Well Chuffed
I'm back from a week on camp with my cubs and what a fantastic week it was as well. When people ask why I give up so much of my own time and energy for a bunch of random kids I point to weeks like this. It was loud, it was fun and when it was hard work the kids responded magnificently.
My band of horrors may be loud, they may be scruffy (fuck, they are the grungiest, scruffiest bunch of kids I have EVER seen on camp) but their willingness to stick together as a team, to do their chores, and to take on things that might scare the crap out of them (trust me, when you're 8, abseiling is terrifying) outstripped every other group on site. They made me incredibly proud!
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Bit of a break
In about 7 hours (meaning I should be in bed right now) I will be off to camp with my little band of horrors, so don't expect any postings for a week or so!
In the mean time there are plenty of interesting blogs out there, some listed on the right, some no doubt you can find for yourselves (I'm happy to receive recomendations). Happy reading folks!
In about 7 hours (meaning I should be in bed right now) I will be off to camp with my little band of horrors, so don't expect any postings for a week or so!
In the mean time there are plenty of interesting blogs out there, some listed on the right, some no doubt you can find for yourselves (I'm happy to receive recomendations). Happy reading folks!
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Take the Fucking Gloves Off
This is a post that I have been thinking about writing for a while however events, dear reader, events (in my personal life as opposed to political ones) keep getting in the way of my writing time. I'm off on camp on Saturday for a week as well so what with one thing and another we're going to have keep this one short. Thankfully though Anton and Liberal Conspiracy have both done excellant pieces on this subject already so go see them for more.
And that subject is this, the BNP are not just a nasty bunch of racist arseholes, we know that already, they are also a nasty bunch of arseholes generally. Their policies are sexist, homophobic and do not seem to be the product of right thinking human beings with an ounce of compassion in their bodies. And yet for all these faults no one is publically taking them on. We don't see Jeremy Paxman getting one of them on news night and asking them to justify their policy that they would get rid of gay marriage or why someone should vote for them when one of their candidates once claimed that "women enjoy rape". If they are getting a platform like any other political party why are they not being examined like every other political party.
If the Conservatives came out with a policy that married men would get tax breaks but married women would not they would get shredded in the press. So why the fuck aren't the BNP?
At the moment everyone is angry with main stream parties over the expenses scandals, and rightly so. And that is sending people towards extremists like the BNP. Yet if this bunch of twats had been properly dealt with by the press previously it would be UKIP or the Greens that would be getting the vote.
These people are not normal politicians, they are a bunch of shits and time to take the gloves off and start treating them like the shits they are.
This is a post that I have been thinking about writing for a while however events, dear reader, events (in my personal life as opposed to political ones) keep getting in the way of my writing time. I'm off on camp on Saturday for a week as well so what with one thing and another we're going to have keep this one short. Thankfully though Anton and Liberal Conspiracy have both done excellant pieces on this subject already so go see them for more.
And that subject is this, the BNP are not just a nasty bunch of racist arseholes, we know that already, they are also a nasty bunch of arseholes generally. Their policies are sexist, homophobic and do not seem to be the product of right thinking human beings with an ounce of compassion in their bodies. And yet for all these faults no one is publically taking them on. We don't see Jeremy Paxman getting one of them on news night and asking them to justify their policy that they would get rid of gay marriage or why someone should vote for them when one of their candidates once claimed that "women enjoy rape". If they are getting a platform like any other political party why are they not being examined like every other political party.
If the Conservatives came out with a policy that married men would get tax breaks but married women would not they would get shredded in the press. So why the fuck aren't the BNP?
At the moment everyone is angry with main stream parties over the expenses scandals, and rightly so. And that is sending people towards extremists like the BNP. Yet if this bunch of twats had been properly dealt with by the press previously it would be UKIP or the Greens that would be getting the vote.
These people are not normal politicians, they are a bunch of shits and time to take the gloves off and start treating them like the shits they are.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Well there's a surprise
So this morning the scout association announces Bear Grylls as new chief scout, something which I think is a fantastic coup. So what does the Mail have to say about it?
"the woggle of Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the youth movement, must be spinning in his grave "
Lets see, what else we get from the article over all. Bad pun about woggle? Check. Implication that things aren't what they used to be? Check. Attack on Channel 4? Check. Complete ignoring of the presence of girls in scouting? Check.
In short, text book Mail.
Finally - posting is intermittent at the mo, sorry, I have a lot on!
Arseholes.
So this morning the scout association announces Bear Grylls as new chief scout, something which I think is a fantastic coup. So what does the Mail have to say about it?
"the woggle of Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the youth movement, must be spinning in his grave "
Lets see, what else we get from the article over all. Bad pun about woggle? Check. Implication that things aren't what they used to be? Check. Attack on Channel 4? Check. Complete ignoring of the presence of girls in scouting? Check.
In short, text book Mail.
Finally - posting is intermittent at the mo, sorry, I have a lot on!
Arseholes.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Todays instalment of utter toss is......
Facebook makes you fat! Yup, not content with trotting out shite like Facebook gives you cancer, the Daily Mail has uncovered that we can all stop blaming too many chips, pies and chocolate bars for our portly waist lines but instead blame it on Facebook.
Remember kids, Facebook is evil.
Got that?
Facebook makes you fat! Yup, not content with trotting out shite like Facebook gives you cancer, the Daily Mail has uncovered that we can all stop blaming too many chips, pies and chocolate bars for our portly waist lines but instead blame it on Facebook.
Remember kids, Facebook is evil.
Got that?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Breath Taking!
Every now and then something gets printed in the Daily Mail which leaves me utterly breathless. And not just that it got printed either, but that some twat actually wrote it. Today's example is this story.
Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU
Yup, the Mail have actually printed a story that claims that claims that the EU is actually an attempt by the Nazis to return to power. I wont dissect this crock of shit, read it for yourselves.
But I had to ask myself, what kind of journalist my write this kind of thing? Who would actually be prepared to besmirch what is, or should be, an honourable occupation? The answer lies in a few lines a little way into the story as its writer Adam LeBor writes....
The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intelligence files, was the inspiration for my thriller The Budapest Protocol.
The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, during the election campaign for the first president of Europe. The European Union superstate is revealed as a front for a sinister conspiracy, one rooted in the last days of the Second World War.
Oh I see! You have a novel to plug! So you've just made up some crappy piece of little Englander anti Europe nonsense which the Mail readers have eaten up hook line and sinker and all to line your own pocket.
Adam LeBor, what a prick.
Every now and then something gets printed in the Daily Mail which leaves me utterly breathless. And not just that it got printed either, but that some twat actually wrote it. Today's example is this story.
Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU
Yup, the Mail have actually printed a story that claims that claims that the EU is actually an attempt by the Nazis to return to power. I wont dissect this crock of shit, read it for yourselves.
But I had to ask myself, what kind of journalist my write this kind of thing? Who would actually be prepared to besmirch what is, or should be, an honourable occupation? The answer lies in a few lines a little way into the story as its writer Adam LeBor writes....
The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intelligence files, was the inspiration for my thriller The Budapest Protocol.
The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, during the election campaign for the first president of Europe. The European Union superstate is revealed as a front for a sinister conspiracy, one rooted in the last days of the Second World War.
Oh I see! You have a novel to plug! So you've just made up some crappy piece of little Englander anti Europe nonsense which the Mail readers have eaten up hook line and sinker and all to line your own pocket.
Adam LeBor, what a prick.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Treading a fine line
I had a conversation with a friend of mine today that was sparked by them pointing out a van parked outside its owners house that carried a very large advert for the strip/pole dancing club that the owner works for on it. My friend pointed out that the neighbours must be a but pissed off as it's not exactly going to do the value of their house any favours. I agreed but pointed out that strip clubs are legal and are perfectly within their rights to advertise how distasteful either of us may find them. The conversation turned to censorship more generally and it gave me a few thoughts, and a few questions (not all of which I claim to have the answer to) which I thought I'd throw open for anyone that happens across this.
Firstly I take a pretty liberal view on this. I am extremely hesitant to censor anything. There is plenty of offensive stuff out there, be it speeches, writing, films, adverts. Or maybe I should say, they are things that I personally find offensive. Yet who am I to tell you that you can't see them or publish them? One of the earliest signs of a totalitarian regime is the banning of films or books etc and I would far rather be personally offended by something than have a situation where either you or I were silenced.
However.... certain actions are not acceptable. It is not acceptable to incite hatred or violence against others. yet where does the line lie in what is and isn't acceptable? I think anyone should be able to criticise anything, but at what point does that become inciting hatred? And, as a separate question, what should be done about it? Should it be accept the consequences of behaving in that way? Or should we be more pro active? Again I would prefer to be on the liberal side of that line but I simply don't know where that line lies.
Next up, what to make of the film classification system we have. In my opinion it is pretty harsh. How can you have a system where you can have sex and join the army at 16 yet you can't watch certain films because there is too much sex or violence in it? Just how fucked up is that? Next, where is the parental responsibility in all this? Who is more likely to know what is suitable for their child at a given stage of development? Mum and Dad or the BBFC? I'd wager on Mum and Dad personally. Certainly I'm not arguing for young children to be exposed to porn or extreme violence. That would be absurd. Yet having a regime where older children are legally banned from seeing certain things seems a bit illiberal for my liking. And why do we have such a system for film and not theatre? The whole classification system seems to me ridiculous at the moment.
Where does the right of reply lie? I am all for investigative journalism. I also think those reported on should have a right of reply, particularly where the media outlet involved gets it wrong. As things stand I think the consequences for newspapers etc where they publish incorrect or misleading stories are no where near good enough. I don't mean in terms of fines etc, but in terms of having to print corrections. Yet we have to face the fact that sensation front pages sell papers. Front page corrections do not. I would not want to see papers cease doing proper journalism for fear of the consequences. So once again, where does the line lie?
Questions, questions, questions.
I had a conversation with a friend of mine today that was sparked by them pointing out a van parked outside its owners house that carried a very large advert for the strip/pole dancing club that the owner works for on it. My friend pointed out that the neighbours must be a but pissed off as it's not exactly going to do the value of their house any favours. I agreed but pointed out that strip clubs are legal and are perfectly within their rights to advertise how distasteful either of us may find them. The conversation turned to censorship more generally and it gave me a few thoughts, and a few questions (not all of which I claim to have the answer to) which I thought I'd throw open for anyone that happens across this.
Firstly I take a pretty liberal view on this. I am extremely hesitant to censor anything. There is plenty of offensive stuff out there, be it speeches, writing, films, adverts. Or maybe I should say, they are things that I personally find offensive. Yet who am I to tell you that you can't see them or publish them? One of the earliest signs of a totalitarian regime is the banning of films or books etc and I would far rather be personally offended by something than have a situation where either you or I were silenced.
However.... certain actions are not acceptable. It is not acceptable to incite hatred or violence against others. yet where does the line lie in what is and isn't acceptable? I think anyone should be able to criticise anything, but at what point does that become inciting hatred? And, as a separate question, what should be done about it? Should it be accept the consequences of behaving in that way? Or should we be more pro active? Again I would prefer to be on the liberal side of that line but I simply don't know where that line lies.
Next up, what to make of the film classification system we have. In my opinion it is pretty harsh. How can you have a system where you can have sex and join the army at 16 yet you can't watch certain films because there is too much sex or violence in it? Just how fucked up is that? Next, where is the parental responsibility in all this? Who is more likely to know what is suitable for their child at a given stage of development? Mum and Dad or the BBFC? I'd wager on Mum and Dad personally. Certainly I'm not arguing for young children to be exposed to porn or extreme violence. That would be absurd. Yet having a regime where older children are legally banned from seeing certain things seems a bit illiberal for my liking. And why do we have such a system for film and not theatre? The whole classification system seems to me ridiculous at the moment.
Where does the right of reply lie? I am all for investigative journalism. I also think those reported on should have a right of reply, particularly where the media outlet involved gets it wrong. As things stand I think the consequences for newspapers etc where they publish incorrect or misleading stories are no where near good enough. I don't mean in terms of fines etc, but in terms of having to print corrections. Yet we have to face the fact that sensation front pages sell papers. Front page corrections do not. I would not want to see papers cease doing proper journalism for fear of the consequences. So once again, where does the line lie?
Questions, questions, questions.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Woop woop! Jackpot! Ding ding ding ding! Bingo!
Those of you who are regular readers will be familiar with my astonishment at the Mail's crap science coverage. In particular it's obsession with what will give you cancer and what will cure you of it. the "facebook will give you cancer" story being possibly the funniest of the lot.
Well it had to happen eventually didn't it, they got bored of running those stories but can't quite kick the habbit just yet. In the same way that heroin addicts end up on methadone the Mail has kicked the cancer habbit for...... you guesed it..... Flu!
Yup, today's eye wateringly absurd headline is
Mushrooms 'give your body a boost to beat the flu'
The story of course, when you read it, says nothing of the sort and is the usual mixture of exageration, wilful misinterpretation and general pseudo scientific nonsense, but who cares? It makes a good headline! And of course it means the Mail can probably lay off even more hacks by simply regurgitating all those standing on one leg in a pot of honey while sniffing a pot of vix vapo rub cures cancer stories and simply insert flu instead. Everyone's a winner!
I think we can all safely predict that within a week some other kind of food will raise your risk of getting flu. Preferably mushrooms.
Those of you who are regular readers will be familiar with my astonishment at the Mail's crap science coverage. In particular it's obsession with what will give you cancer and what will cure you of it. the "facebook will give you cancer" story being possibly the funniest of the lot.
Well it had to happen eventually didn't it, they got bored of running those stories but can't quite kick the habbit just yet. In the same way that heroin addicts end up on methadone the Mail has kicked the cancer habbit for...... you guesed it..... Flu!
Yup, today's eye wateringly absurd headline is
Mushrooms 'give your body a boost to beat the flu'
The story of course, when you read it, says nothing of the sort and is the usual mixture of exageration, wilful misinterpretation and general pseudo scientific nonsense, but who cares? It makes a good headline! And of course it means the Mail can probably lay off even more hacks by simply regurgitating all those standing on one leg in a pot of honey while sniffing a pot of vix vapo rub cures cancer stories and simply insert flu instead. Everyone's a winner!
I think we can all safely predict that within a week some other kind of food will raise your risk of getting flu. Preferably mushrooms.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Ups and Downs
Being a scout leader is amazing. Seriously. When it goes right there is simply nothing like it. When the big camp or expedition comes off after years of planning. When the shy timid kid achieves something that they never dreamed possible. When a kid smiles and says thank you. All those things make you feel ten feet tall and leave you with the most wonderful memories and friends that last a life time.
Then there are days like today. They come rarely but when they do they really REALLY suck. Some times being in charge is very VERY lonely.
Being a scout leader is amazing. Seriously. When it goes right there is simply nothing like it. When the big camp or expedition comes off after years of planning. When the shy timid kid achieves something that they never dreamed possible. When a kid smiles and says thank you. All those things make you feel ten feet tall and leave you with the most wonderful memories and friends that last a life time.
Then there are days like today. They come rarely but when they do they really REALLY suck. Some times being in charge is very VERY lonely.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Lies, Dam Lies, Statistics and the unholy alliance of the Daily Mail and Migration Watch
Is it me or has it been a while since the Mail had a really good immigration scare story? You know the ones where it makes up some outrageously sweeping and/or total lie, sticks it in a headline, throws in some misleading stats, quotes migration watch and the sits back and watches the aresholes from the BNP queue up to leave hateful messages.
Well yes it has been so it's no surprise that today we are quoted to some real and meat and potatoes Daily Mail bullshit with this headline
Each illegal immigrant costs us £1m, says study as Government faces calls for amnesty
Now the first question to ask is does each illegal immigrant cost us £1m? Now bear in mind that they have not asked will they cost us is this amount or could they. No, they have written this in the present tense, as a statement of fact. So I'll ask the question again, does each illegal immigrant cost us £1m? Stupid question I know because as well know, given that we are looking at a daily Mail headline about immigration the answer is no.
So lets take a look at the story shall we to see where this total lie comes from. Lets start at the very beginning shall we? With the very first sentence.
"An amnesty allowing illegal immigrants to stay in Britain would cost taxpayers £1million for each newcomer, a shocking new report revealed today."
Wow! Now that's impressive. Normally you have to at least get to the second paragraph to find the blatant contradictions. Not today though, straight away the headline is contradicted, nice going there. It's not a fact after all, somebody has said that in their opinion only illegal immigrants allowed to to stay would cost us this money. But as it is they aren't being given an amnesty, so it wont cost us this money.
Given that I guess that the rest of this blog post is superfluous, but it's a bank holiday and I have little else to do other than give the Mail a good kicking so I'll carry on.
The massive sum reflects the costs of handouts and other state services provided over the lifetime of the average immigrant.
Fantastic, assumption number 2, not only has a non existent amnesty been granted but they all claim benefits! All of them! Hurrah! Quite a generalisation is it not. So where did these assumptions come from? From well researched journalism involving hacks going out and speaking to people who know what they are talking about? See me after school I'm afraid because you lot at the back are clearly not keeping up.....
"The figure would also apply to many of those who have already been granted asylum in Britain, according to campaign group Migrationwatch which commissioned the study."
Whoop whoop! Bingo! Just 3 sentences in and we find out the source of this load of old nonsense, as if we actually needed to be told. Yes, our old friends migration watch have just pitched up. This lot are being quick, normally it takes at least 3 paragraphs. Maybe the poor old hack who knocked this load of old wank wanted to get home early for the bank holiday, who knows?
It turns out that this "study" (for that read numbers we knocked together on the back of a beer mat in the Old Red Lion last night) is in response to a protest today by church groups and trade unionists requesting such an amnesty. So we get some meaningless quote from Andrew Green, heavy on opinion and light on fact till we come to how these numbers were actually calculated. We are going to find out now how each illegal immigrant will cost us £1m. Hold on to your hats people because this takes some believing........
"The research is based on a married 25-year-old, married with two children, who earned the minimum wage and lived in private rented housing, retired at 65 and lived until 80."
Whoa! Stop! Run that past me again?
"The research is based on a married 25-year-old, married with two children, who earned the minimum wage and lived in private rented housing, retired at 65 and lived until 80."
Is it just me or have Migration Watch just moved the goal posts? Is it me or have they just assumed that every migrant has 3 dependents? ie they have just quadrupled the numbers based on no evidence whatsoever? It would seem that they have! Not only that but they have assumed that they will only ever earn the minimum wage, that none of them will ever have the skills or talent to contribute anything more than cleaning toilets, sweeping streets or flipping burgers. On top of that they will never own a house either! That's right darkies! Know your place!
But where does this magic £1m come from?
An immigrant couple living on the minimum wages who then retire on Pension Credit, will receive Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit throughout their working life and throughout their retirement.
The total Housing Benefit they receive will be £291,000 plus a further £19,000 in Council Tax Benefit.
In London, where some 70 per cent of illegal immigrants are believed to live, the costs are even greater. As rents are considerably higher in the capital the total lifetime costs for a two child family resident in London is £1.1million, of which £505,000 is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.
Now even though these figures as they stand are based on the outrageous proposition that all those brown people are in capable of anything other than street sweeping we are still no nearer that magic £1m in the headline are we? Although it is clear that perhaps the headline should have included the "London" in it. So lets go find some figures shall we. Lets take a look at the "paper" on the Migration Watch website.
Fuck me! Fuck me with a cucumber! Is it me or do all the figures assume that someone will never work for more than the minimum wage? And is it me or in the figures for education and NHS (and remember this includes amounts for their dependents) are we not looking at costs that everyone incures in this country? And is it me or have they failed to include all those amounts that will go back to the government? you see every time one of these people spends money odds are that they will pay VAT. There will also be tobacco, alcohol and petrol duty. All the companies that make profits out of what they spend will pay corporation tax. None of this has been included.
What this story boils down to is that the headline that the Mail has trotted out is a total lie. Completely. It is based on a hypothetical situation which has no chance of happening, it effectively quadruples the numbers of that hypothetical situation, it makes sweeping assumptions that all immigrants are talentless cretins and then magically assumes that nowhere outside of London actually exists.
It is yet another example of the immigration scare stories that the Mail loves and worst of all it's not even one of their specials, it's simply meat and spuds.
Arseholes.
Is it me or has it been a while since the Mail had a really good immigration scare story? You know the ones where it makes up some outrageously sweeping and/or total lie, sticks it in a headline, throws in some misleading stats, quotes migration watch and the sits back and watches the aresholes from the BNP queue up to leave hateful messages.
Well yes it has been so it's no surprise that today we are quoted to some real and meat and potatoes Daily Mail bullshit with this headline
Each illegal immigrant costs us £1m, says study as Government faces calls for amnesty
Now the first question to ask is does each illegal immigrant cost us £1m? Now bear in mind that they have not asked will they cost us is this amount or could they. No, they have written this in the present tense, as a statement of fact. So I'll ask the question again, does each illegal immigrant cost us £1m? Stupid question I know because as well know, given that we are looking at a daily Mail headline about immigration the answer is no.
So lets take a look at the story shall we to see where this total lie comes from. Lets start at the very beginning shall we? With the very first sentence.
"An amnesty allowing illegal immigrants to stay in Britain would cost taxpayers £1million for each newcomer, a shocking new report revealed today."
Wow! Now that's impressive. Normally you have to at least get to the second paragraph to find the blatant contradictions. Not today though, straight away the headline is contradicted, nice going there. It's not a fact after all, somebody has said that in their opinion only illegal immigrants allowed to to stay would cost us this money. But as it is they aren't being given an amnesty, so it wont cost us this money.
Given that I guess that the rest of this blog post is superfluous, but it's a bank holiday and I have little else to do other than give the Mail a good kicking so I'll carry on.
The massive sum reflects the costs of handouts and other state services provided over the lifetime of the average immigrant.
Fantastic, assumption number 2, not only has a non existent amnesty been granted but they all claim benefits! All of them! Hurrah! Quite a generalisation is it not. So where did these assumptions come from? From well researched journalism involving hacks going out and speaking to people who know what they are talking about? See me after school I'm afraid because you lot at the back are clearly not keeping up.....
"The figure would also apply to many of those who have already been granted asylum in Britain, according to campaign group Migrationwatch which commissioned the study."
Whoop whoop! Bingo! Just 3 sentences in and we find out the source of this load of old nonsense, as if we actually needed to be told. Yes, our old friends migration watch have just pitched up. This lot are being quick, normally it takes at least 3 paragraphs. Maybe the poor old hack who knocked this load of old wank wanted to get home early for the bank holiday, who knows?
It turns out that this "study" (for that read numbers we knocked together on the back of a beer mat in the Old Red Lion last night) is in response to a protest today by church groups and trade unionists requesting such an amnesty. So we get some meaningless quote from Andrew Green, heavy on opinion and light on fact till we come to how these numbers were actually calculated. We are going to find out now how each illegal immigrant will cost us £1m. Hold on to your hats people because this takes some believing........
"The research is based on a married 25-year-old, married with two children, who earned the minimum wage and lived in private rented housing, retired at 65 and lived until 80."
Whoa! Stop! Run that past me again?
"The research is based on a married 25-year-old, married with two children, who earned the minimum wage and lived in private rented housing, retired at 65 and lived until 80."
Is it just me or have Migration Watch just moved the goal posts? Is it me or have they just assumed that every migrant has 3 dependents? ie they have just quadrupled the numbers based on no evidence whatsoever? It would seem that they have! Not only that but they have assumed that they will only ever earn the minimum wage, that none of them will ever have the skills or talent to contribute anything more than cleaning toilets, sweeping streets or flipping burgers. On top of that they will never own a house either! That's right darkies! Know your place!
But where does this magic £1m come from?
An immigrant couple living on the minimum wages who then retire on Pension Credit, will receive Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit throughout their working life and throughout their retirement.
The total Housing Benefit they receive will be £291,000 plus a further £19,000 in Council Tax Benefit.
In London, where some 70 per cent of illegal immigrants are believed to live, the costs are even greater. As rents are considerably higher in the capital the total lifetime costs for a two child family resident in London is £1.1million, of which £505,000 is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.
Now even though these figures as they stand are based on the outrageous proposition that all those brown people are in capable of anything other than street sweeping we are still no nearer that magic £1m in the headline are we? Although it is clear that perhaps the headline should have included the "London" in it. So lets go find some figures shall we. Lets take a look at the "paper" on the Migration Watch website.
Fuck me! Fuck me with a cucumber! Is it me or do all the figures assume that someone will never work for more than the minimum wage? And is it me or in the figures for education and NHS (and remember this includes amounts for their dependents) are we not looking at costs that everyone incures in this country? And is it me or have they failed to include all those amounts that will go back to the government? you see every time one of these people spends money odds are that they will pay VAT. There will also be tobacco, alcohol and petrol duty. All the companies that make profits out of what they spend will pay corporation tax. None of this has been included.
What this story boils down to is that the headline that the Mail has trotted out is a total lie. Completely. It is based on a hypothetical situation which has no chance of happening, it effectively quadruples the numbers of that hypothetical situation, it makes sweeping assumptions that all immigrants are talentless cretins and then magically assumes that nowhere outside of London actually exists.
It is yet another example of the immigration scare stories that the Mail loves and worst of all it's not even one of their specials, it's simply meat and spuds.
Arseholes.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Don't be fooled
Following on from my rant about the odious Simon Darby and the foul BNP I ended up reading the Guardian editorial. It's line that we all need to get out and vote to stop the BNP getting in is one that I whole heartedly endorse, however it is in the readers comments below it that the real interest lies. Two points fall out of this.
First the BNP is gaining support from what would naturally be Labour strong holds. Think about where they do well. East Lancs and East London. Neither of these are exactly true blue Torie areas now are they? BNP are doing well by appealing with a combination of policies which are, on the face of it, Old Labour. And that on the face of it seems to make a mockery of them being extreme right. I say seem though, I have more to add later. They make these appeals though based on old policies updated from their use by Old Labour with a good dose of racism, ignorance and bigotry.
Now in a first past the post electoral system like the UK that is all very well because it just means that concentrated support results in maybe one or two seats in a local council and odds are nothing in Parliament. Now while I believe in proportional representation on the basis that is more democratic I do acknowledge that FPP does help keep the extremists out.
Yet we are coming up to the European elections which are based on PR and that gives us a problem because many people are holding main stream politicians in increasing levels of contempt and, more importantly, are failing to see the differences between them. They see 3 main stream parties saying the same thing as each other, mean while people are increasingly unhappy with how the country is going.
The result is that more and more people are failing to get out and vote. The main stream that is. The fact is that the BNP are still mobilising their supporters at elections, and they do need any extras, if large numbers of the main stream are failing to vote the proportion that they are getting naturally increases. And that is a dangerous thing as it means eventually you end up with a big enough proportion that they will get seats and that means funding and eventually they may end up communicating in a way very different to the amateurish ramblings on Darby's blog that I wrote about earlier.
Anyway as a footnote I thought I'd just comment on this idea that the BNP are left wing.
Bull shit.
They are a bunch of extremist racist who have simply latched onto what it sees as the most vulnerable area of the electorate and offered them the policies that they want. While that may be exactly what democracy should be all about it is also what political cynicism is all about and the BNP are full of it, just not as competent as they could be.
It is possible that this whole post sounds a little contradictory talking about how dangerous this lot are while saying how incompetent they are. And to that I say I still don't think that they are competent enough (yet) to get a grip on main stream politics but with the sense of anger in the population at large with the main stream parties the way it is at present they could well establish a foot hold. Not enough to do much damage perhaps, but does anyone want any of these odious people anywhere near a decision making body?
I know I don't.
So get out there and vote.
Following on from my rant about the odious Simon Darby and the foul BNP I ended up reading the Guardian editorial. It's line that we all need to get out and vote to stop the BNP getting in is one that I whole heartedly endorse, however it is in the readers comments below it that the real interest lies. Two points fall out of this.
First the BNP is gaining support from what would naturally be Labour strong holds. Think about where they do well. East Lancs and East London. Neither of these are exactly true blue Torie areas now are they? BNP are doing well by appealing with a combination of policies which are, on the face of it, Old Labour. And that on the face of it seems to make a mockery of them being extreme right. I say seem though, I have more to add later. They make these appeals though based on old policies updated from their use by Old Labour with a good dose of racism, ignorance and bigotry.
Now in a first past the post electoral system like the UK that is all very well because it just means that concentrated support results in maybe one or two seats in a local council and odds are nothing in Parliament. Now while I believe in proportional representation on the basis that is more democratic I do acknowledge that FPP does help keep the extremists out.
Yet we are coming up to the European elections which are based on PR and that gives us a problem because many people are holding main stream politicians in increasing levels of contempt and, more importantly, are failing to see the differences between them. They see 3 main stream parties saying the same thing as each other, mean while people are increasingly unhappy with how the country is going.
The result is that more and more people are failing to get out and vote. The main stream that is. The fact is that the BNP are still mobilising their supporters at elections, and they do need any extras, if large numbers of the main stream are failing to vote the proportion that they are getting naturally increases. And that is a dangerous thing as it means eventually you end up with a big enough proportion that they will get seats and that means funding and eventually they may end up communicating in a way very different to the amateurish ramblings on Darby's blog that I wrote about earlier.
Anyway as a footnote I thought I'd just comment on this idea that the BNP are left wing.
Bull shit.
They are a bunch of extremist racist who have simply latched onto what it sees as the most vulnerable area of the electorate and offered them the policies that they want. While that may be exactly what democracy should be all about it is also what political cynicism is all about and the BNP are full of it, just not as competent as they could be.
It is possible that this whole post sounds a little contradictory talking about how dangerous this lot are while saying how incompetent they are. And to that I say I still don't think that they are competent enough (yet) to get a grip on main stream politics but with the sense of anger in the population at large with the main stream parties the way it is at present they could well establish a foot hold. Not enough to do much damage perhaps, but does anyone want any of these odious people anywhere near a decision making body?
I know I don't.
So get out there and vote.
What the crowd want
I remember many years ago watching one of those straight to video football compilation films narrated by Danny Baker. Piss poor though it naturally was (these things are always a bit pants) he did make one very insightful comment. He said that he wanted to show crowd shots, in particular the fans of the team on the end of a right hammering. And it's true, when you sit there watching Match of the Day or the Championship of whatever your poison is you normally find that the producers insist on showing you the reactions of the players, or, at best, the reaction of the managers.
And it's not what we want to see!
We want those crowd shots of fans with heads in hands or leaping around dementedly as appropriate. The reason being that's where the drama really is. If a given club is relegated these players will probably be getting a transfer elsewhere where as the fans are going to have live with it. Equally if this team end up winning a trophy it is the fans who will remember it for generations. And to be honest watching ordinary people is thoroughly more interesting and entertaining than watching an over paid player with a stupid hair cut.
So it was a refreshing change when watching Match of the Day 2 tonight to find that for the Spurs v West Brom game there was a camera following the Baggies fans as they endure an entertaining yet ultimately fruitless battle against relegation. More of the same next week please Auntie!
I remember many years ago watching one of those straight to video football compilation films narrated by Danny Baker. Piss poor though it naturally was (these things are always a bit pants) he did make one very insightful comment. He said that he wanted to show crowd shots, in particular the fans of the team on the end of a right hammering. And it's true, when you sit there watching Match of the Day or the Championship of whatever your poison is you normally find that the producers insist on showing you the reactions of the players, or, at best, the reaction of the managers.
And it's not what we want to see!
We want those crowd shots of fans with heads in hands or leaping around dementedly as appropriate. The reason being that's where the drama really is. If a given club is relegated these players will probably be getting a transfer elsewhere where as the fans are going to have live with it. Equally if this team end up winning a trophy it is the fans who will remember it for generations. And to be honest watching ordinary people is thoroughly more interesting and entertaining than watching an over paid player with a stupid hair cut.
So it was a refreshing change when watching Match of the Day 2 tonight to find that for the Spurs v West Brom game there was a camera following the Baggies fans as they endure an entertaining yet ultimately fruitless battle against relegation. More of the same next week please Auntie!
Wow!
For reasons that are described as "know your enemy" I decided to take a look at the Blog of Simon Darby of the BNP this afternoon. And what a read it was. Now while it has the disadvantage of giving me the urge to dunk my lap top in strong disinfectant and then take a shower in concentrated sulphuric acid to purge myself of such vileness it had the advantage of giving me some idea of the mindset of a Nazi politician.
You see I read quite a lot, some of it written by politicians. That includes news papers, books, blogs magazines etc. And what you find is that while you may disagree with many of their ideas they do nevertheless cover a wide variety of subjects. A typical politicians blog will tell you about their ideas of what they would like to do. It will also be critical of the oppositions ideas. A good example is here, the blog of Liberal Democrat Matt Davies (a personal friend of mine in the real world). It covers a wide variety of material, some of it I agree with, some I disagree but it is still typical of what main stream politicians will write.
So what do Darby's pitiful ramblings consist of? Believe it or not, given that he and his merry band of racist twats spend most of their day persecuting everyone they can find that doesn't have white skin, he whinges on about being persecuted himself.
Oh diddums!
Most spectacular of all is this post. Read it, savour it, go on, soak it up in all its glorious absurdity. It puts me in mind of those scenes in Downfall as Hilter rants on insanely. (Blog of Nazi politician puts people in mind of insane racist dictator? Shurley shome mishtake?) In just one post, one single post, he accuses the BBC, Yorkshire Post, the NUT, Labour and the Archbishop of York of treating the BNP unfairly. By that he means they had the temerity to criticise them and point out the patently obvious truth. ie that they are racist arseholes. Most incredibly he thinks that urging people to vote in a way that ensures that their views are represented and that those of extremists are not is an "attempt to subvert the democratic process".
Eh? You what?
That was in just one post.
Elsewhere there is precious little to actually form an idea of what the BNP would actually do should they (God forbid) every get into power beyond shitting all over people with brown skin. All you get is an overwhelming sense of paranoia and hatred of anything that is not white.
And frankly long may it continue. You see I have turned away from the policy of many liberal/left bloggers of not linking to the BNP because I honestly believe that the more people that read pitiful shite like this the less will be able to take them seriously and so are less likely to vote for them.
Of course what really frightens me is what would happen should they ever pull their fingers out and put something out more main stream. If they ever started looking at main stream issues like health and education and drew people's attention away from their inherent bigotry then we could end up with some serious problems. As it is though when I read blogs like this I sit comforted in the knowledge that the wankers at the BNP are going nowhere fast.
For reasons that are described as "know your enemy" I decided to take a look at the Blog of Simon Darby of the BNP this afternoon. And what a read it was. Now while it has the disadvantage of giving me the urge to dunk my lap top in strong disinfectant and then take a shower in concentrated sulphuric acid to purge myself of such vileness it had the advantage of giving me some idea of the mindset of a Nazi politician.
You see I read quite a lot, some of it written by politicians. That includes news papers, books, blogs magazines etc. And what you find is that while you may disagree with many of their ideas they do nevertheless cover a wide variety of subjects. A typical politicians blog will tell you about their ideas of what they would like to do. It will also be critical of the oppositions ideas. A good example is here, the blog of Liberal Democrat Matt Davies (a personal friend of mine in the real world). It covers a wide variety of material, some of it I agree with, some I disagree but it is still typical of what main stream politicians will write.
So what do Darby's pitiful ramblings consist of? Believe it or not, given that he and his merry band of racist twats spend most of their day persecuting everyone they can find that doesn't have white skin, he whinges on about being persecuted himself.
Oh diddums!
Most spectacular of all is this post. Read it, savour it, go on, soak it up in all its glorious absurdity. It puts me in mind of those scenes in Downfall as Hilter rants on insanely. (Blog of Nazi politician puts people in mind of insane racist dictator? Shurley shome mishtake?) In just one post, one single post, he accuses the BBC, Yorkshire Post, the NUT, Labour and the Archbishop of York of treating the BNP unfairly. By that he means they had the temerity to criticise them and point out the patently obvious truth. ie that they are racist arseholes. Most incredibly he thinks that urging people to vote in a way that ensures that their views are represented and that those of extremists are not is an "attempt to subvert the democratic process".
Eh? You what?
That was in just one post.
Elsewhere there is precious little to actually form an idea of what the BNP would actually do should they (God forbid) every get into power beyond shitting all over people with brown skin. All you get is an overwhelming sense of paranoia and hatred of anything that is not white.
And frankly long may it continue. You see I have turned away from the policy of many liberal/left bloggers of not linking to the BNP because I honestly believe that the more people that read pitiful shite like this the less will be able to take them seriously and so are less likely to vote for them.
Of course what really frightens me is what would happen should they ever pull their fingers out and put something out more main stream. If they ever started looking at main stream issues like health and education and drew people's attention away from their inherent bigotry then we could end up with some serious problems. As it is though when I read blogs like this I sit comforted in the knowledge that the wankers at the BNP are going nowhere fast.
Sigh.
Whatever the cause, and there are those with far more knowledge on that subject than I, the fact is that world economy is going down the shitter. In the west we are collectively rich enough that none of us will REALLY suffer. Yes we'll have to make cut backs and tighten our belts but the fact is that with the exception of a very unfortunate few we will all have a roof over our heads, food in our stomachs and clothes on our back, even in the worst case scenario.
No, the people that will really suffer will inevitably be those in developing nations as individuals cut back what they give to charities and governments cut back on the international aid they give. People will suffer and people will die. So in that context it is all the more infuriating to read stories like this.
Yup, in a world that is running out of money more and more of it is being spent on arms, particularly in the Pacific and Asia. Now I'm not singling out Australia here, the fact is that they are doing this in response to other nations in the region so to single them out would be grossly unfair. However in the same way that armies were built up and alliances forged in Europe in the build up to World War 1 this situation seems to be both dangerous and pointless and most importantly diverts money from where it could surely be better spent, ie in rural China or the slums of Mumbai where people are genuinely going hungry.
It's not just in Asia either, the USA and Europe are also spending huge amounts of money on new ways of killing people, many of which seem to bear little relevance to the threats that we do face. What, I ask you, is the point? In Britain in particular we have seen, in the last few years massive investment in the Navy. The entire amphibious fleet has been replaced, the entire destroyer fleet is in the process of being replaced, Swiftsure submarines are being replaced with Astute class and 2 massive aircraft carriers are about to be built. And yet which country do we probably face the biggest threat from?
Afghanistan. Which is land locked.
I try to stay calm and patient in the face of such utter madness but, at times, it's so fucking difficult.
God, I pray, give me strength!
Whatever the cause, and there are those with far more knowledge on that subject than I, the fact is that world economy is going down the shitter. In the west we are collectively rich enough that none of us will REALLY suffer. Yes we'll have to make cut backs and tighten our belts but the fact is that with the exception of a very unfortunate few we will all have a roof over our heads, food in our stomachs and clothes on our back, even in the worst case scenario.
No, the people that will really suffer will inevitably be those in developing nations as individuals cut back what they give to charities and governments cut back on the international aid they give. People will suffer and people will die. So in that context it is all the more infuriating to read stories like this.
Yup, in a world that is running out of money more and more of it is being spent on arms, particularly in the Pacific and Asia. Now I'm not singling out Australia here, the fact is that they are doing this in response to other nations in the region so to single them out would be grossly unfair. However in the same way that armies were built up and alliances forged in Europe in the build up to World War 1 this situation seems to be both dangerous and pointless and most importantly diverts money from where it could surely be better spent, ie in rural China or the slums of Mumbai where people are genuinely going hungry.
It's not just in Asia either, the USA and Europe are also spending huge amounts of money on new ways of killing people, many of which seem to bear little relevance to the threats that we do face. What, I ask you, is the point? In Britain in particular we have seen, in the last few years massive investment in the Navy. The entire amphibious fleet has been replaced, the entire destroyer fleet is in the process of being replaced, Swiftsure submarines are being replaced with Astute class and 2 massive aircraft carriers are about to be built. And yet which country do we probably face the biggest threat from?
Afghanistan. Which is land locked.
I try to stay calm and patient in the face of such utter madness but, at times, it's so fucking difficult.
God, I pray, give me strength!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
