In a chicken shit world, a party you can trust
It's nice to know that in this world of uncertainty and economic turmoil, when we are constantly told to be on our guard for terrorism and brown people that are going to eat our swans and steal our children, that out there, there is a political party that you can trust.
That party is the British National party.
You can trust them of course to talk shite and ramble on some poisonous old racist drivel about brown people. We all know that, it's a given.
Yet it's equally important to remember that they can also be relied upon to occassionally shoot themselves in the foot in a way so spectacularly hilarious that it will keep us consistently entertained throughout even the hardest of times.
So what have they done? Well, following hot on the heals of the Polish spitfire debarcle, which was funny enough, we now have this little gem. Yup, Laural and Hardy are alive and well and working in the BNP communications department as song about anti fascists fighting in the Spanish civil war and containing the line "If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" is used as backing music to one of their bits of racist propaganda.
In the words of my friend and yours Dicky boy Littlejohn, you couldn't make it up!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A nudge in the right direction
Over at the enemies of reason Anton has commented several time in recent days about how some of the Mail's nastier articles are not of the Littlejohn variety, they don't need to do that to get the reaction they seek out of their readers. No, some times they just give them a nudge in the right direction.
This morning we have another example, a story about Muslim friendly uniforms for fire fighters. The story itself could be worse, but look at the headline
"Now fire service introduces hijab headscarves for Muslim workers"
All it needs is that one word, "Now", it implies some kind of endless and pointless load of PC nonsense, when it's nothing of the sort of course. It's that one nudge in the right direction. No comments yet but it's the crack of dawn. I'll be checking back later and will be braced for something nasty.
Watch this space!
Update
I hope my fellow Christians will excuse the expression but, sweet Jesus. It really is worse than you could possibly imagine.
The comments, of course, have the usual PC gone mad, pandering to minorities blah blah blah shite. Yet I totally underestimated the stupidity of Mail readers, of I underestimated a long way indeed.
You see most of them have not read the article because they are all rambling on about how could you fight fires or climb ladders in the head scarf and skirt. It clearly says in the article though that it's for wearing in the station, school visits etc. IT'S NOT FOR FIGHTING FUCKING FIRES.
And then the best bit, oh the best of all, one comment says this
"Oh for goodness sake, read the article properly. This uniform isn't for fighting fires in, it clearly says:
The hope is that the uniforms, designed for wearing round the station and outings such as school trip."
Tina, Netherlands"
Note, the comment offers no opinion, just points out the mistakes of others yet at the time of writing this has a rating -237!!!! now given that I gave it a green arrow that's at least 238 people who either can't read or have decided to ignore basic facts for the sake of their own prejudice.
Either way, it's blodoy worrying.
Over at the enemies of reason Anton has commented several time in recent days about how some of the Mail's nastier articles are not of the Littlejohn variety, they don't need to do that to get the reaction they seek out of their readers. No, some times they just give them a nudge in the right direction.
This morning we have another example, a story about Muslim friendly uniforms for fire fighters. The story itself could be worse, but look at the headline
"Now fire service introduces hijab headscarves for Muslim workers"
All it needs is that one word, "Now", it implies some kind of endless and pointless load of PC nonsense, when it's nothing of the sort of course. It's that one nudge in the right direction. No comments yet but it's the crack of dawn. I'll be checking back later and will be braced for something nasty.
Watch this space!
Update
I hope my fellow Christians will excuse the expression but, sweet Jesus. It really is worse than you could possibly imagine.
The comments, of course, have the usual PC gone mad, pandering to minorities blah blah blah shite. Yet I totally underestimated the stupidity of Mail readers, of I underestimated a long way indeed.
You see most of them have not read the article because they are all rambling on about how could you fight fires or climb ladders in the head scarf and skirt. It clearly says in the article though that it's for wearing in the station, school visits etc. IT'S NOT FOR FIGHTING FUCKING FIRES.
And then the best bit, oh the best of all, one comment says this
"Oh for goodness sake, read the article properly. This uniform isn't for fighting fires in, it clearly says:
The hope is that the uniforms, designed for wearing round the station and outings such as school trip."
Tina, Netherlands"
Note, the comment offers no opinion, just points out the mistakes of others yet at the time of writing this has a rating -237!!!! now given that I gave it a green arrow that's at least 238 people who either can't read or have decided to ignore basic facts for the sake of their own prejudice.
Either way, it's blodoy worrying.
Friday, March 27, 2009
You Go Girl!!!!!!!!!!
FAO of all newspaper editors, forget the fact that this kid is a cub, can we please have more stories about the millions of kids out there who do get out there and do something? And not just scare stories about ferrel kids running riot? Then you might actually start reflecting the reality of kids today. They don't have to be scouts of any sort, just stories about how they do get off their arses and achieve things.
Meanwhile Rebecca well done you! This story is getting emailed to all my cubs to show that they can do it as well.
The youth of today. Bloody brilliant!
FAO of all newspaper editors, forget the fact that this kid is a cub, can we please have more stories about the millions of kids out there who do get out there and do something? And not just scare stories about ferrel kids running riot? Then you might actually start reflecting the reality of kids today. They don't have to be scouts of any sort, just stories about how they do get off their arses and achieve things.
Meanwhile Rebecca well done you! This story is getting emailed to all my cubs to show that they can do it as well.
The youth of today. Bloody brilliant!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Quick! Lets all kick Beardy!
Lying awake last night suffering from yet another bout of insomnia I listed to Radio 4 quietly murmur away in the back ground and that was when I first heard of this story. The Archbishop of Canterbury making a speech about the actions of humans on the environment and the fact that God will not intervene to prevent our trashing of it. Now regardless of whether you are a believer or not I don't think you can really deny that the central premise that it's about time we collectively took some responsibility for the state of the environment is a very sensible one.
And I have to confess that, and call me a boring old obsessive if you so desire, my first thought was "I wonder what the Mail and its readers will make of all that".
Well to be fair, the coverage by the Mail itself is quite reasonable, it just seems to be a straight forward reproting of the key parts of the speech. No slant, no agenda, in fact well done Daily Mail! (Fuck, did I actually just write that?)
When it comes to the comments though its a different story. And it highlights something that I love about Mail readers, they seem to think that the Church is about promoting conservative values and not Christian values. Now some of you may think they are one and the same thing, I happen to disagree, why should Christian values go either way, should they not be an interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? But I digress, lets take a look at exactly what the punters have to say.
Of course, remember the ten commandments: "Remember that thou need to find ways of promoting environmental responsibility through Government policies." I warn Roman Catholic priests to be prepared: they will be receiving more and more converts from the Cof E if we have more speeches like this one.
Click to rate Rating 8
- George, Bolton UK, 26/3/2009 9:50
Do you see what clever old George did there? Do you? Caring about the environment and taking responsibility is all about politics. It would seem. Of course it is George, of course it is.
Of course he wont, neither will he protect us from the Archbishop.
Click to rate Rating 38
- Chris, Yorkshire, 26/3/2009 10:03
What you mean the Archbishop that actually gives a toss about the world his kids and grand kids will inherit. Is that the one you mean Chris?
Just as God hasn't protected us from weak liberal Archbishops of Canterbury, he means?
Click to rate Rating 27
- Simon, London, 26/3/2009 10:06
Why would he Simon? Explain? Or do you just want the right to do what the fuck you want to the world and ignore the consequences?
Once the God-botherers get involved, you know there's nothing in it.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Steve, Cambridge, UK, 26/3/2009 10:29
Go on Steve, you tell them. none of its true, none of it. It's all a lie! Twat.
The C of E is infested with liberals. Give the C of E back to the English!
Click to rate Rating 89
- john, bristol england, 26/3/2009 11:17
Because liberals are all er... foreign?
Of course there are those backing Beardy up but they all get lots of red arrows, people like this
Congratulations to the Arch Bishop for exposing how our selfish greed allows us to do what we want because it suits us. Those who believe that God does not allow us to face the consequences of our own actions have not read their Bibles. Those who think God had better pray they are right!
Click to rate Rating 31
- Simon Lissak, London, 26/3/2009 10:29
Not sure the last sentence makes any sense but Simon does generally and has lots of red arrows for his trouble.
At last ! He has said something sensible and relevant! Whether you believe in God or not The human race must take responsibility for all of its actions in relation to the use of the world resources. At the moment the human race and its predatory approach to everything is the worst thing to happen ever to this planet. Surely we must change our ways reap the rewards of non concern greed avarice etc?
Click to rate Rating 16
- jasbo montrose, montrose angus, 26/3/2009 10:17
More red arrows. I fucking despair, I really do. I would have thought Jasbo's comment would be the one everyone could subscribe to but clearly not.
Once again I find it terrifying just how many people read the Mail and what their attitudes are. The Great British Public. And to think I'm one of them.
Lying awake last night suffering from yet another bout of insomnia I listed to Radio 4 quietly murmur away in the back ground and that was when I first heard of this story. The Archbishop of Canterbury making a speech about the actions of humans on the environment and the fact that God will not intervene to prevent our trashing of it. Now regardless of whether you are a believer or not I don't think you can really deny that the central premise that it's about time we collectively took some responsibility for the state of the environment is a very sensible one.
And I have to confess that, and call me a boring old obsessive if you so desire, my first thought was "I wonder what the Mail and its readers will make of all that".
Well to be fair, the coverage by the Mail itself is quite reasonable, it just seems to be a straight forward reproting of the key parts of the speech. No slant, no agenda, in fact well done Daily Mail! (Fuck, did I actually just write that?)
When it comes to the comments though its a different story. And it highlights something that I love about Mail readers, they seem to think that the Church is about promoting conservative values and not Christian values. Now some of you may think they are one and the same thing, I happen to disagree, why should Christian values go either way, should they not be an interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? But I digress, lets take a look at exactly what the punters have to say.
Of course, remember the ten commandments: "Remember that thou need to find ways of promoting environmental responsibility through Government policies." I warn Roman Catholic priests to be prepared: they will be receiving more and more converts from the Cof E if we have more speeches like this one.
Click to rate Rating 8
- George, Bolton UK, 26/3/2009 9:50
Do you see what clever old George did there? Do you? Caring about the environment and taking responsibility is all about politics. It would seem. Of course it is George, of course it is.
Of course he wont, neither will he protect us from the Archbishop.
Click to rate Rating 38
- Chris, Yorkshire, 26/3/2009 10:03
What you mean the Archbishop that actually gives a toss about the world his kids and grand kids will inherit. Is that the one you mean Chris?
Just as God hasn't protected us from weak liberal Archbishops of Canterbury, he means?
Click to rate Rating 27
- Simon, London, 26/3/2009 10:06
Why would he Simon? Explain? Or do you just want the right to do what the fuck you want to the world and ignore the consequences?
Once the God-botherers get involved, you know there's nothing in it.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Steve, Cambridge, UK, 26/3/2009 10:29
Go on Steve, you tell them. none of its true, none of it. It's all a lie! Twat.
The C of E is infested with liberals. Give the C of E back to the English!
Click to rate Rating 89
- john, bristol england, 26/3/2009 11:17
Because liberals are all er... foreign?
Of course there are those backing Beardy up but they all get lots of red arrows, people like this
Congratulations to the Arch Bishop for exposing how our selfish greed allows us to do what we want because it suits us. Those who believe that God does not allow us to face the consequences of our own actions have not read their Bibles. Those who think God had better pray they are right!
Click to rate Rating 31
- Simon Lissak, London, 26/3/2009 10:29
Not sure the last sentence makes any sense but Simon does generally and has lots of red arrows for his trouble.
At last ! He has said something sensible and relevant! Whether you believe in God or not The human race must take responsibility for all of its actions in relation to the use of the world resources. At the moment the human race and its predatory approach to everything is the worst thing to happen ever to this planet. Surely we must change our ways reap the rewards of non concern greed avarice etc?
Click to rate Rating 16
- jasbo montrose, montrose angus, 26/3/2009 10:17
More red arrows. I fucking despair, I really do. I would have thought Jasbo's comment would be the one everyone could subscribe to but clearly not.
Once again I find it terrifying just how many people read the Mail and what their attitudes are. The Great British Public. And to think I'm one of them.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A new language
Well it's happened, I have someone lined up to take over from me as Akela in the summer. I'll spare you the self indulgent ramblings about it all seeming real now, instead I'll cut to something that may be more applicable to the real world.
My replacement is a parent who is coming into this cold, she was a girl guide 30 years ago but other than that is starting from scratch. She loves the out doors, has experience as a teacher and runnign a Sunday School so has the basic skills and experience. What she doesn't have though is the language.
Every organisation, be it an employer a charity a club, whatever, has its own jargon, its accronyms, it's management structure, the scouts perhaps more than anyone else. I know what CC, ADC, Fellowship, WOSM, Service Crew etc mean but outsiders don't and neither does the new Akela right now. It's going to be steep learning curve!
Well it's happened, I have someone lined up to take over from me as Akela in the summer. I'll spare you the self indulgent ramblings about it all seeming real now, instead I'll cut to something that may be more applicable to the real world.
My replacement is a parent who is coming into this cold, she was a girl guide 30 years ago but other than that is starting from scratch. She loves the out doors, has experience as a teacher and runnign a Sunday School so has the basic skills and experience. What she doesn't have though is the language.
Every organisation, be it an employer a charity a club, whatever, has its own jargon, its accronyms, it's management structure, the scouts perhaps more than anyone else. I know what CC, ADC, Fellowship, WOSM, Service Crew etc mean but outsiders don't and neither does the new Akela right now. It's going to be steep learning curve!
Welcome to my inner geek!
I am so impressed with this. Really I am. As a kid I was massively into model trains and to have produced something like this........
What can I say, I'm a geek and I revel in it!
I am so impressed with this. Really I am. As a kid I was massively into model trains and to have produced something like this........
What can I say, I'm a geek and I revel in it!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Akela Predicts
Here we have an apparently innocent story about 13 year old singer Faryl Smith singing the national anthem at Twickenham at the weekend. Yet here's the rub, since I read it a few days ago there has been something slightly unsettling about the wording of this story. I can't put my finger on the exact words or sentence but it's there all right. Just a feeling that suggestions are being made that are inappropriate in the context of a 13 year old child.
Over the next 3-5 years this is one to watch. Much like Charlotte Church and Emma Watson we will see the stories become increasingly about how she looks and how she's "growing up" until she's 18 when suddenly the gloves will come off and she will be treated as nothing but a sex object. At least though that wont be quite as creepy, at least then it's all in the open and not just suggested but not openly spoken.
There is something creepy about the tabloid attitude to teenage girls in the public eye, and I will be watching this story develop with interest.
Watch this space.
Here we have an apparently innocent story about 13 year old singer Faryl Smith singing the national anthem at Twickenham at the weekend. Yet here's the rub, since I read it a few days ago there has been something slightly unsettling about the wording of this story. I can't put my finger on the exact words or sentence but it's there all right. Just a feeling that suggestions are being made that are inappropriate in the context of a 13 year old child.
Over the next 3-5 years this is one to watch. Much like Charlotte Church and Emma Watson we will see the stories become increasingly about how she looks and how she's "growing up" until she's 18 when suddenly the gloves will come off and she will be treated as nothing but a sex object. At least though that wont be quite as creepy, at least then it's all in the open and not just suggested but not openly spoken.
There is something creepy about the tabloid attitude to teenage girls in the public eye, and I will be watching this story develop with interest.
Watch this space.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Meat and Potatoes
So back to what this blog started life as, what it's like being a cub leader and a couple of things that occurred to me during cubs tonight.....
First it was deadline day for final payments and permission forms for our week long camp at half term, Cubjam, we came so close to a full house. We have all the money in and all but one of the permission forms. And the irritating thing is that the moment we advertised this camp back in September I could have told you who I would be chasing. I know because it's always the same. I know who will get it in first, who will be in last minute and who I will have to harass. It's absolutely infuriating. Such is the life of a scout leader!
Anyway next up was something I hadn't really appreciated before. We were playing a wide game outside and I had a gas tilly lamp lit. Now these things get hot and I had told the kids to not stand too near it. The game involved different teams wearing different t-shirts at different times and their came a point where one kid was trying to put one on, had it stuck, couldn't see and was staggering around and was suddenly straddling the tilly lamp. Before I knew what had happened I had picked him up and put him down again well clear of it. I didn't think, I didn't pause, I just did it and could easily have not noticed at all! And it struck me how much of this I now do on auto pilot. I've done this so many years now (coming up to 15) that much of it has become instinctive.
It's slightly scary.
So back to what this blog started life as, what it's like being a cub leader and a couple of things that occurred to me during cubs tonight.....
First it was deadline day for final payments and permission forms for our week long camp at half term, Cubjam, we came so close to a full house. We have all the money in and all but one of the permission forms. And the irritating thing is that the moment we advertised this camp back in September I could have told you who I would be chasing. I know because it's always the same. I know who will get it in first, who will be in last minute and who I will have to harass. It's absolutely infuriating. Such is the life of a scout leader!
Anyway next up was something I hadn't really appreciated before. We were playing a wide game outside and I had a gas tilly lamp lit. Now these things get hot and I had told the kids to not stand too near it. The game involved different teams wearing different t-shirts at different times and their came a point where one kid was trying to put one on, had it stuck, couldn't see and was staggering around and was suddenly straddling the tilly lamp. Before I knew what had happened I had picked him up and put him down again well clear of it. I didn't think, I didn't pause, I just did it and could easily have not noticed at all! And it struck me how much of this I now do on auto pilot. I've done this so many years now (coming up to 15) that much of it has become instinctive.
It's slightly scary.
A clash of opinions
I was interested by this story today, about villagers in Dorset taking what some may describe as “direct action” and others as “criminal action” to try and prevent increasing numbers of homes in their village being bought up as holiday homes and thus destroying their community.
I don’t think that there can be any real debate about what is happening and why. I know the Dorset Coast well, I think it is one of the most stunning places in Europe and so I don’t think it is any surprise that city dwellers like to spend time there as I am one of them. Now I have no where near the resources to own a second home (hell I’m only just about to buy my first!) but there are those that do and I have quite some sympathy for them wanting a holiday home somewhere like Dorset.
However I also have real sympathy for the locals because these houses are only occupied for a few weeks a year, this wrecks the local economy by reducing demand for local businesses and services and drives house prices through the roof. A vicious circle develops and slowly a community dies. And that is a tragedy.
The trouble is what do we do about it? Indeed should we do anything about it?
The Liberal in me is naturally hesitant to do anything to place restrictions on what property people can own and what they do with it. For the most part these people have worked hard to earn their money and as long as they are contributing their fare share through taxation for public services they should naturally be completely free to enjoy the fruits of their labour as they see fit.
My heart though also keeps nagging me and asking whether the state should intervene in some way to prevent small communities like this being destroyed? Should the free market really be allowed to ride rough shod over centuries of history? Aren’t some things more important than money? (Insert caveat here about only if you have enough of it to live it!)
In an ideal world of course those with sufficient money to buy these homes would have the sense to realise that honest though their intentions in buying them may be they are none the less having a detrimental effect on the area and so would chose not to do it. We do not however live in that ideal world, more’s the pity.
So my answer? Fuck knows! Yet I can’t help but have a lot of sympathy for the villagers involved.
I was interested by this story today, about villagers in Dorset taking what some may describe as “direct action” and others as “criminal action” to try and prevent increasing numbers of homes in their village being bought up as holiday homes and thus destroying their community.
I don’t think that there can be any real debate about what is happening and why. I know the Dorset Coast well, I think it is one of the most stunning places in Europe and so I don’t think it is any surprise that city dwellers like to spend time there as I am one of them. Now I have no where near the resources to own a second home (hell I’m only just about to buy my first!) but there are those that do and I have quite some sympathy for them wanting a holiday home somewhere like Dorset.
However I also have real sympathy for the locals because these houses are only occupied for a few weeks a year, this wrecks the local economy by reducing demand for local businesses and services and drives house prices through the roof. A vicious circle develops and slowly a community dies. And that is a tragedy.
The trouble is what do we do about it? Indeed should we do anything about it?
The Liberal in me is naturally hesitant to do anything to place restrictions on what property people can own and what they do with it. For the most part these people have worked hard to earn their money and as long as they are contributing their fare share through taxation for public services they should naturally be completely free to enjoy the fruits of their labour as they see fit.
My heart though also keeps nagging me and asking whether the state should intervene in some way to prevent small communities like this being destroyed? Should the free market really be allowed to ride rough shod over centuries of history? Aren’t some things more important than money? (Insert caveat here about only if you have enough of it to live it!)
In an ideal world of course those with sufficient money to buy these homes would have the sense to realise that honest though their intentions in buying them may be they are none the less having a detrimental effect on the area and so would chose not to do it. We do not however live in that ideal world, more’s the pity.
So my answer? Fuck knows! Yet I can’t help but have a lot of sympathy for the villagers involved.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
An Observation
Something I've noticed recently is cosmetic adverts. I've previously generally ignored them because firstly they're not aimed at me and second I find the pseudo pop science twaddle in them mind numbing. Yet something has cropped up in them the last year or so that has made me sit up and take note of them (and not in the way the advertisers want either) and it is this; there seems to be an implication that having cosmetic surgery in middle age is now some how standard, that it's just what you do. Now the reason for this is, I imagine, a marketing tool to say "look, save yourself the expense, just buy our snake oil instead". It may be more subtle than that (I'm no advertising exec after all) but it has a worrying effect. It leaves women, although probably some men as well, of a certain age feeling uncomfortable with how they look and under valued when how they look is simply how a 40, 50 or 60 year old woman or man looks.
And why should anyone be made to feel bad about growing older? It happens to us all and is just part of life's adventure. Maybe it's easy for me as I'm still 30, in reasonable shape and yet to see any grey hairs (that's not to say I'm perfect, losing 10 pounds would probably do me no harm at all) but I do resent advertisers implying that anyone should have to change to fit their image of what "normal" is.
Something I've noticed recently is cosmetic adverts. I've previously generally ignored them because firstly they're not aimed at me and second I find the pseudo pop science twaddle in them mind numbing. Yet something has cropped up in them the last year or so that has made me sit up and take note of them (and not in the way the advertisers want either) and it is this; there seems to be an implication that having cosmetic surgery in middle age is now some how standard, that it's just what you do. Now the reason for this is, I imagine, a marketing tool to say "look, save yourself the expense, just buy our snake oil instead". It may be more subtle than that (I'm no advertising exec after all) but it has a worrying effect. It leaves women, although probably some men as well, of a certain age feeling uncomfortable with how they look and under valued when how they look is simply how a 40, 50 or 60 year old woman or man looks.
And why should anyone be made to feel bad about growing older? It happens to us all and is just part of life's adventure. Maybe it's easy for me as I'm still 30, in reasonable shape and yet to see any grey hairs (that's not to say I'm perfect, losing 10 pounds would probably do me no harm at all) but I do resent advertisers implying that anyone should have to change to fit their image of what "normal" is.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Still Here
Afternoon folks, just a quicky to say don't worry, I've not disappeared but things in the Akela household are slightly hectic at the moment (looks like we'll be moving house soon!) so blogging is taking a back seat just now. Do keep dropping by though as things will still appear but for the next week or so it just wont be as frequent!
Afternoon folks, just a quicky to say don't worry, I've not disappeared but things in the Akela household are slightly hectic at the moment (looks like we'll be moving house soon!) so blogging is taking a back seat just now. Do keep dropping by though as things will still appear but for the next week or so it just wont be as frequent!
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Match Report
Barnet 3 Chester City 1
On the occasions that I can be bothered listening to the pundits on televised football before I am driven to the very edge of insanity and desire to throw a slipper through the TV screen in rage at the no shit sherlock shite they utter pretending that it is some great insight you do regularly hear one thing. And that is that if you keep giving away set pieces in dangerous positions you'll eventually get punished. And if Chester hadn't given away a series of free kicks and a penalty they would have got a point out of this game, and given that they twice saw fizzing shots smash into the cross bar maybe even more.
As it was however Barnet simply showed more composure than Chester and played with a belief that suggested that there was only ever going to be one winner, even in a first half that produced just one clear chance each.
Chester, with just 4 points from their last 13 games and in complete and utter free fall were never going to offer an open free for all of a game and started with 5 at the back so it was always going to be a very different game to Barnet's last 3 against teams gunning for promotion who were going to attack. No, this time they were going to have to break down the opposition but nevertheless did so with only one change, new signing Jake Cole in goal in place of injured Lee Harrison. From the start Barnet attacked and dominated possession but against a massed defence and with Albert Adomah showing signs of complete exhaustion after being Barnet's only ever present chances were few and far between. Chester saw a long range effort hit the bar and Barnet saw John O'Flynn force a great save out of the Chester keeper after he was played by a neat chip from Bolasi. Half time came and went and it became increasingly evident that with Chester's defensive approach the first goal would make all the difference.
Chester had already given away a lot of free kicks on the edge of the area in the first half which Barnet had failed to capitalise on but when they gave one away again early in the second half Barnet had a change of tactic. Lockwood gave way to O'Flynn as set piece specialist who promptly curled a fantastic shot over the wall into the corner.
An instant substitution and the game opened up. Chester attacked leaving huge gaps at the back and there was every danger of entertainment breaking out. And it wasn't long before they were on level terms, neat play down the left found the gaps in the Barnet defence and Chester scored a chance almost identical to the one O'Flynn had missed for Barnet in the first half. That was not a queue for the game to tighten up again, Barnet pushed forward and it wasn't long before the excellent Paul Furlong was upended in a dangerous position. O'Flynn buried the spot kick and Barnet were flying.
Chester despite showing signs of making a game of it for the first 70 minutes were now a team so lacking in confidence that there was only going to be one winner and it was no surprise when Paul Furlong headed home an O'Flynn cross at the back post to make it 3-1.
Any Barnet fan must have some sympathy for Chester. To have a team with clear ability but with confidence clearly shot to bits is incredibly frustrating and they must now be fearing the worst about relegation. Which way it will go is any one's guess though. Luton will almost certainly take one of the relegation places with the other going to any one of up to 6 clubs (including Barnet), who that club will be though may boil down to luck, and how many stupid set pieces they give away.
Barnet 3 Chester City 1
On the occasions that I can be bothered listening to the pundits on televised football before I am driven to the very edge of insanity and desire to throw a slipper through the TV screen in rage at the no shit sherlock shite they utter pretending that it is some great insight you do regularly hear one thing. And that is that if you keep giving away set pieces in dangerous positions you'll eventually get punished. And if Chester hadn't given away a series of free kicks and a penalty they would have got a point out of this game, and given that they twice saw fizzing shots smash into the cross bar maybe even more.
As it was however Barnet simply showed more composure than Chester and played with a belief that suggested that there was only ever going to be one winner, even in a first half that produced just one clear chance each.
Chester, with just 4 points from their last 13 games and in complete and utter free fall were never going to offer an open free for all of a game and started with 5 at the back so it was always going to be a very different game to Barnet's last 3 against teams gunning for promotion who were going to attack. No, this time they were going to have to break down the opposition but nevertheless did so with only one change, new signing Jake Cole in goal in place of injured Lee Harrison. From the start Barnet attacked and dominated possession but against a massed defence and with Albert Adomah showing signs of complete exhaustion after being Barnet's only ever present chances were few and far between. Chester saw a long range effort hit the bar and Barnet saw John O'Flynn force a great save out of the Chester keeper after he was played by a neat chip from Bolasi. Half time came and went and it became increasingly evident that with Chester's defensive approach the first goal would make all the difference.
Chester had already given away a lot of free kicks on the edge of the area in the first half which Barnet had failed to capitalise on but when they gave one away again early in the second half Barnet had a change of tactic. Lockwood gave way to O'Flynn as set piece specialist who promptly curled a fantastic shot over the wall into the corner.
An instant substitution and the game opened up. Chester attacked leaving huge gaps at the back and there was every danger of entertainment breaking out. And it wasn't long before they were on level terms, neat play down the left found the gaps in the Barnet defence and Chester scored a chance almost identical to the one O'Flynn had missed for Barnet in the first half. That was not a queue for the game to tighten up again, Barnet pushed forward and it wasn't long before the excellent Paul Furlong was upended in a dangerous position. O'Flynn buried the spot kick and Barnet were flying.
Chester despite showing signs of making a game of it for the first 70 minutes were now a team so lacking in confidence that there was only going to be one winner and it was no surprise when Paul Furlong headed home an O'Flynn cross at the back post to make it 3-1.
Any Barnet fan must have some sympathy for Chester. To have a team with clear ability but with confidence clearly shot to bits is incredibly frustrating and they must now be fearing the worst about relegation. Which way it will go is any one's guess though. Luton will almost certainly take one of the relegation places with the other going to any one of up to 6 clubs (including Barnet), who that club will be though may boil down to luck, and how many stupid set pieces they give away.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Welcome to my world
So sat at my desk looking for a pencil I had a rummage through the small rucksack that I had brought in with me today. Having removed the things that I had deliberately brought into work with me I came across all the random shit that had accumulated in the bottom without my knowledge. And it made me wonder what it says about the life of a scout leader. Here's what I found.....
1. A pair of gloves I thoght I'd lost.
2. A box of matches
3. A teaspoon (why?)
4. A guitar tuner
5. Half a packet of lockets
6. A group name tape
7. A stage 1 first aid badge
8. A sandwich bag sealer
I fear that it says a great deal about me that I don't want to know.
Welcome to my little world!
So sat at my desk looking for a pencil I had a rummage through the small rucksack that I had brought in with me today. Having removed the things that I had deliberately brought into work with me I came across all the random shit that had accumulated in the bottom without my knowledge. And it made me wonder what it says about the life of a scout leader. Here's what I found.....
1. A pair of gloves I thoght I'd lost.
2. A box of matches
3. A teaspoon (why?)
4. A guitar tuner
5. Half a packet of lockets
6. A group name tape
7. A stage 1 first aid badge
8. A sandwich bag sealer
I fear that it says a great deal about me that I don't want to know.
Welcome to my little world!
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
THANK YOU TO THE DAILY MAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look I know I slag them off without mery day after day day but really I now owe them an debt of eternal gratitude for running with this story. The story of how the BNP used a picture of a POLISH spitfire from world war 2 to front an anti imigration campaign.
I don't think the word "priceless" can ever EVER come close to describing this!
Look I know I slag them off without mery day after day day but really I now owe them an debt of eternal gratitude for running with this story. The story of how the BNP used a picture of a POLISH spitfire from world war 2 to front an anti imigration campaign.
I don't think the word "priceless" can ever EVER come close to describing this!
Monday, March 02, 2009
A Sad Goodbye
As a leader you can never have favourites in your group. It's not fare on anyone, either the kids themselves, the other kids, other leaders or yourself. You don't do anyone any favours and cause problems for a lot of others. So that's that explanation out the way.
However all leaders are human and there will always be those kids who you end up getting on with better, who you have a natural soft spot for. And tonight I said a sad goodbye to two of those kids who had their last night before moving up to scouts. Both are bubbly, enthusiastic, well behaved yet normally up to some kind of good natured mischief. They are brilliant with younger kids when they get tired and can talk to guests and other adults confidently.
All round good eggs and I am going to miss them both!
And what is cubs loss is most definitely our scout troop's gain.
Good luck girls!
As a leader you can never have favourites in your group. It's not fare on anyone, either the kids themselves, the other kids, other leaders or yourself. You don't do anyone any favours and cause problems for a lot of others. So that's that explanation out the way.
However all leaders are human and there will always be those kids who you end up getting on with better, who you have a natural soft spot for. And tonight I said a sad goodbye to two of those kids who had their last night before moving up to scouts. Both are bubbly, enthusiastic, well behaved yet normally up to some kind of good natured mischief. They are brilliant with younger kids when they get tired and can talk to guests and other adults confidently.
All round good eggs and I am going to miss them both!
And what is cubs loss is most definitely our scout troop's gain.
Good luck girls!
Follow up
Ok, firmly ensconced in the office, a productive morning so far, I thought I would return to the bat shit insane bollocks spouted this morning from team Philips.
Where do you even begin with such off the wall ramblings? What saving grace or redeeming feature does her argument have? Let's remember that her basic premise is this. And folks, if you are asthmatic I strongly advise that you have your inhaler at the ready, because the level of bull shit is of such magnificence that the phrase "breath taking" doesn't even come close to doing it justice. Ok, here goes.....
Human rights legislation has lead to the collapse of control of our borders and thus means that draconian laws have to be brought into keep law and order.
Wow! That's quite something isn't it? A law that gives us the right to privacy is somehow the reason for us having so many CCTV cameras? Can you get your head around that, because I can't!
Even more magnificent is the way that human rights and the freedom of labour within Europe are magically intertwined. Either Philips knowledge of European law is ignorant to the point of utter stupidity or else she is deliberately misleading her readers. Either way this is a crock of shit that makes Littlejohn look well argued and intelligent.
And then get this for a sentence, read it in all it's glorious shiteness. Philips rambles on about the erosion of this country's values, what about the erosion of the language? How is this for a complete butchering of English?
"But that is the inevitable outcome of human rights law - which has ridden roughshod over those principles - because many of those now campaigning against the erosion of liberty also claim that 'universal' human rights principles trump Britain's own."
What? Eh? Before we even begin on the grammar (although I know I'm one to talk!) look at the last few words. Britain's own. Britain's own what??? Does she mean Britain's own human rights? Which is absurd. Or the human rights of British people? I assume that is what she means. Yet she calmly misses the point that our human rights are guaranteed by the human rights act!
The whole thing is such a mangled load of rubbish that I simply can't believe this ever got passed the sub editor.
And the she continues claiming that human rights legislation gets rid of the common law principle that we are free to act unless the law says other wise. What? Where? How? All the HRA does is set out principles that other legislation has to align with. It is a support to common law, not working against it. And judges have always had the power to decide things where legislation seems to contradict other legislation, that's their fucking job, the be impartial interpreters of the law. Parliament still has the ultimate power, it could just repeal the HRA if it so chose. I don't think it should but it should have the right to do so if it chose.
Again this should never have got past any editor worth their salt, but then this is the Mail we are talking about.
And then we come to piece de résistance of shite, this sentence,
"But over the past few years, Westminster has had the stuffing knocked out of it by a series of measures, including human rights law, whose purpose was to destroy this country's constitutional settlement and powers of democratic self-government."
Look at what she just said, fucking look at it!!!! Just a bold sweeping statement with no back up or support at all. Fucking breath taking.
And I'll leave it there, before I actually suffocate. Some one get me a fucking inhaler.
Ok, firmly ensconced in the office, a productive morning so far, I thought I would return to the bat shit insane bollocks spouted this morning from team Philips.
Where do you even begin with such off the wall ramblings? What saving grace or redeeming feature does her argument have? Let's remember that her basic premise is this. And folks, if you are asthmatic I strongly advise that you have your inhaler at the ready, because the level of bull shit is of such magnificence that the phrase "breath taking" doesn't even come close to doing it justice. Ok, here goes.....
Human rights legislation has lead to the collapse of control of our borders and thus means that draconian laws have to be brought into keep law and order.
Wow! That's quite something isn't it? A law that gives us the right to privacy is somehow the reason for us having so many CCTV cameras? Can you get your head around that, because I can't!
Even more magnificent is the way that human rights and the freedom of labour within Europe are magically intertwined. Either Philips knowledge of European law is ignorant to the point of utter stupidity or else she is deliberately misleading her readers. Either way this is a crock of shit that makes Littlejohn look well argued and intelligent.
And then get this for a sentence, read it in all it's glorious shiteness. Philips rambles on about the erosion of this country's values, what about the erosion of the language? How is this for a complete butchering of English?
"But that is the inevitable outcome of human rights law - which has ridden roughshod over those principles - because many of those now campaigning against the erosion of liberty also claim that 'universal' human rights principles trump Britain's own."
What? Eh? Before we even begin on the grammar (although I know I'm one to talk!) look at the last few words. Britain's own. Britain's own what??? Does she mean Britain's own human rights? Which is absurd. Or the human rights of British people? I assume that is what she means. Yet she calmly misses the point that our human rights are guaranteed by the human rights act!
The whole thing is such a mangled load of rubbish that I simply can't believe this ever got passed the sub editor.
And the she continues claiming that human rights legislation gets rid of the common law principle that we are free to act unless the law says other wise. What? Where? How? All the HRA does is set out principles that other legislation has to align with. It is a support to common law, not working against it. And judges have always had the power to decide things where legislation seems to contradict other legislation, that's their fucking job, the be impartial interpreters of the law. Parliament still has the ultimate power, it could just repeal the HRA if it so chose. I don't think it should but it should have the right to do so if it chose.
Again this should never have got past any editor worth their salt, but then this is the Mail we are talking about.
And then we come to piece de résistance of shite, this sentence,
"But over the past few years, Westminster has had the stuffing knocked out of it by a series of measures, including human rights law, whose purpose was to destroy this country's constitutional settlement and powers of democratic self-government."
Look at what she just said, fucking look at it!!!! Just a bold sweeping statement with no back up or support at all. Fucking breath taking.
And I'll leave it there, before I actually suffocate. Some one get me a fucking inhaler.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Looking Back
I remember once being asked which adult had the biggest influence on you when you were growing up. It's a question I've always found it very difficult to answer but this morning it came to me so I thought I'd write a quick blog about it. I think it was my maths teacher at school, Mrs Lumsden. So why was that?
Here's the deal, Mrs L (or Lumo as she was more commonly referred to) was an absolute dragon. She enforced discipline with a rod of steel and everyone was terrified of her. Now this is not going to be some cheesy comment about the life lessons I learned through her because, while I believe in discipline in schools, I maintain to this day that she was such a dragon that it actually back fired at times and she got very little respect in the class room. She was far too strict. Even in the 6th form we had to line up outside the room and ask to take our blazers off. Totally unnecessary.
So why was she such an influence?
When in the 6th form I found out about the charity work that she and her husband (who was my physics teacher, and you couldn't wish to meet a more different man, strict yes, but he showed kids some respect as well) did for a charity called PHAB who run camping holidays for disabled teenagers with able bodies teenagers buddying them. Eventually I got involved myself and went along myself ( I might write about my experiences another time) a number of times and loved it.
What I saw there though was this totally different side to the dragon that existed in the class room. She was kind hearted, gentle, compassionate, (still tough though, she stood for no nonsense even then!) and generally completely different.
It showed me how complicated human beings can be, how what you see one day is not what you get the next, that people are not good or bad, brave or shy etc, they are so much more than that. And that is why my maths teacher was my biggest influence.
I remember once being asked which adult had the biggest influence on you when you were growing up. It's a question I've always found it very difficult to answer but this morning it came to me so I thought I'd write a quick blog about it. I think it was my maths teacher at school, Mrs Lumsden. So why was that?
Here's the deal, Mrs L (or Lumo as she was more commonly referred to) was an absolute dragon. She enforced discipline with a rod of steel and everyone was terrified of her. Now this is not going to be some cheesy comment about the life lessons I learned through her because, while I believe in discipline in schools, I maintain to this day that she was such a dragon that it actually back fired at times and she got very little respect in the class room. She was far too strict. Even in the 6th form we had to line up outside the room and ask to take our blazers off. Totally unnecessary.
So why was she such an influence?
When in the 6th form I found out about the charity work that she and her husband (who was my physics teacher, and you couldn't wish to meet a more different man, strict yes, but he showed kids some respect as well) did for a charity called PHAB who run camping holidays for disabled teenagers with able bodies teenagers buddying them. Eventually I got involved myself and went along myself ( I might write about my experiences another time) a number of times and loved it.
What I saw there though was this totally different side to the dragon that existed in the class room. She was kind hearted, gentle, compassionate, (still tough though, she stood for no nonsense even then!) and generally completely different.
It showed me how complicated human beings can be, how what you see one day is not what you get the next, that people are not good or bad, brave or shy etc, they are so much more than that. And that is why my maths teacher was my biggest influence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)