Is It Worth Getting So Cross?
So the recent storm
BA now have a dilemma of their own making. They either have to interpret the rules fairly and apply them evenly amongst all beliefs - and I can almost hear the cries of persecution coming from some quarters already - or they lose the patronage of those politicians and religious leaders who are being hypocritical by condoning the principle of rule breaking. After all, the only thing they will sacrifice is those comforting perks - like free upgrades and complimentary drinks - received when they take a flight with BA!
A tough choice for BA but both have their attractions!! I do not see it lasting long!!
|
Taking the 'P'?
I
don't know about you, but I am getting increasingly
uncomfortable when I hear the word 'poverty' used to
describe some people's living conditions in the UK.
Technically,
I guess it is correct; it is defined in my dictionary
as "the state of being extremely poor" although what
officially counts as extremely poor I do not know.
However, my definition of 'poverty' is somewhat different. It is what we are shown in the likes of programmes like Comic Relief or concerts like Band Aid. It is where people do not have the means to even have water to drink let alone begin to drag themselves out of the mire and into a better life.
The sight of a person scavenging in a dry barren wasteland looking to find a few grains of rice is far more descriptive of 'poverty' than that of a 'poor' person in the UK who can still afford to waste what little money they may have by smoking it at £5 for 20.
The word 'poverty' in the UK often seems to be used as an excuse to cover the effects of not living by the meaning of another 'P' word....Priority!!
It is insulting to those who are truly poor to think otherwise!!
However, my definition of 'poverty' is somewhat different. It is what we are shown in the likes of programmes like Comic Relief or concerts like Band Aid. It is where people do not have the means to even have water to drink let alone begin to drag themselves out of the mire and into a better life.
The sight of a person scavenging in a dry barren wasteland looking to find a few grains of rice is far more descriptive of 'poverty' than that of a 'poor' person in the UK who can still afford to waste what little money they may have by smoking it at £5 for 20.
The word 'poverty' in the UK often seems to be used as an excuse to cover the effects of not living by the meaning of another 'P' word....Priority!!
It is insulting to those who are truly poor to think otherwise!!
Guilty Without Charge?
So
Tony Blair is still pushing for a 90 day detention
period before suspected terrorists need to be charged
while his Attorney General is saying he can see no
evidence to support a period that long.
Surely,
if you have not found an offence with which to charge
someone within three months - the current limit is 28
days - then you must have been acting on pretty thin
evidence in the first place.
I guess I am old fashioned, but the tactics used by both Britain and the US in the oft used expression 'fight against terrorism' are starting to remind me too much of those of the old Soviet Union or the 'disappeared' of South America.
Without doubt, there is a serious threat from 'terrorism' but I am still of the belief that the odds are more in favour of me being run over by a naked nun on a bicycle than bumping into a real life terrorist or of being the victim of an act of terrorism.
I might be wrong, but at the moment I am suspicious of the reasoning for ever increasing restrictions on personal freedom. Part of that suspicion stems from the government doing nothing to provide proof to the contrary. Instead, the Home Secretary and the Head of the Security Services make statements about x no. of active plots that are known but leave the question "why have they not arrested these suspects if they know about them?"
Could it be that the UK's prisons have 'no vacancy' signs due to overcrowding or have they already kitted the 'suspects' out in orange boiler suits and hoodies and sent them for a stay to the US run holiday camp in Cuba?
I guess I am old fashioned, but the tactics used by both Britain and the US in the oft used expression 'fight against terrorism' are starting to remind me too much of those of the old Soviet Union or the 'disappeared' of South America.
Without doubt, there is a serious threat from 'terrorism' but I am still of the belief that the odds are more in favour of me being run over by a naked nun on a bicycle than bumping into a real life terrorist or of being the victim of an act of terrorism.
I might be wrong, but at the moment I am suspicious of the reasoning for ever increasing restrictions on personal freedom. Part of that suspicion stems from the government doing nothing to provide proof to the contrary. Instead, the Home Secretary and the Head of the Security Services make statements about x no. of active plots that are known but leave the question "why have they not arrested these suspects if they know about them?"
Could it be that the UK's prisons have 'no vacancy' signs due to overcrowding or have they already kitted the 'suspects' out in orange boiler suits and hoodies and sent them for a stay to the US run holiday camp in Cuba?
Nelson and Health and Safety
Twas
the eve of the battle of Trafalgar.
Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."
Hardy: "Aye aye, sir."
Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to the signal officer. What's the meaning of this?"
Hardy: "Sorry sir?"
Nelson
(reading the signal aloud): "'England expects every
person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender,
sexual orientation, religious persuasion or
disability." ' What in hell's name is this?"
Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."
Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."
Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments."
Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the main brace to steel the men before battle."
Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It's part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."
Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it....full speed ahead."
Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."
Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest please."
Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."
Nelson: "What?"
Hardy: "Health and safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness. And they said that rope ladder doesn't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."
Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."
Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo'c'sle, Admiral."
Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."
Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled."
Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card."
Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."
Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."
Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"
Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."
Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."
Nelson: "What? This is mutiny."
Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."
Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"
Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."
Nelson: "We're not?"
Hardy: "No, sir. The Frenchies and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."
Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."
Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity coordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary."
Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your King."
Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save your life."
Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. What ever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?"
Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on corporal punishment."
Nelson: "What about sodomy?"
Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."
Nelson: "In that case ...kiss me, Hardy".
Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."
Hardy: "Aye aye, sir."
Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to the signal officer. What's the meaning of this?"
Hardy: "Sorry sir?"
Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."
Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."
Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments."
Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the main brace to steel the men before battle."
Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It's part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."
Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it....full speed ahead."
Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."
Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest please."
Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."
Nelson: "What?"
Hardy: "Health and safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness. And they said that rope ladder doesn't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."
Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."
Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo'c'sle, Admiral."
Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."
Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled."
Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card."
Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."
Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."
Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"
Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."
Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."
Nelson: "What? This is mutiny."
Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."
Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"
Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."
Nelson: "We're not?"
Hardy: "No, sir. The Frenchies and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."
Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."
Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity coordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary."
Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your King."
Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save your life."
Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. What ever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?"
Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on corporal punishment."
Nelson: "What about sodomy?"
Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."
Nelson: "In that case ...kiss me, Hardy".
Oh for Opposition!
As we all know, a pig wearing a dress is still a pig.
Oink oink messrs Cameron and er.....whoever that Liberal bloke is!
Water water everywhere....
Recently
I received a paper from my local council explaining
the need for a recycling policy which would mean an
extra bin for recyclable rubbish and an alternating
weekly collection. What fascinated me was the
argument being used
"...the recycling processes often use less
natural resources (such as precious water) than when
working with raw materials" Have
I been asleep? Since when did water become
"precious"?
My
understanding of science is this planet has a fixed
amount of water. The amount never changes, it is just
re-cycled. What does change is the form in which
water is to be found, whether it be as ice, ocean or
steam etc.
So what they should have said is that 'drinking' water is precious and indeed it will be unless the water companies change their piratical practises and invest in long term rather than short term gain. They should cease their plunder of assets which should have been used to improve storage, pipework, new technology and the like. In addition the government. whether local or national, should give up their crackpot ideas for covering the South East of England with new housing until they have fathomed a way to increase the water supply to an already overstretched area of the country.
Global warming is apparently already melting the ice caps and raising the sea levels, so in reality what we are going to see is not a lack of water but a great deal more!!. If we believe the environmental forecasting models most of the Thames gateway and all it's associated new housing is likely to be an underwater city anyway.
We should never let fact get in the way of good spin!
So what they should have said is that 'drinking' water is precious and indeed it will be unless the water companies change their piratical practises and invest in long term rather than short term gain. They should cease their plunder of assets which should have been used to improve storage, pipework, new technology and the like. In addition the government. whether local or national, should give up their crackpot ideas for covering the South East of England with new housing until they have fathomed a way to increase the water supply to an already overstretched area of the country.
Global warming is apparently already melting the ice caps and raising the sea levels, so in reality what we are going to see is not a lack of water but a great deal more!!. If we believe the environmental forecasting models most of the Thames gateway and all it's associated new housing is likely to be an underwater city anyway.
We should never let fact get in the way of good spin!
Cash for Peerages
If this were any private company running an everyday business, such weak accounting practices - or lack of them in this case - would not be permitted. We are being asked to accept 'on trust' that fourteen million pounds of 'loans' was eaten up by the great hole that is election campaigning. No one thought for a minute about claiming back the VAT, or the legitimate expenses that could be offset against tax liability? It seems at best unlikely and at worst inconceivable that the leaders of a party that is running UK plc should have left itself wide open to questions of inpropriety and abuse.
If our Prime Minister is so concerned about the seriousness of the investigation by Scotland Yard he should offer to help them out by volunteering an interview instead of hiding behind the fortified doors of No.10!
The Blame Game
11/11/06 10:59 |
Childrens' TV and
Food |
Permalink
Some light relief!
Two blondes rob a Securicor Armored truck and all they get away with are two sacks, so they keep one each. After awhile they meet again and one asks the other, "What did you find in your sack?" "Half a million" "Aw... that's a lot! What did you do with all that cash?" "I bought a house and a boat. How about your sack?" "Bah... mine was full o' bills" "And what did you do with them?" "Eh well ... little by little, I'm paying them off..."
Read it or save it?
I am sure the argument will be made that it is re-cycled material but hang on a second; doesn't recycling use a considerable amount of energy too? Surely it is better to leave the trees standing upright in the first place - where they can fight the effects of Co2 emissions and give us all some pleasure - than fill my letterbox with crap. I am not going to buy or read any of it!!
All's Fair In Love and War?
So
a tyrant is to be hanged. Yes, after a trial lasting
a year, several different judges and a handful of
dead lawyers, Saddam Hussein has finally been
pronounced guilty and sentenced to death for Crimes
Against Humanity. If his appeal against conviction is
unsuccessful he could be dead within two months and
as I understand it, he could have been facing even
more horrific charges. So why do I not feel
comfortable about any of this? Why when most of the
red top tabloids were celebrating the verdict this
morning was I feeling left out? It is simple; if it
smells rotten it usually is!
At
the end of the first Gulf war General Norman
Schwarzkopf (Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces)
had forced the Iraqis out of Kuwait, beaten all
resistance from their elite Armies and was at the
gates of Baghdad where he would probably have had
Saddam in custody within hours. For some inexplicable
reason he (Schwarzkopf) was stopped and instead was
ordered to negotiate an Iraqi ceasefire resulting in
Saddam being allowed to escape unpunished. Why? We
have never been told, but as sure as eggs is eggs it
is likely to have been for reasons of convenience to
the US administration based thousands of miles away
in the safety of Washington. One could speculate that
perhaps Saddam was still of use to them in some way;
or perhaps they (the US politicians) did not want to
be lumbered with the problem of a highly public trial
where they would be seen as the "bad guys" in the
eyes of the rest of the world. You will notice that I
have been charitable so far in not mentioning
anything about Iraq's oil supplies!
And so life went on for several years until the latest US government - which as we all know is "coincidentally" led by the son of the President in office at the time of the first Gulf War - decided he had intelligence that good old Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the whole world was at risk. Seeing himself as a "good bloke", Bush The Younger decided to save us all by bludgeoning the UN into handing him a mandate to "liberate" Iraq. While this might sound like an invasion, it was not of course because riding into battle at his side was the good old British Government who had been spun the same story about WMD by it's omnipotent leader Prime Minister Blair.
As we all know, the "liberation of the people of Iraq" was over very quickly by the use of superior technology and a good smattering of bombs. However, although the "war" was easily won the peace has been harder to achieve. The powers that be seem to have forgotten that one man's liberator is another man's army of occupation and of course surprise surprise, the reaction to being occupied er sorry liberated was to resist strongly and at every opportunity. The Americans tend to label anyone who resists their will as a terrorist and so the justification for the occupation shifted to become a war against terrorism. I would though, like to think, that if anyone invaded good old Blighty, I would immediately and actively start resisting and would myself be seen in the eyes of those occupiers as a terrorist!
Saddam was discovered soon after the main hostilities ended hiding at the bottom of a well and once again the US were given the problem of what to do with him. Someone came up with
the
great idea to have him tried by his 'own people'.
That way the US could pull the strings but not get
the blame for his ultimate death, as it would be the
Iraqi's who would be seen to be placing the noose
over Saddam's neck. So despite the protestations of
the outside world and requests for Saddam to be given
a fair trial outside of Iraq - possibly in The Hague
where other Despots and Tyrants have successfully met
justice face to face - the Americans decided they
possessed a far greater wisdom than others and we now
find ourselves with the result they wanted but did
not want to be seen obtaining.
All well and good until I started to think about it and realised that almost as many deaths have occurred since Saddam was deposed as happened during his rule. While the responsibility for these deaths cannot be directly laid at the door of the "liberators" they would do well to at least have a few sleepless nights while they ponder the results of their actions.
If
Saddam is feeling short changed by his verdict he
might be interested to learn that the word Tyrant is
defined in the dictionary as:
a person exercising power in a cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary way and
a ruler who seized power without legal right
Suddenly, it all seemed a bit close to home!!
Hello Mr Saddam I have Messrs Bush and Blair on the line.............!!!
And so life went on for several years until the latest US government - which as we all know is "coincidentally" led by the son of the President in office at the time of the first Gulf War - decided he had intelligence that good old Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the whole world was at risk. Seeing himself as a "good bloke", Bush The Younger decided to save us all by bludgeoning the UN into handing him a mandate to "liberate" Iraq. While this might sound like an invasion, it was not of course because riding into battle at his side was the good old British Government who had been spun the same story about WMD by it's omnipotent leader Prime Minister Blair.
As we all know, the "liberation of the people of Iraq" was over very quickly by the use of superior technology and a good smattering of bombs. However, although the "war" was easily won the peace has been harder to achieve. The powers that be seem to have forgotten that one man's liberator is another man's army of occupation and of course surprise surprise, the reaction to being occupied er sorry liberated was to resist strongly and at every opportunity. The Americans tend to label anyone who resists their will as a terrorist and so the justification for the occupation shifted to become a war against terrorism. I would though, like to think, that if anyone invaded good old Blighty, I would immediately and actively start resisting and would myself be seen in the eyes of those occupiers as a terrorist!
Saddam was discovered soon after the main hostilities ended hiding at the bottom of a well and once again the US were given the problem of what to do with him. Someone came up with
All well and good until I started to think about it and realised that almost as many deaths have occurred since Saddam was deposed as happened during his rule. While the responsibility for these deaths cannot be directly laid at the door of the "liberators" they would do well to at least have a few sleepless nights while they ponder the results of their actions.
a person exercising power in a cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary way and
a ruler who seized power without legal right
Suddenly, it all seemed a bit close to home!!
Hello Mr Saddam I have Messrs Bush and Blair on the line.............!!!
Blowing a Storm?
I
just don't get it. We all know that global warming is
no longer just the rambling of the green lobbies but
is in fact a reality, having a highly visible impact
on the environment. We all know we want to do our bit
to preserve the planet and ease the burden from Co2
emissions but how do we even begin when the
Government have got it so badly wrong? Instead of
making it affordable to 'ease in' the changes
necessary in our personal lives they have -
predictably some would say - taken a sledgehammer to
crack a nut. Rather than giving us the carrot to
encourage us to make a start they have decided to
rely instead, on a heavy beating with a big stick,
using the theory that we should be punished for
having the cheek to enjoy a life we all work so hard
to achieve!
I
would love to install a wind turbine and solar panels
to my house - after all I live on the coast and the
wind is never in short supply - but the predicted
savings do not make the outlay necessary an
attractive proposition. I would love to buy a more
eco friendly car but when you look at the price of
these vehicles it is not even an option. Why? because
the government are receiving huge returns in taxes on
these items.
By reducing the rates of tax they could be encouraging investment in all things green and make the whole thing viable. Instead, they are thinking of raising taxes on the eco "unfriendly" items.
For example, rather than make energy saving bulbs cheaper, tax the old type to close the price gap and of course pocket the increase! Charge people with high emission cars extra duty - even though they are already paying more in fuel tax than anyone else - and of course pocket the increase! Charge a green tax on the flights you take when you have a well earned holiday and of course pocket the increase! and so on and so on....
History - a subject the present government is not keen to promote - has shown taxes just don't work in changing people's way of life.
The present proposals are in reality just opportunism. They are a way of exploiting and profiteering from something that effects all our futures. After all, there is a rather large hole to plug in the Chancellor's Global Warfare Chest!!
Don't be fooled and beware the "Robber Barons!"
By reducing the rates of tax they could be encouraging investment in all things green and make the whole thing viable. Instead, they are thinking of raising taxes on the eco "unfriendly" items.
For example, rather than make energy saving bulbs cheaper, tax the old type to close the price gap and of course pocket the increase! Charge people with high emission cars extra duty - even though they are already paying more in fuel tax than anyone else - and of course pocket the increase! Charge a green tax on the flights you take when you have a well earned holiday and of course pocket the increase! and so on and so on....
History - a subject the present government is not keen to promote - has shown taxes just don't work in changing people's way of life.
The present proposals are in reality just opportunism. They are a way of exploiting and profiteering from something that effects all our futures. After all, there is a rather large hole to plug in the Chancellor's Global Warfare Chest!!
Don't be fooled and beware the "Robber Barons!"