?

Log in

No account? Create an account

This will bring tears to your eyes.

A toy mouse has been recalled because some parents are now so sensitised to Gary Glitter's Gang that they actually believe it sings 'paedophile' rather than 'jingle bells'.

I really can't take the piss out of that story. There's nothing left to say.
wordpress blog stats

Spite.

The Labour manifesto for the next election will be an A4 sheet with the word 'Spite' printed across it. They have no other motivation and nothing else to offer.

The latest manifestation of their sole policy is to be found in the insane plan to make every finance officer in every company personally responsible for anything that goes wrong in the finance department. How would you like that job then? You have to employ people based on 'equality quotas' rather than on any ability to do the job, and when the over-entitled and workshy dregs littering the office screw up the tax returns, it's your fault and you are personally fined and/or imprisoned. The oafs you employed will still be there, screwing up the next finance officer's life. If the company can get one.

The company can't offer a huge salary or bonuses to compensate for the potential disaster waiting for the post-holder through no fault of his/her own because if they do, Labour will steal it. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an awful lot of those posts becoming vacant shortly.

Of course, what Darling might be able to see if he trimmed those eyebrows is that he is currently the finance director for UK plc. Hadn't thought of that, had he?

Labour also want to 'name and shame' anyone avoiding tax. Not evading. Avoiding. Evasion is illegal. Avoidance is not. Still, when it comes to punishing people who have broken no law, Labour are past masters. If you're high enough up the income ladder to make tax avoidance worth your while, you no longer have to wait for some half-baked civil servant to leave your details on a train. The tax office will publish them.

Mr Darling said "...it cannot be fair that those who should pay tax, are allowed to avoid it."

Quite agree. People doing devious things like switching their main residence to evade stamp duty or inflating their expenses should be dealt with. He's not talking about that, though. Once more, these laws only apply to the proles. They are intended to tax the rich unless they are Labour rich. Socialist millionaires are okay. Taking money from all the poor at once and keeping it for yourself is Good Wealth. Working for it or inheriting it is Bad Wealth. Using it to run a business and employ people is Evil Wealth because the people you employ, who would otherwise have no jobs at all, should own the company and you, the one who set it up, invested, borrowed, built and nurtured the business that employs them, should just get lost.

I think those business owners should do just that. Pack up, sell up, get out of the country. Don't even tell the workers you're going. Just scarper. Leave a note on the factory gates saying 'All yours. You run it' and retire somewhere warm. It's what the socialists want. It'll be interesting to see how those communes will source materials for their factories and sell the products when all the suppliers and major retailers have done the same thing. Ideally, on the same day.

There is no thought behind any of Labour's policies other than spite. Constantly Furious and Anna Raccoon (under new management) have dismantled any residual logic that might once have existed in the 'tax the bankers' lunacy, Dick Puddlecote writes of the destruction of education so there can be no hope for those council kids of the future, Letters from a Tory wonders whether the Labour approach of 'We despise you. Vote for us' is likely to be an election winner and Devil's Kitchen covers the new Labour idea of making students pay to be enslaved.

They call it 'class war' and the Left are delighted because those on the Left who support this are middle class morons. They aren't the ones Labour are waging war on. They can still afford to send their kids to good schools and universities. They can still afford to keep the heating on in winter. They love the idea of 'class war' because the ones who will suffer most are the proles at the bottom. Those who voted Labour into power are the ones Labour despise most of all and they despise those people because they know, they know with absolute certainty, that those people will vote Labour no matter what. Those people will vote labour even as their lives, and their children's futures, are destroyed because all they hear from Labour is 'We're going to bash the posh kids for you' and they are too stupid to realise that the posh kids are the ones who pay the benefits bill.

In some places, Labour could put up posters showing the Brown Gorgon laughing over the slogan 'Vote Labour, you drooling chavvy thicko' and you know what? They would. For the sake of spite.

Spite is all there is in the socialist world. It is not about improving the life of anyone at all. Socialism is about destroying everything anyone else tries to do, for petty, vindictive, malicious and spiteful reasons. Everyone must be equal. Everyone must have exactly the same, do exactly the same, think exactly the same. No skills or talents can be permitted because that would make others feel sad. The only thing 'progressive' about socialism is its rapid progression into stagnation.

Labour are going down and they will go down hard this time. They know it. The coming months will treat us to the last stings of a dying wasp. The last jabs of a wasp that doesn't sting because it feels threatened but because it still can.

Labour hate you, whoever you are. Labour consider you worthless, an irritant to be dealt with. Labour despise you with a vengeance. Labour will ensure that neither you nor your children ever get a decent education or a high-paying job or a big house with a large garden in a pleasant part of town. You are to envy those things, but you must be stripped of any hope that you could have them too. Stay in that grotty council flat, prole, and nurture that socialist spite. Don't you dare try to better yourself.

Remember that next time you vote for them 'because your dad did'. Ask yourself how well he did out of the deal.

I'd like to think the Tories or even the Lib Dems would be better but I see nothing to convince me of that. They certainly couldn't be worse. Even so, I'll be looking at Libertarians, UKIP and independents as first options. Labour won't be on my options list at all. Unless something dramatic happens, neither will SNP, Tory or Lib Dems.

The four of them are fast becoming interchangeable.
wordpress blog stats

Last night of the Visitors.

Tomorrow I have peace again. Excuse typing. I loaded them with Grolsch and Tuborg for the last night and I'm topping up with Singleton now they've passed out.

My Electrofag use has been strictly limited over the past few days. Since my visitors are non-smokers, I saw no purpose in introducing them to Electrofag but I did realise a potential drawback in doing so.

The drawback with using Electrofag in front of non-smoking visitors in your own house is this. You will get continuously asked 'Why don't you use that smokeless thing that doesn't stink?'

Right. When I visit non-smokers I will introduce Electrofag as an odourless and smokeless alternative to shivering jn their gardens. But this house is my house. It's the only place I have where I can absolutely guarantee that smoking is allowed. I have and will continue to puff at Electrofag here when it suits me - when it suits me - but if I want a real one I'm damn well having one and if you visit and don't like it, go home. Or go to the pub, get on a bus or train, go to any public space you want. I can't smoke there. I can smoke here. It is, now, the only place I can smoke without being fined, being told to stop or being harassed with leaflets clutched by people with more fingers than IQ. This is my house. If I want to paint the interior Barbie pink I will do so. If I want to stack up a pyramid of Calders cans I will do so. If I want to make the windows out of melted whisky bottles I will do so. If I want to smoke in here I will do so.

So I won't tell non-smoking visitors about Electrofag because that will end badly and they might not get a taxi at the time they are ejected.

I don't smoke without permission in a non-smoker's house. I regard that as only fair. I do not expect my smoking habits to be subject to any form of control in my house.

The last few days set Electrofag back a little on the cost/benefit analysis. it'll pick up again once the non-smokers have gone.

Decent malt intake has been down too. I have some catching up to do.
wordpress blog stats

Playing to the audience.


Visitors have gone to sleep. They will dream dreams of the 'Doom' film I put on because the goggle-box had nothing to offer, so there might be screams in the night. Especially if I wander about the house with my hat on.

Now that they are dormant, I can comment on today's papers.

I usually start news-browsing on Yahoo. The Yahoo links don't last long so they aren't a lot of use but they sometimes link to Sky news or ITN or the like. They also list stories from the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. They would link to the Times, I'm sure, but Murdoch doesn't like free advertising so they can't.

My impression of the three they link to is this:

The Guardian takes a socialist view of everything and is aimed at an audience of middle-class left wingers who play at equality and multiculturalism for everyone else, as long as it doesn't affect them.

The Telegraph is referred to as the 'Torygraph' by left wingers and as the 'Labourgraph' by right wingers. It seems to switch sides depending on the reporter. It's sort-of in the middle ground overall but seems to swing one way or the other at will. Readership must be the swing voters or the dual personality types.

The Daily Mail can make a sensational story out of mouthwash. It exists to combat low blood pressure and veers towards tinfoil hat territory a lot. The stories are usually true in essence but often beefed up to make them appear far more anger-inducing than they need be and sometimes inflated way beyond any reasonable interpretation. It's fun to read but it should come with a blood pressure warning and stories need to be scrutinised carefully. Definitely one for the more rabid reader. On the other hand, they will cover stories the others don't regard as 'national' enough. It's often so over the top it's actually funny, too.

Other than that, the Times is usually reasonably calm but went down in my estimation over the Nightjack outing and has never felt the same since. The most unbiased source I know is Reuters but reporting is very dry as a consequence.

The reason these papers report in the way they do isn't so much to do with their editors (although that does come into it) as their readers. Newspaper producers do not exist to provide untampered news. They exist only to sell newspapers. They identify their target audience and write in a manner that audience will pay to read.

And so, on the story of the NHS watchdog baroness who quit, we have the Mail insisting that she was forced out for annoying both the government and her staff, with her friends quoted as saying:

But her friends say that shortly after the leak, she had a series of angry meetings with Mr Burnham over the system for rating hospital care.

The Guardian says she simply quit because she didn't want to do it any more and there is nothing else to report. Her friends told the Guardian:

"She jumped. It's got nothing to do with Basildon. She just decided that she didn't want to do it."

Who to believe? It doesn't matter. Mail readers will believe the Mail version, Guardian readers will believe the Guardian version but which is true? Possibly neither of them. It's quite possible this woman has never existed and the photos are posed by an actress. We have no way of knowing. We don't even need to care.

Then there's the Dr. Kelly story haunting Tiny Blur's dreams. The Mail insists that doctors claim he was murdered, but that's not quite what they claim. The Telegraph is a bit more restrained in that these same doctors point out that there was never a proper inquest so the declaration of suicide was unsafe and must be re-examined. Not quite a declaration of murder, more a suspicion that it might have been. Those doctors are not alone in their suspicions but until the case is examined, the doctors are quite sensibly not making accusations.

I'm certain he was murdered and I'm sure any one of us would be if we had access to a hell of a lot of very embarrassing data. I doubt bloggers need to worry. Even those civil servants deemed so inept and useless as to be given the job of reading drivel like this rather than being entrusted with anything important must realise that if a blogger had any evidence of anything at all, it would be on the blog that day. We just couldn't keep anything secret. If it's not on the blogs it's because we don't know about it.

There is nothing anyone can do about those two stories other than read what happens. We can't investigate for ourselves. We just don't have the resources, the contacts or the time. The Doctor and the Baroness remain at arm's length to the general population and the stories are unlikely to cause any problems, no matter how they are told. In other cases, the manner of reporting can have potentially explosive effects.

The Mail doesn't seem to have picked up the EDL march story. The Guardian has it, peppered with references to 'right-wing' and 'racist organisation' and apparently the fight was between the EDL and the police. The UAF just watched, according to them. The Guardian has this line:

A large number had their faces covered with hooded tops and shouted insults aimed at Allah.

...whereas the Telegraph puts it slightly differently...

About 500 protesters from the English Defence League (EDL), many with their faces covered with scarves and hooded tops, marched through Nottingham yesterday decrying Allah

Is it just me, or does the Guardian seem far more incensed at the idea of insulting Allah than the Telegraph? Language like that led to a Muslim uprising against Danish cartoonists. Are the Guardian trying to start a war here?

Guardian -

A 43-year-old member of the EDL, a serving soldier who did not want to be named, said: "We came here to support our lads and the UAF and other militants have turned up. I think it's disgusting.
"I look at their protest and there's a Pakistani flag flying with a Muslim symbol."


Telegraph -

One EDL member, a serving soldier who declined to be named, said of the student protest: "I look at their protest and there's a Pakistani flag flying with a Muslim symbol. They're protesting against the troops and it's anti-British. I'm not a fascist, I'm not a Nazi but I am British."

Subtly different interpretations of the same quote there. The Guardian report links 'disgusting' with 'Pakistani flag' whereas the Telegraph version links 'Pakistani flag' with 'protesting against the troops'. The first will enrage Muslims, the second will enrage the British. Neither is good, but enraged British will write strong comments on the bottom of the article and threaten to vote BNP, whereas enraged Muslims tend to prefer more tangible and immediate responses. The Telegraph version is likely to make its readers say 'tut'. The Guardian version is likely to make its more volatile Muslim readers say 'Kill the EDL' and its right-on white readers say 'Go for it, we'll support you from over here' because they don't get their hands dirty, these capuccino communists. Oh, no, they have people to do that for them.

The EDL have one stated purpose. They don't want Sharia law in the UK. The EDL have not demanded anyone leave, nor that anyone abandon their religion, nor that anyone become Christian and have roast beef and Yorkshire pudding for Sunday lunch. They don't want Sharia law. That is the sum total of their concerns.

The UAF oppose them. The only issue is Sharia law which leads to the conclusion that the UAF want it imposed. There is no other issue to oppose as far as the EDL is concerned.

Reporting of the ongoing EDL vs UAF battles is not a plaything for making clever political points. Next time the EDL march, there will be some among the UAF drones who will have read that Guardian article and who will be convinced they are facing Hitler's chosen apostles. The words in those newspapers are written to appeal to their audience and they serve to reinforce views that the audience already had. Nobody pays to read a newspaper that disagrees with them. They buy papers that tell them what they want to hear. The problem with that system is that those people then believe what they are told precisely because it confirms what they already believed. The newspaper reports tell them that their prejudices are correct, whether about immigration or about Sharia or about nazis under the bed.

Reinforcing prejudices makes it easy for the audience to dehumanise the opposition, and once dehumanised, well, it's not murder if they're not human. it's like disposing of a rabid dog. Doing the world a favour.

The papers play to their audience for sound business reasons. There are times when playing to the audience is very dangerous indeed.

I doubt any newspaper editor will ever realise that. The editors tend to think the same way as their audience.

wordpress blog stats

Another Doomsday film.

I loaned that seriously Christian and very disappointing Doomsday film version to a friend. In return, he loaned me one he'd found. This is titled 'Doomsday' (aren't they all) and is the one in which Scotland is sealed off because of a deadly virus. When the virus appears in London, 25 years later, a few troops with fancy futuristic gear are sent in to Scotland to find out why some people are still alive, and to steal whatever cure they've found. They don't consider asking first, nor do they consider any sort of deal, it's just straight in with the shock troops.

First of all, I noticed Glasgow hadn't changed much. A bit more foliage but the accents are the same, they still drive vehicles straight out of Mad Max and they still eat visitors. It was a little unrealistic that they still had petrol after 25 years but what was totally unrealistic was that they still had cans of Tennents lager. After 25 years? If the supply of booze were cut, stocks would run out in 48 hours. They'd make their own booze for sure but canning it is a bit of a stretch.

That said, it was a fun film if you like a cross between Mad Max, Mission Impossible and Escape from New York, with gore at levels that would put the Saw series to shame. For some reason, part of Scotland had turned mediaeval with armoured knights and all the trimmings, while other parts had become Thunderdome. Not a film to expect sense from, just pure escapist action.

It cheered me up, anyway.

I still have visitors here so computer time is limited by their clamouring for attention. I'll catch up with the news and comments after Monday.
wordpress blog stats

Climate heretics.

Ooo, those climate heretics. I'll scratch their eyes out.


'Climate denier' turns out to be insufficient insult to shut us up now that the cat is not only out of the bag but has grabbed the bag and shredded it. Stronger terms must be used to silence dissent.

Therefore we are now 'climate saboteurs' according to Ed Moribund, and that pinnacle of pecuniary perfection, the Brown Gorgon himself, has decried us in terms that sound as if he really believes we actually still care what he thinks:

"With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics," Brown told the Guardian. "We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the 5bn-tonne gap. That will seal the deal."

If you question this aspect of science, you are no longer following established scientific procedures, you are of the flat earth persuasion, you are behind the times,.and most of all, by following established scientific procedure you are anti-science. What a clever little Prime Monster we have. He knows science almost as if it were a religious doctrine. He even has a new way to say 'getting on with the job'.

This is ridiculous. If the science is 'settled', why does it need to be defended as if it were some new religion based on the worship of a fifteen foot anchovy constructed from wheat and turkey gizzards? Why not just show us the science?

It is no different - at all - to the methods used by Righteous down the ages. The opponent's view cannot be considered. That view cannot be challenged using reality, therefore the opponent must be discredited. Cry 'heretic' and let slip the dogs of control.

None of this will work now. Not even the next stage, 'climate racist'. It's too late. People are sick of having their opinions simply dismissed and sick of being told not only that they are wrong, but they are evilly wrong, they are stupidly wrong, they are heretically wrong. Not because there is a real argument to prove them wrong but 'because we say so and we know best'.

Moribund and the Gorgon present no scientific argument at all. They don't even try. All they have are insults and accusations.

It's all they have left.
wordpress blog stats

Can smokers be reasoned with?

On an earlier post, an anonymous commenter (a supporter of the smoking ban) said there's no point trying to talk to smokers about smoking.

It's true.

Just as I would never talk to mountain climbers about mountain climbing, bungee jumpers about bungee jumping, sprinters about sprinting or politicians about anything, there is no point in an anti-smoker talking to a smoker about smoking.

If you don't do it and don't want to, it is a matter of no interest to you at all. As with any other activity you aren't interested in, you can't get interested in any conversation with someone who is interested. That doesn't make the activity wrong. It doesn't make the disinterest of the non-participant wrong either. It's just something you don't like to do. It's not a problem.

But then I don't advocate the banning of mountain climbing, bungee jumping or sprinting. I don't advocate the banning of cycling even though I've been hit by pavement cyclists now and then. I don't want a ban on mobile phones or MP3 players even though they can make bus or train travel a time of constant irritating noise. Yes, I would rather they didn't do it around me but even so, they have a right to do those things.

Smokers are not even asking for that right. Smokers are asking for a place they can smoke indoors. We are not demanding the right to smoke anywhere we like. We are asking for the right to smoke somewhere. As it stands, a smoking club with the catchy name of 'Emphysema Emporium' which was staffed with smokers, whose membership requirements included only the proviso that the member be a smoker, and which was situated at the end of a dirt track between a chemical works, a sewage works and a nuclear power station, is not allowed to let its members smoke indoors. Can smokers be reasoned with? Faced with that, who can expect smokers to feel reasonable?

A place to smoke indoors is too much to ask. 'Smokers can choose not to smoke. Non-smokers can only choose not to leave the house' was another argument. Come on now. Is the air outside the house totally saturated with smoke? Is the complaint here that too many outdoor spaces have smokers in them? Why do you think that might be?

The cold weather is here again. This will restrict my visits to the pub. Yes, I have Electrofag but I like a real one now and then while I'm out and outside the pub, it can go well below zero here even before you factor in windchill. i'll get a bottle and stay home. it saves me money because £20 or so for a bottle of decent malt is less than i'd have spent in the pub - but it destroys my social life and destroys the pub. For many, that money saving, plus smoking indoors at home, will mean their pub visits will decline sharply. More will close.

The anonymous commenter works in a nightclub. I have no wish to be rude or unreasonable here, but I wonder what thoughts will go through the nightclub worker's mind when the closures reach his place of employment? Will he blame the smoking ban or not?

The short answer to the title question is no. Smokers cannot be reasoned with. Not now. Not because smokers are unreasonable people.

It's because reasoning with antismokers has not worked at all.

The antismokers don't even regard us as people.


UPDATE: Too many comments to answer them all individually so here's my stance in summary:

1. I am not trying to stop smoking, so I have not 'failed to stop smoking'. I don't want to. I like it. Electrofag was never about an attempt to quit. It is a legal way to experience at least part of smoking while indoors, a means of spending an evening in the pub without going outside in snow, rain or wind. Despite the fact that it produces no smoke, no particulates, nothing harmful at all and involves no combustion of anything, some places will not allow its use. They have been made so frightened by the threat of punitive fines if anyone is caught smoking on the premises, and their business profits eroded to the point where they are barely surviving, that they dare not risk it. I can't say I blame them but I will take my business to those places that do allow Electrofag indoors. It's not personal. It's simply customer preference.

The smoking ban involves a ban on burning tobacco or other smokable substances inside. Taken literally it also bans any pub from having a coal or log fire on the premises. It does not ban Electrofag because if it did, it would also have to ban all non-combustible nicotine sources including patches and gum.

2. Some smokers are intolerant. Some non-smokers are intolerant. That's because they are intolerant people and not because they smoke or don't smoke. Most smokers and most non-smokers are not intolerant. Most would be happy with a compromise, and even those who do not want smoking and non-smoking rooms within a pub have no sensible argument against wholly smoking and wholly non-smoking pubs.

The only argument in the thread is 'it would open up a loophole if you evil smokers had your own places and soon you'd creep back into the pubs we don't actually go to but want available just in case' , and 'village pubs would be taken over as smoker's clubs'.

First, the loophole argument means that since some clubs have lapdancers and strippers, all clubs and pubs have them by now. Oddly enough, I don't know of any here. That's because there is no loophole. Such places must have a specific licence, and a smoking club would need a smoking licence. No licence, no smoking. And no loophole.

As for the village pub smoker's coup, that can only happen if the majority of pub users are smokers and only if the owner of the pub (because it's not publically owned, it's a private business) decided that smoking premises would make more money than non-smoking premises. If most of the pub regulars are non-smokers then the pub would stay non-smoking for purely business reasons. No business owner will exclude the majority of his customers in preference to the minority. The smokers are not going to occupy the premises and declare it a smoking zone. It's the same technique as 'letting people vote for chief constables will mean the BNP will take over' and it's still rubbish.

3. There is no 'allergy to cigarette smoke'. It does not exist. There is only 'dislike of cigarette smoke' which is a matter of personal preference and not a medical condition. No medical file contains any illness attributed to 'cigarette smoke allergy' unless the attending doctor is an utter moron. Which, from experience, I cannot rule out.

4. The reason the antismokers want a total ban is not some first step to a future compromise, where some pubs allow smoking after all. The total ban had to be total because otherwise those pubs that allowed smoking would soon absorb all the business of those that didn't. As Weatherspoons discovered when they tried it. Smoking and drinking go together. If you don't care about your lungs, you don't care about your liver. If you are health-conscious and don't smoke and find it utterly repulsive, chances are you limit your alcohol intake to 'sensible' levels too. Pubs are businesses. Sensible levels are not profitable levels. Pubs cannot survive selling mineral water and spritzers to three customers a night. It is not a politically correct view but you'll find that few of my views are.

Pub profits do not come from those nursing a G&T while discussing share prices and comparing interior decorators. The profits come from beer drinkers who are in for the duration of every match of the season played out on the big screen. They come from the pool team and darts team home matches. They come from the like of Tumbleguts McFatass whose social life centres on the pub and has done for all his life. Tumbleguts does not want a wine bar or a night club. He does not want to discuss distant events or world crises. He wants to talk to people he knows about things that are happening in his town. And he wants to do it over a beer.

He and his friends are the base profit margin of the typical pub. He's the reason it's still there and his absence is the reason it's closing down.

Most of those people are smokers and all of them consider the Government's invented limits on booze units per day as a misprint. They must surely mean 'per hour'.

Cue the 'these are all drunken bums and we don't care if they are banned too' responses. They are not. They are not the 'yoof' you see howling and battering their way along the street on weekend nights. They are middle aged, long term drinkers who know their limits and who go home quietly if a little unsteadily. They like a drink, and they like a smoke with it. Everyone who drinks is a pisshead who can't handle it? I have had four double whiskies this evening so far (The Singleton, for those who are interested in such things. Currently down to £20 at Morrisson's). See how it has destroyed the legibility and coherence of my typing ability. If I drank the same number of units of red wine I'd be well on the way to sleep by now. Wine does that. Whisky doesn't. Everyone has different limits for different drinks and everyone likes different things.

Some people don't like smoking. Fair enough, I say. I have no problem with non-smoking pubs, clubs and restaurants. Have as many as you want, as many as the client demand will support.

Some people do like smoking. There is no equivalent 'fair enough' for us. Absolutely none.

Justify it.
wordpress blog stats

Subrosa silenced.

Constantly Furious and Quiet Man have more information than me on the abrupt disappearance of Subrosa's blog due to threats of 'outing' from some sad little gimboid who is no doubt, at this moment, preening and puffing about how clever they are.

Let's be under no illusions about the true nature of internet anonymity. Anyone who really wanted to find me could do so. I haven't exactly left an invisible trail. It could be done without even bothering with IP records or fancy programming - but if you had access to those, it would be very easy indeed.

Total Politics have conveniently published a list of bloggers, in lists, some ranked in order of potential annoyance to the government. The badges in the sidebar show I'm on those lists, and on some of the most potentially Government-irritating ones too. Subrosa wasn't on the lists. She requested to not be involved, and was linked to nonetheless from Iain Dale's site as one of the best blogs not to appear in the rankings.

Now, if you were a spiteful and malicious Government lackey, of which there appears to be no shortage these days, all you need to do is start at the top of the list and work down. There's no need to find the identity of every anonymous blogger in the land. They have been ranked for you. I'll bet the identities of the top hundred bloggers - at least - are well documented somewhere. 'They' know who we are.

What this trivial little idiot did to Subrosa is not some kind of public service. It was petty and childish and pointless and I hope she takes the bugger apart in court.

No doubt there will be more of this. I'm self-employed. I can't be sacked or disciplined at work for voicing my opinions here. I receive no public money of any kind so they can't get at me that way either. No doubt there are those in our current massively overstaffed government who would love to have we tiresome bloggers silenced. They can't just kick in our doors at 5 am because blogging isn't illegal. What could they do to pick us off one by one?

Those out there who could potentially be in trouble if their blogging activities came to light should take care. There are a lot of malicious idiots around these days.
wordpress blog stats

Lessons will never be learned.

Another fascinating day.

Another photographer has been investigated as a terrorist for taking photos of a town's Christmas lights. Despite the publicity these events have had in the past, despite Jacq the Ripper (when she was sister's-home secretary) saying it's not illegal, it just keeps happening.

Another child has been snatched by the SS, this time because the mother cooked healthy food and refused a doctor's advice to crank the kid up to obesity on junk. Sense? Don't even look for any.

The Mandelsnake has declared Murdoch a nasty nazi in a fit of handbag-rending rage that would have had Larry Grayson rolling his eyes at such a camp tantrum. (That's Rupert Murdoch, not Murdoc from Gorillaz. It can be hard to tell).

The French are going to force private businesses to employ women as board members, whether the women want the jobs or not and whether they can do the job or not. So are we.

Dawn French wants to ban fat jokes. Now that one had me rolling on the floor. She's made all her money from those jokes.

There's just too much lunacy in today's news to even start any sort of summary. None of it is new. it's all stuff that's happened before, followed by the 'lessons will be learned' mantra which doesn't even have time to fade before it all happens again.

They cannot learn. They are incurable and should be incarcerated forever.

Before they do it to us.
wordpress blog stats

Haunted.

I have relatives in my house for a few days. You'd think they'd know what to expect by now. Yes, I do have a designated no-smoking area. In the spirit of fairness and equality, it's in the garden. No, it's not enclosed because that's not legal for smoking areas therefore it's not legal for non-smoking areas either. You want to go breathing fresh air all over the place, do it outside. The site of the no-smoking area in the garden is easy to find. It's any part of the garden that doesn't have me in it.

It's fair enough. On the rare occasions I visit family who don't smoke, I smoke outside. Although family (and anyone else) who insist on that, absolutely and without question, don't see much of me.

Malt whisky? Never touch the stuff. Here, have some Famous Grouse, Bells or the Tesco own-brand stuff I use as toilet cleaner. I have quantum malt whiskies that don't exist until visitors have gone to bed. I'm really not as mean as I sound. They put lemonade in it! I cannot be party to such heinous and wilful sacrilege. Family visiting is something I can deal with. Lemonade in malt whisky is well over the line. We are talking ritual slaughter here. With added pain and bonus levels. And extra spikes.

I might not be too active for the next few days because they will expect to be entertained and spoken to once in a while. They do come equipped with cooking and cleaning skills and I can bear a few 'tut-tuts' if someone else wants to wave a hoover around or polish a few shelves.

They are exorcised on Monday. Until then, I am haunted by relatives and they're not even dead yet.
wordpress blog stats