled for 90 mins - is it still the 90s?"
"An unpopular government hoping a new leader will revive their fortunes after a long time in power, Take That at number one, Walter Smith leading Rangers to a win at Parkhead despited being pummelled for 90 mins - is it still the 90s?"
Monday, March 12, 2007
Shameless Appeal for Money
I've signed up to do the Walk for Life for Crusaid this year. I'm hoping to raise at least £250 and need everyone's help.
Please take a moment to sponsor me. It's really easy - you can donate online by credit or debit card at my fundraising page.
All donations are secure and sent electronically to Crusaid. If you are a UK taxpayer, Justgiving will add an automatic 28% bonus to your donation at no cost to you. Please join me in supporting Crusaid and a fabulous cause!
I have started my training already! I spent 20 minutes on a treadmill and walked about 1 and a half miles - so not longer to go before I reach the 10k.
Crusaid really needs the cash and I really need the motivation to keep going.
Feel free to pass on to friends, family and anyone else you know who might want to sponsor some random person they don't know.
Please take a moment to sponsor me. It's really easy - you can donate online by credit or debit card at my fundraising page.
All donations are secure and sent electronically to Crusaid. If you are a UK taxpayer, Justgiving will add an automatic 28% bonus to your donation at no cost to you. Please join me in supporting Crusaid and a fabulous cause!
I have started my training already! I spent 20 minutes on a treadmill and walked about 1 and a half miles - so not longer to go before I reach the 10k.
Crusaid really needs the cash and I really need the motivation to keep going.
Feel free to pass on to friends, family and anyone else you know who might want to sponsor some random person they don't know.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Another Books List
For World Book Day the Guardian published a list of "100 Books You Can't Live Without".
Below is the list with my comments on each. It does seem that I've managed to live 31 years without most of them, and don't feel incomplete for having not read them.
A couple of things wound me up. If you include the book series there are more than 100, but that's minor, the real source of annoyance was the inclusion of No. 33 The Chronicles of Narnia and No. 36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. TLTWTW is one of the Chronicles of Narnia. It's the second in the series. Hence the name of the film "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe". And Hamlet being listed seperately to the Complete Works of Shakespeare.
As suspected the Guardian is moronic!
1 Pride and Prejudice Jane Austen - never could get into it.
Below is the list with my comments on each. It does seem that I've managed to live 31 years without most of them, and don't feel incomplete for having not read them.
A couple of things wound me up. If you include the book series there are more than 100, but that's minor, the real source of annoyance was the inclusion of No. 33 The Chronicles of Narnia and No. 36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. TLTWTW is one of the Chronicles of Narnia. It's the second in the series. Hence the name of the film "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe". And Hamlet being listed seperately to the Complete Works of Shakespeare.
As suspected the Guardian is moronic!
1 Pride and Prejudice Jane Austen - never could get into it.
2 The Lord of the Rings JRR Tolkien - dear god, could never get into it. For Geeks and Freaks and Dungeons and Dragons players only. Though I enjoyed the films.
3 Jane Eyre Charlotte Bronte - never read
4 Harry Potter series JK Rowling - love em. Can't wait for the final instalment.
5 To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee - may be the best book ever written.
6 The Bible - in common with the vast majority of people I've never actually read it
7 Wuthering Heights Emily Bronte - s'ok I suppose. Read it when I liked Mills & Boon.
=8 Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell - Fabulous. Still want to slap the girl at university who said that it had nothing to say to her. This may be why the legal system is going to pot.
=8 His Dark Materials Philip Pullman - Haven't read, but will do.
10 Great Expectations Charles Dickens - Love it, must be time for a re-read.
11 Little Women Louisa M Alcott - Never read.
12 Tess of the d'Urbervilles Thomas Hardy - read a long time ago, seem to remember enjoying it. Not enough to rush out and read again.
13 Catch-22 Joseph Heller - not read.
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare William Shakespeare - ditto The Bible, but have my favourites.
15 Rebecca Daphne Du Maurier - never read it, but enjoyed the talking book if that counts.
16 The Hobbit JRR Tolkien - Ditto 2, except I have read it.
17 Birdsong Sebastian Faulks - I enjoyed this one. Bit over-wrought though.
18 Catcher in the Rye JD Salinger - Never read
19 The Time Traveler's Wife Audrey Niffenegger - Never read
20 Middlemarch George Eliot - Never read
21 Gone With The Wind Margaret Mitchell - Really enjoyed.
22 The Great Gatsby F Scott Fitzgerald - Enjoyed
23 Bleak House Charles Dickens - Never read
25 The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams - s'ok
26 Brideshead Revisited Evelyn Waugh - Never read
27 Crime and Punishment Fyodor Dostoyevsky - Never read
28 Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck - Never read
29 Alice in Wonderland Lewis Carroll - Never read
30 The Wind in the Willows Kenneth Grahame -Never read
31 Anna Karenina Leo Tolstoy - Never read
32 David Copperfield Charles Dickens - Never read
33 Chronicles of Narnia CS Lewis - Very much enjoyed
34 Emma Jane Austen - Never read
35 Persuasion Jane Austen - Never read
36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe CS Lewis - Harrumph. Best in the series without a doubt.
37 The Kite Runner Khaled Hosseini - on my bookshelf to be read.
38 Captain Corelli's Mandolin Louis de Bernières - s'ok
39 Memoirs of a Geisha Arthur Golden - s'ok
40 Winnie the Pooh AA Milne - Never read
41 Animal Farm George Orwell - Excellent book.
42 The Da Vinci Code Dan Brown - on the bookshelf. Will get round to it sooner or later.
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude Gabriel Garcia Marquez - Never read
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney John Irving - Never read
45 The Woman in White Wilkie Collins - Never read
46 Anne of Green Gables LM Montgomery - My absolute favourite childhood book. Still re-read this and love it.
47 Far From The Madding Crowd Thomas Hardy - Never read
48 The Handmaid's Tale Margaret Atwood - read a long time ago. Very serious.
49 Lord of the Flies William Golding - I studied this book in my S Grade English, I think I may appreciate it more now than I did then.
50 Atonement Ian McEwan - Never read
51 Life of Pi Yann Martel - Never read
52 Dune Frank Herbert - Never read
53 Cold Comfort Farm Stella Gibbons - Never read
54 Sense and Sensibility Jane Austen - Never read
55 A Suitable Boy Vikram Seth - Read a long time ago. A BIG book, couldn't read it now, would be like commuting with a brick...
56 The Shadow of the Wind Carlos Ruiz Zafon - Never read
57 A Tale Of Two Cities Charles Dickens - The only Dickens I've never managed to get into.
58 Brave New World Aldous Huxley - Never read
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time Mark Haddon - On the bookshelf, waiting patiently...
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera Gabriel Garcia Marquez - Never read
61 Of Mice and Men John Steinbeck - Read at school. Can't remember it.
62 Lolita Vladimir Nabokov - Never read
63 The Secret History Donna Tartt - On the bookshelf, waiting patiently...
64 The Lovely Bones Alice Sebold - Never read
65 Count of Monte Cristo Alexandre Dumas - Never read
66 On The Road Jack Kerouac - Never read
67 Jude the Obscure Thomas Hardy - Never read
68 Bridget Jones's Diary Helen Fielding - Was ok, the second one was really annoying though. Just wanted to slap the silly tart.
69 Midnight's Children Salman Rushdie -Never read
70 Moby Dick Herman Melville - Never read
71 Oliver Twist Charles Dickens - Really liked it.
72 Dracula Bram Stoker - Dracula-a-a mwahaaaa, I enjoyed.
73 The Secret Garden Frances Hodgson Burnett - Really liked it, but prefered A Little Princess.
74 Notes From A Small Island Bill Bryson - Never read
75 Ulysses James Joyce - Dear God, I hated it, or at least I hated the few pages that I made myself read.
76 The Bell Jar Sylvia Plath - Depressing poetry by a suicidal bint not my cup of tea.
77 Swallows and Amazons Arthur Ransome - Never read
78 Germinal Emile Zola - Never read
79 Vanity Fair William Makepeace Thackeray - Never read
80 Possession AS Byatt - Never read
81 A Christmas Carol Charles Dickens - Read it every December, it's a cliche, but I enjoy doing it.
82 Cloud Atlas David Mitchell - Never read
83 The Color Purple Alice Walker - Never read
84 The Remains of the Day Kazuo Ishiguro -Never read
85 Madame Bovary Gustave Flaubert - Really like this one.
86 A Fine Balance Rohinton Mistry - Never read
87 Charlotte's Web EB White - Never read
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven Mitch Alborn - Much better than I expected. Unexpectedly moving.
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - Never read
90 The Faraway Tree Collection Enid Blyton - Never read I don't think, but I loved the Famous Five and Secret Seven. Lashings and lashings of pop and scones and saving middle England from strange swarthy men (the Cornish!)
91 Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad - Never read
92 The Little Prince Antoine de Saint-Exupery - Never read
93 The Wasp Factory Iain Banks - Never read
94 Watership Down Richard Adams - Never read
95 A Confederacy of Dunces John Kennedy Toole - Never read
96 A Town Like Alice Nevil Shute - Never read
97 The Three Musketeers Alexandre Dumas - Never read
98 Hamlet William Shakespeare - Never read. This must be one of the plays that doesn't appear in the Complete works though...... Idiot Guardian
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Roald Dahl - Never read
100 Les Misérables Victor Hugo - loved the musical so read the book. Loved the book too.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Why I Don't Like Chris Martin
I used to think my loathing of Chris Martin was a little irrational - now I know I was right all along. A quote from a BBC News story:
"Singer Chris Martin has described a track written for Coldplay's next album as "basically genius", saying it could be their best composition yet.
"Singer Chris Martin has described a track written for Coldplay's next album as "basically genius", saying it could be their best composition yet.
The 30-year-old added that everybody "has to hear this song before we die, otherwise we'll be terribly depressed"."
Prat! Self-opinionated smug ponce. I look forward to contributing to your terrible depression you self-righteous git. Go on, bugger off, learn how to smile and not create such an overwhelming level of hatred in my soul.Sunday, March 04, 2007
Stating the Obvious
Top story on BBC Scotland - Rangers Boss is a Unionist.
And in the next journalistic breakthrough - Pope in Catholic shocker....
And in the next journalistic breakthrough - Pope in Catholic shocker....
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Joy of Wikipedia
I'm bored at work so wikipedia-d the town I live in and a couple around it. The Leatherhead entry is fairly standard, telling me little I didn't know - other porn star Ben Dover apparently lives near me!
The Dorking entry however is a joy. It starts so much like the Leatherhead entry - then, just at the end of the article, it becomes a work of double entendre genius:
Well - that amusingly distracted me from Excel for a few minutes.....
The Dorking entry however is a joy. It starts so much like the Leatherhead entry - then, just at the end of the article, it becomes a work of double entendre genius:
"Councillor Maltby's big fat cock
In 2005, Mole Valley District Councillor Neil Maltby hatched a plan to put Dorking on the map - what if every visitor to the town had the privilege of seeing an enormous cock? It took him more than a year to prepare, but by December 2006, the councillor was sounding confident. "I would hope it will be up in the second half of January or early February.", he told the Dorking Advertiser. "It looks wonderful." By early 2007 Malby's cock was hard as steel in readiness for a public erection in February, as promised. The gleaming 10-foot cock was unveiled in front of a 100-strong crowd. Although initially controversial, many Dorking residents are quite proud of their giant cock, and can sometimes be heard boasting about it."
For more on the serious issue of the Dorking Cock see Chris's blog here and here (for the full photographic experience).Well - that amusingly distracted me from Excel for a few minutes.....
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
New Postal Vote Fraud Allegations
The BBC reports that Conservative MP for Shrewsbury Daniel Kawczynski has used Parliamentary privilege to allege that Labour councillors (including his opponent at the next General Election) who work at the local sorting office are using their "position to manipulate postal voting".
I don't know if this is true or not, I can imagine that it may be. People will do stupid things where elections and postal votes are concerned - people from all parties have been found guilty of such practices, and corruption isn't confined to any particular party so just as I can see a Labour member who works in a sorting office breaking the law, I can also see Conservatives and Lib Dem members doing exactly the same thing.
My concern with this story isn't the alleged fraud - although serious - it's the use of electoral fraud as a political point scoring tool. If Mr Kawczynski is truly concerned about this the place to bring it up is with the police not with MPs using parliamentary privilege. If he doesn't have evidence and is only working on the assumption that rumours he is hearing are true, the very least he should do is have a confidential chat with the sorting office manager or regional Royal Mail manager.
I happily admit to being a total geek about election law - if we cannot respect the rules and laws which govern our democratic processes then we cannot call ourselves a democracy. Breaches of electoral law are not minor offences, they are serious attacks on our democracy no matter how "small" they seem. One of the things that annoyed me most when I worked in politics was the blatant breaches of the law by smaller parties and independent candidates who thought the law didn't apply to them - only the three large parties. Electoral law is, for the most part, simply common sense - it's actually not difficult to adhere to (although it can be a pain in the neck to adhere to the spending limits in the heat of a campaign).
Mr Kawcynski owes his electorate and the democratic process more than scoring cheap points using potential breaches of the law. If he has evidence of a crime being committed he should go to the police, if he has strong suspicions but no evidence he should still go to the police and the postal authorities. Everyone who is involved in politics has a duty to protect our democracy - not to use it for sensational headlines.
I don't know if this is true or not, I can imagine that it may be. People will do stupid things where elections and postal votes are concerned - people from all parties have been found guilty of such practices, and corruption isn't confined to any particular party so just as I can see a Labour member who works in a sorting office breaking the law, I can also see Conservatives and Lib Dem members doing exactly the same thing.
My concern with this story isn't the alleged fraud - although serious - it's the use of electoral fraud as a political point scoring tool. If Mr Kawczynski is truly concerned about this the place to bring it up is with the police not with MPs using parliamentary privilege. If he doesn't have evidence and is only working on the assumption that rumours he is hearing are true, the very least he should do is have a confidential chat with the sorting office manager or regional Royal Mail manager.
I happily admit to being a total geek about election law - if we cannot respect the rules and laws which govern our democratic processes then we cannot call ourselves a democracy. Breaches of electoral law are not minor offences, they are serious attacks on our democracy no matter how "small" they seem. One of the things that annoyed me most when I worked in politics was the blatant breaches of the law by smaller parties and independent candidates who thought the law didn't apply to them - only the three large parties. Electoral law is, for the most part, simply common sense - it's actually not difficult to adhere to (although it can be a pain in the neck to adhere to the spending limits in the heat of a campaign).
Mr Kawcynski owes his electorate and the democratic process more than scoring cheap points using potential breaches of the law. If he has evidence of a crime being committed he should go to the police, if he has strong suspicions but no evidence he should still go to the police and the postal authorities. Everyone who is involved in politics has a duty to protect our democracy - not to use it for sensational headlines.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Idiot Personality Tests
Wow! Just how wrong can one test be? It must be because I answered that the ink-blot looked like an ink-blot to me! And that the idiots in the painted faces and hoodies just looked stupid.
I won't link to it because it was just so wrong - only one was even close to being right. And that I'll leave to you to guess.....
Personality test v3.0
Developed and programmed by the Cleveleys institute of higher learning (C)
RESULT for current user
February 23, 2007
You are- Beta Seven
You are a natural extrovert with manic tendancies.
You never look to others for support.
You are the sort of person who can enjoy solitude, but thrives in a relationship.
You often look back to your childhood as a time when you were unhappy.
I won't link to it because it was just so wrong - only one was even close to being right. And that I'll leave to you to guess.....
Personality test v3.0
Developed and programmed by the Cleveleys institute of higher learning (C)
RESULT for current user
February 23, 2007
You are- Beta Seven
You are a natural extrovert with manic tendancies.
You never look to others for support.
You are the sort of person who can enjoy solitude, but thrives in a relationship.
You often look back to your childhood as a time when you were unhappy.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
John Gummer is Utterly Adorable
I'm having a couple of weeks off work and am lounging about at home at the moment with BBC Parliament on in the background. There is currently a debate on the "planning-gain supplement bill". I have no idea what it's about (nor do I particularly care) however John Gummer is making his contribution to the debate. I don't understand what the hell he is saying but he is exceptionally entertaining and quite adorable - particularly his birthday party analogy. When Hansard reports this speech I do hope it conveys the quite barking delights of John Gummer's speech.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Help Wanted
My friend Alan needs help! He (for reasons I am too scared to ask) would like to get hold of a copy of Norman Tebbit's 1981 Conservative conference speech - you know the "on their bikes one"
If you know where he can get this please let me know.
Thanks
If you know where he can get this please let me know.
Thanks
Thursday, February 08, 2007
In response to Paul Burgin
Paul Burgin of Mars Hill has posted a criticism of Mike Penning for his demand that speed cameras be axed. I intended to post a reply on his blog, but it became it a bit of a rant, so my response to Paul is below.
First of all the Early Day Motion which Mike Penning has tabled is actually very reasonably worded - this is not a crazy suggestion that all speed cameras be ripped up, rather an acknowledgment that speed cameras may not be the answer and that the government should review all locations and where they do not improve road safety they should be removed. It isn't a crazy right wing plot.
Part of the problem with speed cameras is that there is a perception that they don't help to reduce accidents and are used merely as cash cows for the Treasury. Why, for example, is the money raised by speed cameras not invested in road safety campaigns or road improvements?
As a driver who has been known to drive very slightly above the speed limit very rarely (!) I actually find the flashing signs which monitor your speed and flash the limit if you are exceeding it far more effective at making me think about my speed. As usual the first port of call is taxation!
The current speed limits are completely irrelevant to today's society and transportation - more flexible speed limits are required with variations on fines etc - exceeding the speed limit by 5mph outside a school is far more dangerous than exceeding it by 10mph on a clear motorway.
The speed limit on motorways should be raised and have variations depending on the weather - again someone driving at 65mph on the motorway in the pouring rain is much more dangerous than someone driving at 80mph on a clear day.
Speed cameras are blunt instruments which cannot solve road safety problems. I would much prefer investment in cameras which monitor tail-gating or police patrols which checked quality of driving rather than speed.
Speed cameras don't stop speeding -they stop speeding for the small patch of road that they cover; invariably causing sudden braking and a disruption to the flow of traffic.
This is not an apology post for bad, fast or dangerous driving - just a recognition that speed cameras are not the answer.
First of all the Early Day Motion which Mike Penning has tabled is actually very reasonably worded - this is not a crazy suggestion that all speed cameras be ripped up, rather an acknowledgment that speed cameras may not be the answer and that the government should review all locations and where they do not improve road safety they should be removed. It isn't a crazy right wing plot.
Part of the problem with speed cameras is that there is a perception that they don't help to reduce accidents and are used merely as cash cows for the Treasury. Why, for example, is the money raised by speed cameras not invested in road safety campaigns or road improvements?
As a driver who has been known to drive very slightly above the speed limit very rarely (!) I actually find the flashing signs which monitor your speed and flash the limit if you are exceeding it far more effective at making me think about my speed. As usual the first port of call is taxation!
The current speed limits are completely irrelevant to today's society and transportation - more flexible speed limits are required with variations on fines etc - exceeding the speed limit by 5mph outside a school is far more dangerous than exceeding it by 10mph on a clear motorway.
The speed limit on motorways should be raised and have variations depending on the weather - again someone driving at 65mph on the motorway in the pouring rain is much more dangerous than someone driving at 80mph on a clear day.
Speed cameras are blunt instruments which cannot solve road safety problems. I would much prefer investment in cameras which monitor tail-gating or police patrols which checked quality of driving rather than speed.
Speed cameras don't stop speeding -they stop speeding for the small patch of road that they cover; invariably causing sudden braking and a disruption to the flow of traffic.
This is not an apology post for bad, fast or dangerous driving - just a recognition that speed cameras are not the answer.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
In defence of the American pilots
The news for the past couple of days has been dominated by the video and transcript of the "friendly fire" incident and the sad death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull. The video is tough viewing and must have been a nightmare for L/Cpl's widow to watch.
Much of the coverage has focused on the mistakes made by the pilots with the Sun calling them "imbeciles", and their supposed gung-ho attitude. I can't comment on that. I'm not an expert on US military operations, nor I imagine are journalists from the Sun.
I didn't come away from the video with a sense of gung-ho cowboy pilots desperate to kill hundreds of people - least of all allies. On at least two occasions they ask if there are friendlies in the area, they highlight several times that there are orange markers on the vehicles on the ground - I can't tell and wouldn't like to guess whether they are convincing themselves that the vehicles are hostile (as the Guardian insists) or whether they are looking for confirmation that they are not.
My impression was of two pilots doing a difficult job under horrendous circumstances, wanting to stop enemy combatants As is the case during war. Pilots who weren't professionals but National Guardsmen on their first tour of duty and who had never seen combat before.
To me the most moving aspect of the tape wasn't the bombing of the convoy it was the silence after the pilots were told they had hit a friendly convoy. This silence speaks a million words that muck-raking journalists refuse to hear - sorrow, guilt, horror, despair are all there. And when the pilots swear it's not the tough guy swearing of a Hollywood film, it's the desperation of two men who have carried out a deadly attack on their allies.
Perhaps there should be reviews into procedures on how allies identify one another, perhaps consideration should be given to whether reservists should fly sorties unaccompanied. I don't know - I'm not an expert. What I do know is that mistakes - dreadful, tragic, incomprehensible mistakes are made.
The two American pilots, who must live with the guilt of their actions every day, should not be made scape-goats for any deficiencies in the system nor should opponents of the war (myself included) use these two men as a convenient stick to beat the UK and US governments with. They, and L/Cpl Hull, deserve better.
Much of the coverage has focused on the mistakes made by the pilots with the Sun calling them "imbeciles", and their supposed gung-ho attitude. I can't comment on that. I'm not an expert on US military operations, nor I imagine are journalists from the Sun.
I didn't come away from the video with a sense of gung-ho cowboy pilots desperate to kill hundreds of people - least of all allies. On at least two occasions they ask if there are friendlies in the area, they highlight several times that there are orange markers on the vehicles on the ground - I can't tell and wouldn't like to guess whether they are convincing themselves that the vehicles are hostile (as the Guardian insists) or whether they are looking for confirmation that they are not.
My impression was of two pilots doing a difficult job under horrendous circumstances, wanting to stop enemy combatants As is the case during war. Pilots who weren't professionals but National Guardsmen on their first tour of duty and who had never seen combat before.
To me the most moving aspect of the tape wasn't the bombing of the convoy it was the silence after the pilots were told they had hit a friendly convoy. This silence speaks a million words that muck-raking journalists refuse to hear - sorrow, guilt, horror, despair are all there. And when the pilots swear it's not the tough guy swearing of a Hollywood film, it's the desperation of two men who have carried out a deadly attack on their allies.
Perhaps there should be reviews into procedures on how allies identify one another, perhaps consideration should be given to whether reservists should fly sorties unaccompanied. I don't know - I'm not an expert. What I do know is that mistakes - dreadful, tragic, incomprehensible mistakes are made.
The two American pilots, who must live with the guilt of their actions every day, should not be made scape-goats for any deficiencies in the system nor should opponents of the war (myself included) use these two men as a convenient stick to beat the UK and US governments with. They, and L/Cpl Hull, deserve better.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Just Fair - An Animation from the Refugee Council
The Refugee Council has produced this animation illustrating some of the terrible circumstances in which asylum seekers who have had their application turned down find themselves. I found it interesting and hope you do too.
The Refugee Council would like to use this animation to raise awareness of asylum issues outside the sector. If you find the animation interesting, why not pass it on to friends and family?
View the animation on www.justfair.org.uk
The Refugee Council would like to use this animation to raise awareness of asylum issues outside the sector. If you find the animation interesting, why not pass it on to friends and family?
View the animation on www.justfair.org.uk
Why I Hope Tony Blair is Innocent
First of all just let me say - I can't stand Tony Blair. I think he's arrogant, smug, is destroying civil liberties in this country and is the most appalling whore around "celebrities" (see the dreadful Cool Britannia phenomenom for proof).
I would also be lying if I didn't feel a little bit of Schadenfreude at Labour's current problems. I remember the hell it was to be a member of the Conservative Party in the mid 90s. I saw people that I knew and cared about having their lives pulled apart in the tabloids. I saw the impact this had on their families, extended families and friends. It was a horrendous time. I also saw members of the Labour Party gloat quite hideously over people's personal misfortunes. It showed the horrible side of politics and the Labour Party and there is a part of me that feels a certain justifiable vindictiveness. And sympathy for those good, hard working members of the Labour Party who are working hard in their communities and are despairing at the antics of their party leaders. I've been there. It's tough.
Having said all that, I hope Tony Blair and his advisors are innocent in the Cash for Honours debacle. Not because I like Blair or because I want to see the Labour Party have an easy ride. I just don't want politics in Britain to have sunk to this level.
I think all parties (with the possible exception of the SNP) have been guilty in the past of nominating their donors for awards. Now this was always wrong, but the Labour Party would appear to have taken this principle (or lack thereof) and walked to extremes with it. To reward a donor with a K is one thing, but to blatantly sell honours is quite another. If true this undermines democracy as a whole in this country in a number of ways.
It makes people much less inclined to become involved in politics - either through donating cash or their time. If the public don't donate to their favoured party we have to start looking at the dreadful possibility of state funding for political parties.
It makes people less inclined to even trust politicians. Virtually every MP or councillor I have met or dealt with has been in politics for absolutely the right reasons. Most would never do anything which could be seen as corrupt, yet all are being tarred with the same brush. If the public aren't inspired to even vote then democracy suffers.
It undermines the achievements/capabilities of people who are in the Lords due to their experiences and expertise.
And perhaps in a stunning show of how naive I am - I just don't want to believe that a Prime Minister could be so corrupt and crooked. Arrogant, slimy, wrong, conceited are all fine, but a criminal, nope. Don't want to see that.
I think my hopes are misguided, I think Blair and his gang are as guilty as hell. If they are they should go to jail - perverting the democratic process is one of the worst crimes in our society as it destroys the very basics of our society. I hope I'm wrong.
I would also be lying if I didn't feel a little bit of Schadenfreude at Labour's current problems. I remember the hell it was to be a member of the Conservative Party in the mid 90s. I saw people that I knew and cared about having their lives pulled apart in the tabloids. I saw the impact this had on their families, extended families and friends. It was a horrendous time. I also saw members of the Labour Party gloat quite hideously over people's personal misfortunes. It showed the horrible side of politics and the Labour Party and there is a part of me that feels a certain justifiable vindictiveness. And sympathy for those good, hard working members of the Labour Party who are working hard in their communities and are despairing at the antics of their party leaders. I've been there. It's tough.
Having said all that, I hope Tony Blair and his advisors are innocent in the Cash for Honours debacle. Not because I like Blair or because I want to see the Labour Party have an easy ride. I just don't want politics in Britain to have sunk to this level.
I think all parties (with the possible exception of the SNP) have been guilty in the past of nominating their donors for awards. Now this was always wrong, but the Labour Party would appear to have taken this principle (or lack thereof) and walked to extremes with it. To reward a donor with a K is one thing, but to blatantly sell honours is quite another. If true this undermines democracy as a whole in this country in a number of ways.
It makes people much less inclined to become involved in politics - either through donating cash or their time. If the public don't donate to their favoured party we have to start looking at the dreadful possibility of state funding for political parties.
It makes people less inclined to even trust politicians. Virtually every MP or councillor I have met or dealt with has been in politics for absolutely the right reasons. Most would never do anything which could be seen as corrupt, yet all are being tarred with the same brush. If the public aren't inspired to even vote then democracy suffers.
It undermines the achievements/capabilities of people who are in the Lords due to their experiences and expertise.
And perhaps in a stunning show of how naive I am - I just don't want to believe that a Prime Minister could be so corrupt and crooked. Arrogant, slimy, wrong, conceited are all fine, but a criminal, nope. Don't want to see that.
I think my hopes are misguided, I think Blair and his gang are as guilty as hell. If they are they should go to jail - perverting the democratic process is one of the worst crimes in our society as it destroys the very basics of our society. I hope I'm wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
