British Media discovers Prank calls, Hypocrisy

Just a quick note on this daft business of evil Australian DJs (it's late, excuse the poor flow)

We expat Poms have a rather unique insight into this strange case of a bog-standard prank call gone very wrong

You see, we get to know all about Australia's commercial radio stations, and the rank hypocrisy of the British press

The Mail has 'discovered' Kyle Sandilands (who is a controversial DJ who works for the same station) because of course, the two are linked  - dirty Aussies and their crass ways

Not that the left wing Fairfax press here haven't tried to get in digs at Alan Jones, but I digress

The prank was pretty tame, there were no abused children involved, nothing offensive was said, it was a standard Sydney morning radio show wind-up call, but shame on the Ozzies for shaming a nurse into so much anguish that she'd kill herself

But hang on, some Australians may have committed the crime originally but somehow I doubt the nurse would have been too upset by the very concept of being tricked, and was unlikely to be listening to 2day FM or picking up a Sydney daily

No, it was the rampant and vile British press, who are so obsessed with a pair of 30 year olds who managed to have sex that they camped outside her place of work, filled acres of newsprint and got the rather pedestrian prank-call global coverage

This is where my British instincts come in, because you just know the tabloids were having a field day - criticising the hospital, the staff, Australia...wondering if Diana is still alive...

and then of course she was found dead, and it's party time, with lashings of hypocrisy as the same press who flooded the world with such a moronic story turn it into a global epic as they point the finger at a pair of hapless DJs

I'm not sure the two DJs are the ones who have 'blood on their hands', if there is some sort of charge out of the inquest then surely the fault should lay on the ones who applied the pressure so relentlessly and drove a possibly fragile person to such extremes - and they wonder why we got Leveson (I disagree with limits on the press, but it's clear why Leveson happened)

If this had been some politician found with a rent-boy, who was then hounded for a week and found dead, would it be the politician's fault...?

Anachronistic?

Much has been made of the long overdue plan to update the laws of succession, notably regarding sex and religion (or rather the religion of a consort)

'It's wonderful', they cry in this age of sexual equality - only isn't this egalitarianism rather shallow? Sure, sexism is bad, but the moment you start questioning why it needs to be a man over a woman, won't you start questioning why it's the first born

...or why from a particular womb?

They preach fairness but the whole concept of hereditary entitlement is inherently unfair - it is just as arbitrary as male precedence, so surely once we question one thing, shouldn't we be questioning the rest?

The Catholic thing was in fact probably the least arbitrary feature, it served a practical and strategic purpose until the start of the last century, whereas proper hereditary succession was thrown out the window when parliament invited foreign monarchs because the true heirs were deemed unsuitable - yet we lose one not the other, when both concepts are seriously out of step with society

I find this very odd, anyone with half a brain should see the logical steps here - that's why the monarchists should be opposing it, if their rationale is to keep one big anachronism they shouldn't let the peripheral anachronisms be altered, likewise any reformer should be pushing for real equality - otherwise they're just shallow and trendy twits

Just saying..

(There's also a little noticed rule about the monarch's permission that George III made up for his brothers, but that's hardly worth mentioning)

Maybe I will vote 'yes' after all

Another No to AV campaign video, and now it's just getting silly

To be honest this sort of bullshit where they make up all sorts of nonsense to scare people is starting to wind me up

Firstly Alan B'stard makes a comeback in a ridiculously unrealistic political scenario - fairly clearly aimed at your average man in the street who doesn't do politics, but I was struck by the fact that the result was exactly the same as what we have now - a party who tear up their manifesto and do a deal with the Lib Dems to form government and have no accountability

...in what way is that different to what we have? They just tacked on 'because of AV', when FPTP has given us exactly the same situation

Then they end with the frankly offensive statement 'one person, one vote' - one of the main beefs of reformers like me is that we do not currently have 'one person, one vote' - more than half of voters cannot win and therefore do not even have a chance of being heard, for FPTP campaigners to somehow claim it is one person and one vote is downright lying (of course it technically is, and the film deliberately obscured the lines between voting for a government and a single MP)

What they really want is 'one Tory/Labour voting person, one vote...in a safe seat'

Anyway - Yes to AV! Out of spite

Shelley said it

Further to my last post about pretentious nits reading whatever they like into a famous, and therefore deeply meaningful, book, this article on Frankenstein rather amused me

My favourite has to be the Scottish guy who apparently wrote at university that it was about the English treatment of the Irish....right

Did he look at the publishing date? The guy is going on about creating a murderer (i.e. Irish republicanism) - but it was published in 1818, unless Mary Shelley had exceptional foresight this is post-modern, anti-English wishful thinking

The sheer fact that the book is subtitled (which many classics often are, and which tend to be ignored by reviewers looking for their own meaning) 'The Modern Prometheus' should tell you what it was alluding to, I hope he didn't get a good mark for that drivel

Personally I believe Shelley was really trying to promote vegetarianism and support Israel

(If you want to really know how intelligent some of these amateur literary scholars are, just look at how many think she was critiquing Victorian society - 'Victorian ambition', 'Victorian paradigm' - remind me when the Victorian era started?)

Ironically, Queen Vic was born in...1819

Bye Aaron

I've never quite seen this level of headline feed (from Guido, but repeated elsewhere)

Porter Must Resign - Mark Wallace
Porter Must Resign – Nadine Dorries
Thank You and Goodnight -Niall Paterson [Unrelated]
Porter in Oct: “We’ll be More Militant than Ever” – Indy
Tory Twitter Stoning Joker Arrested - BBC
NUS President in Serious Trouble – Tory Bear
Were the Law Properly Briefed? – Dizzy Thinks
NUS President Should Resign Over Protests – LBC

That is a level of high-intensity pressure that even Brown was not subjected to...and this is the president of a toothless little bunch of activists, not a seasoned politician with an office of spinners to throw phones and printers at

Flash in the pan it may be, but we're talking about a relatively unknown upstart who has bugger all public standing and will quickly be served up to the tabloids without hesitation

The NUS have zero power or influence in the real world - they can get a few thousand to protest the 'cuts', and there were always a few activists who wanted to whine about fees, or more likely climb the ladder from student politics, at my uni, but that's about it - the five million-strong membership are effectively coerced into joining and simply carry their discount card around...which they now have to pay for (I refused at that point...proper little rebel, me)

In truth, they are a weak, virtually pointless organisation that do nothing but provide a step up into (Labour) politics and now charge a membership fee to do diddly squat but serve the interests of their 'elected' officials - of which Mr. Porter is a prime example

Frankly I'm glad I won't have to see him making inane comments about his 'members' (who mostly do not give a monkeys about anything except cheap beer) on Newsnight every time a student issue pops up... I watch and wait to see where he pops up again - Labour PPC I'd wager

And if any fresh young things about to apply to uni, or head off next year, here's some advice for you - in the heady days of Fresher's Week your Union, and possibly a bunch of annoying militants, will encourage you to join the NUS, with it's discount card, for a mere £10 fee...don't

You get a nice card, with some discounts in high street stores - but that's it

Your university provides support if you need it, you are a member of both your university, and student union, automatically, and for free (aside obvious tuition fees), this gives you a student card and everything your local union has to offer

This free card is valid to prove your position as a student and will take care of all your needs, including many, many discounts that are simply offered to students as a matter of course, or law (such as banks, transport, virtually all services, and usually even cinemas), hell, it will even work in the NUS-funded discount chains, either because the checkout staff are typically dopey or the companies don't mind, I never knew, all I do know is I never used the NUS thing for the one year I did have it (students really should look beyond the expensive high street chains, anyway)

Student politics is pointless, sometimes it's fun to practice what is a student tradition and have a good protest, but unless you want to climb the greasy pole into politics then there is little point to getting involved with voting and the dirty world of popularity contests student elections, you're just helping career politicians, the NUS is solely an umbrella group for all unions - it does nothing for you but that discount card*

So in short, unless you really want to get that ten quid back by shopping at an outlet of Topshop or Boots that won't take your regular student card for some reason, and you don't mind paying to prop up the 'union' who are paying these companies with that cash, simply so you are 'incentivised' to join in the first place, a scheme that nearly bankrupted them (hence the new fee), then don't bother

*I am not ragging on student unions, far from it - but the NUS itself, many people cannot distinguish between the two - I must declare a personal interest here and say I was heavily involved with my student union, societies and groups are great fun, but I came to despise the little Hitlers that supposedly ran it and would subsequently go on to work in the NUS and politics - the people actually running the functions of the union are normal people engaging with other students doing things they enjoy because they have the time they won't get once they graduate - the elected leaders are usually people with zero business sense and will likely turn your student newspaper into their own personal propaganda machine

Quote of the Day

Harriet Harman [regarding Phil Woolas]:

"It is not part of Labour politics to try to win elections by saying things that are not true."

'Nuff said, really

The Bond retrospective - Number 9

It's getting difficult! Time for our first Dalton I think

Did I mention realism?

9. The Living Daylights

Ah, ‘the one with the cello’ as it’s commonly known round my way, Dalton came in as the anti-Moore and took it to rather extreme lengths by being both monogamous and incredibly serious, as with Licence to Kill, it’s really up to the viewer how they like Tim’s Bond. For me, it’s a good, solid plot without the campness, and I like it - it’s a bit of gritty realism, while still an enjoyable romp. There are some slow points, and it’s probably the driest spy film since Dr No, which is why I generally prefer the more graphic Dalton film, and perhaps Bond needs a bit more humour, but next to the latter-Moore era it’s perfect in my view. There’s also the rather bizarre Afghanistan scenario in which we support the Taliban, which of course we did in the 80s, but watching it these days may throw up some issues for people.

Pros:
Realism!

Cons:
Enough with the bloody cello!
A-ha? Really?


Also while we're on the topic, I found this quiz on Flixster - I naturally felt obliged, but I am not signing up to spam to argue, so read on for pedantry:

One of the most prominent villains in the James Bond saga is Jaws, played by Richard Kiel. He was introduced in Moonraker, but later made another appearance in another movie opposite James Bond. Which was it?

 The Spy who Loved me - which was the film before Moonraker, he went off with his girlfriend in Moonraker, remember?

Which James Bond film was the only James Bond film to not have it's name title in the beginning song? [Octopussy]

Considering there were questions about Daniel Craig...

This actor appeared in just one James Bond movie. That movie is widely considered to be the best non-Connery bond film. 

Opinionated much? I would naturally disagree, and a quick check of Wikipedia references (IGN, MSN etc) shows zero agreement with this fact - Goldeneye, The Spy Who and even Live and Let Die were all non-Connery films variously ranked above Lazenby, and on Rotten Tomatoes The Spy who is just above - do not put 'best' anywhere near that film in my presence! Particularly with 'widely considered', unless it's with 'by idiots'

Don't you just hate quizzes when you are right and the quiz is wrong?

Get a sense of humour

A card has been removed from a Tesco store's shelves because a redhead found it offensive

'The card shows a child with ginger hair sitting on the lap of Santa Claus, and the words: "Santa loves all kids. Even ginger ones."

Davinia Philips, of York was 'disgusted'

Right, first things first - this is not specifically a Tesco issue - this wasn't marketing or an advert, it was just one of the thousand Christmas cards they happen to stock, the company 'Quitting Hollywood' made the card

So essentially she has picked out one of those funny cards, and had a right strop about it - had it actually been marketing I'd agree with her, but it was just a silly card, have you never seen a humourous card that was 'offensive' before? They take the mick out of all sorts - women, men, fat people, old age and a lot are laden with innuendo

What this effectively means that if a card makes a blonde joke, or a fat joke, or a birthday card implies something negative about ageing, then it's offensive to someone and should be banned - great

2/1 it was written by a carrot-top

Put a sock in it, Simon, preferably a smelly one

You may or may not have heard that there is a 'campaign' to get Rage against the Machine to Christmas no.1 over whatever bilge comes out of X Factor this year

Simon Cowell has branded it as 'stupid' and 'cynical' and aimed at him

There's that ego again - actually it's not aimed at you personally, Simon - but is a reflection of our annoyance at having a major tv show produce an unmemorable album by some nobody at Christmas every year

"It does however change these guys' lives and we put this opportunity there so that the winner of the X Factor gets the chance of having a big hit record.

So we should ruin the race for Xmas no.1 because some karaoke singer wants a big hit? - Well here's some news for you, Cowell, there are 52 weeks in the year, and only one is vaguely interesting to the mainstream

Cowell also played down the impact of the trend for the X Factor's winner to take the No 1 spot.

He said: "Everyone has this slightly distorted view of Christmas numbers one being incredible. There was that ghastly Cliff Richard song a few years ago, Bob The Builder. So we haven't exactly taken away anything special, it just so happens that our record, to coincide with the show, goes out at Christmas."

 
If Christmas no.1 isn't so important then why don't you wait til January? These shows have always focused on the Christmas spot - seems strange, if it's not important, that every year since 2005 the X Factor song has been released specifically for the Sunday directly before Christmas, (as was Girls Aloud in 2002, in a specific two-horse race for Xmas No.1 orchestrated by the show)


You undermine the race and then say it's unimportant - so you've basically hijacked a bit of fun for the hell of it? Personally I think that's even worse than the commercialisation angle, at least admit this is exploitation - then it's good business sense rather than just pure humbug


It doesn't matter that crap songs have been Christmas no.1 (and bear in mind they are often for charity, unlike a certain someone's own crap songs) - the point is it's a bit of fun, it's supposed to be a race, not an automatic slot for the latest wannabe singer who'll be forgotten within 12 months - it has become the 'X Factor no.1' instead of the Christmas no.1


It's been hijacked by Cowell and his show, and we have every right to campaign against it - every year there is a campaign to get certain songs to no.1, long before you were even vaguely important, Simon, so don't take it personally, I know you think everything is about you, but it really isn't


And I must ask - why is it any worse to try and get Rage the no.1 spot when you, via manipulation of your viewers, do exactly the same thing? It's like Tesco complaining that Sainsbury's is competing with it

Why do people watch this irritating w**ker?


Raahh! Rant over!

edit: The only decidedly dodgy song since 1993 (Mr. Blobby) was the aforementioned 'Bob the Builder' song in 2000 - and guess what, that was a campaign which defeated Cowell's old band Westlife from claiming a second consecutive Christmas no.1

Go out and purchase "Killing in the Name" from Monday (13th)

MPs clearly have never worked in the real world

MPs and peers were today engaged in a clash over 'reply to all' emails

An email from Tory Mark Pritchard was sent to everyone in Parliament apparently, and responses were sent 'to all' - meaning that everyone received a constant stream of rubbish emails they didn't want

Lib Dem Greg Mulholland replied with the following

"IF I GET ANOTHER UNSOLICTED EMAIL ABOUT THIS CR*P I WILL BE MAKING A COMPLAINT. PUT YOUR BRAINS IN GEAR AND STOP BOTHERING ALL MPs and PEERS WITH THIS!!!! NO MORE REPLY ALL"

Bad e-mail etiquette perhaps, but have these people never worked in an office? Get in the real world boys, where people your age actually have to learn how to use emails, and put up with nonsense thread emails every day

But this stupidity gets worse, Pritchard got a dig in at the softie Liberals (who oppose his ideas):

"I am not surprised by Liberal Democrats treating cyber-security so lightly...It is also clear that some Liberal Democrat politicians need training in answering e-mails correctly without sending the same reply to every Tom, Dick and Harry."

This from a man who actually sent a Parliamentary email to about 1300 people and got them all 'replying to all' - really security conscious, Mark

I will be researching this cyber-security plan of his to see if the Lib Dems really are treating it lightly, but initial evidence would point to this being tosh, as:

The Wrekin MP said his new All Party Parliamentary Group for Cyber-Security had attracted support from senior MPs including Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, [and] former cyber security minister Tom Watson

Right...serious issue then

Swearing = 'Assault'?

Apparently, if you feel threatened by me swearing in my own home, you can complain to the police, who will then arrest me, have to release me because they have no evidence, and then issue me a fixed-penalty notice for abusive behaviour

In effect, swearing at someone is an on-the-spot fine

Now, f*** off

(It shames me to say that I live in that council district)

Riot, please, just riot!

I can't take this any more, I was going to write about the Youth Parliament last week, but I've seen Hattie's latest comments and entered a world of despair

But Miss Harman yesterday suggested that the report could be shelved if it goes too far.
She said a final decision would rest with the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), whose members will be vetted by MPs before being appointed.
Miss Harman said Ipsa will have to be sure that MPs ‘can both be in their constituency as well as in Westminster’.
She added: ‘No one wants to get back to a situation where MPs were sent to Westminster and then they said to their constituents “see you again in five years”.

I wasn't aware that had changed...

MPs are furious at the prospect of having to sell their second homes and move into rented accommodation. Some warn it will make it impossible for all but the wealthiest MPs to have their families with them in London.

Really? Have these people never rented before? You can rent whole houses you know

The Prime Minister is expected to tell him that the new expenses system must not be so harsh that politics ‘becomes the preserve of the independently wealthy and that ordinary people with families must always be able to become MPs’.

Gold star for Gordon, that's the original reason for introducing MP salaries over a century ago - I'd love to know how 65k plus fiddled expenses is anywhere near what 'ordinary people' support their families with

What exactly would the preserve of the wealthy be? You can still own a house, funded by your big salary, then rent a second house for work on expenses (I really don't get their issue with renting - they do realise they won't have to pay for it, right?), claim travel expenses that few commuters would get, and an office for work - what's the problem? What is so disabling in that scenario - I'd do it, and so would a lot of ordinary people I know - do I need to break out the graph that shows where ordinary people are and where MPs are (top 9%), and the list of Labour MPs who are millionaires or professional politicians?

These people really are just living in a bubble

...pop it

Bedroom Snooping?

The media are having a bit of a field day with news that the next census will be the 'most intrusive ever carried out'

The Conservatives said the attempt to find out sleeping arrangements was particularly objectionable. [Tory Nick Hurd] said "An increasingly invasive and intrusive census will erode public support, cost more and result in a less accurate survey."

This is in regards to finding out that

'The 2011 survey will demand to know how many bedrooms there are in homes and detailed information about any 'overnight visitors'

What outrage! Right, so let's have a look at the ONS site, where the Mail found this information, for it, shall we

Did you get that - overnight visitors 'present on census night'

That's not so bad is it? Just one night, in case that person isn't at home that night, and did you notice the asterisks next to certain questions? Those indicate new questions (some were even mentioned by the Mail) - number of bedrooms is new, but number of rooms is not, evidence available on the old censuses here

Other new questions shown are on civil partnerships and identity, as well as ones for entry into the UK (for non-citizens) - that's it, so I really don't get how this is anymore intrusive - counting bedrooms is apparently wrong

Funny that, because counting rooms never has been - here is 2001:

And just in case this is a despicable Labour plan, here it is in 1991

Pretty standard practice then - counting bedrooms though is too far, because previously you could only count rooms, but not bathrooms or toilets - so you couldn't simply work it out by just taking 2 or 3 off the total - i.e. kitchen and living room, maybe a study/dining room - the rest are what....reception areas?

Seems a pretty reasonable request to me - many people these days have 2 living rooms, and I don't really see how it's intrusive to ask a basic estate agent question

But the Mail (and apparently the Tories) seem to think the government are after all the details of your guests, snooping into who you sleep with every night of the year - despite this only referring to one night, as censuses are based on one single day, and you can even lie and just say you were home - the visitor question is I believe, so that you don't miss out if you're not at home, hence why they take your usual address

But don't let me witter on, here's the evidence, 2001:

1991:

The most intrusive census ever carried out!

I felt the article was particularly misleading (yes, more than usual) - but I can't find any real way to lodge an official complaint, as they seem to have covered themselves pretty well using implications and faux-outrage, with well placed, non-specific quotes - the bit I really object to is this (red = my words)

The 2011 survey will demand to know how many bedrooms there are in homes and detailed information about any 'overnight visitors'. [already standard practice]
....The Conservatives said the attempt to find out sleeping arrangements was particularly objectionable.
The demand for the number of bedrooms in each home, coupled with a requirement to give the name, sex, date of birth and address of any overnight visitors [again, already a standard question], amounted to 'bedroom snooping', they said.

The 2011 census will ask these things - but they are implying it's some sort of new thing, this is very misleading to me, but as they only imply it, is there really a case for complaint?

I guess that's what they pay their writers to do instead of actual writing...

Yawn, yawn, yawn

I am getting so fed up with those who speak out at the BBC's decision to invite on the BNP - particularly the BBC insiders, because let's face it, there are plenty of people who don't have a problem with this (unless Mark Thomson is completely alone in this), and they are keeping quiet for fear of being called a racist, while those who I can only regard as being anti-free speech are getting a free ride

Michael Rosen, former Children's laureate and Radio 4 presenter, has said it will erode trust in the BBC which

'is like a public place – we all own it and need to be a part of it. It has a responsibility to everyone. "They make this very clear when you work for them. If I were to say anything remotely similar to the things Nick Griffin has said and will say tonight, I would not be allowed on.'

"The BBC is obsessed with putting things 'through compliance', to ensure no one will find programmes politically, sexually or socially offensive. I have been stopped from reading a poem that contained one swear word before. Yet while they go into palpitations over things Jonathan Ross says, they are allowing Nick Griffin airtime to say things that will offend millions." 

Yes, you wouldn't be allowed on to your show about the English language with such views, Michael, but neither would a Tory espousing Thatcher or a Labourite praising Marx, you numptie - you are an employee, political guests are allowed political opinions - your point is only valid if Griffin was David Dimbleby - Harriet Harman always offends me when she's on - by his logic I can object to her being on - I seriously can't believe he actually said that

He reckons it will offend millions and erode trust in the BBC in viewers - well, here's something for you, Michael Rosen - were the BBC to deny a legal party, who have the same level of representation as the Greens and UKIP, space on this show simply because they were disagreeable, I would lose trust in the BBC

Steve Richards, meanwhile, gets himself in a muddle by admitting the BBC are right to give the BNP, supported by nigh on a million people at the last election, a platform but then tries to demolish it by saying that they were 'mistaken' as

Research carried out by YouGov found that roughly half of BNP's voters were truly racist, the other half were people who feel insecure and alienated from the main parties. In other words just one per cent of the electorate last summer were racist BNP voters.

Dear god, Steve - they still voted for them! Do you go around checking if every Lib Dem voter isn't actually a narked off Labour voter? Or that some of the Labour votes in '97 weren't actually from Tories...should you discount all the protest and swing votes from an election?

They got themselves a million votes - does it actually matter if 'only half were racist'? They have other issues that they talk about - they may well be lying, but what political party hasn't lied and reneged on a promise or pledge...or manifesto commitment

Nearly a million votes is nearly a million votes - you don't have the right to second guess what those voters want

Chris Huhne, who will be facing the boogeyman Griffin himself, explains why he will be debating with him in the Guardian

Now I appreciate that he is appealing to the Guardian's audience, and so has to say that 'I really don't want to, but I must', and he doesn't criticise the BBC - as I said, Guardian - the cynic in me sees right through it as a watered-down version of a free speech argument to appeal to the typical Gruniad reader who opposes the BNP's right to exist, I think he's just paying lip-service

But, what a true Liberal should say, Chris is this:

---

Why I will debate with Nick Griffin
The decision was not difficult in the least

Because I believe in democracy and free speech, and racism is a part of that free speech, even if I don't like it, because there are always people out there who disagree with us, and the only way to defeat an opinion is to debate it, not censor it

I do not, of course, tolerate racism-based violence, that is a crime - but to hold racist views is not, and even though most of us regard the BNP as merely a legitimate front for something far worse, they are nevertheless a legitimate party with elected representatives

---

Of course, these are my own views and while I disagree with others on this, I respect their right to think and say what they want, unlike them, who seem to miss the irony of their views

Get it right..or maybe left

I seem to remember that a while back the Mail was unhappy at councils abusing no-drinking rules to cover all areas, such as parks and suburbs, as an attack on people's liberty

Now however, they are all for it in Nottingham, because they dislike the 24-hour drinking rules

But wait a minute, binge drinking existed long before the licensing changes, and there's no evidence to suggest that the liberalisation increased it, nor did it reduce it, as was the intention - this was what the government admitted when it said it was 'not working' - hence why there are absolutely no facts in this article, because they would show that little has changed and barely any establishments use the new licensing laws (late-night clubs where all the trouble actually came from already existed...)

They are simply against a measure that didn't really do anything - good spot, guys, but hardly a triumph, seeing as you opposed it for encouraging more drinking, rather than it being a waste of time - I'm yet to see evidence that says supermarkets shouldn't sell booze at 4am...

But then, in a rare show of balance for the Mail, they provide criticism from the civil liberties brigade:

However, there are concerns that some councils may be too heavy-handed in the way they introduce new byelaws, possibly putting an end to picnics in the park.

Dylan Sharpe of Big Brother Watch said: 'This is yet another piece of legislation with the potential to create criminals out of law-abiding people.'

Don't know which way to turn, do they...

'Politicians don't know anything'...your point?

I feel I must briefly mention Littlejohn's article about the Phoney Four

Now, while I know Richard Littlejohn is an idiot blowhard, I really can't stand by and let him hold Blair, Prescott and Brown up as being uniquely unqualified for their jobs

No politicians are qualified for their jobs, they are pol-i-ti-cians

That's what civil servants are for...

Because we need a Continence Management Strategy

This is not a joke, it's from Australia:

www.toiletmap.gov.au

Yes that's right, a comprehensive listing of every single public toilet in Australia (including caravan 'dump points'), because let's face it, we've sorted out the rest of the world's problems

But what's really surprising is our own government do not have their own national listing of toilets across the UK

Sure, there are maps for local councils like Cambridge, Scarborough and Sheffield, but where is the co-ordinated strategy across the country? - surely the incontinent should not have to go to every district in Britain's website if they intend to travel? This is the government that can create an expensive and daft flashy tax site for 'the kids' to be taught in schools, but can't make a google map to link up the national network of toilets

The incontinent have rights too!!

(note: I do not actually want the idiots to make such a map as they would probably spend (waste) millions on it when someone's probably already done it for free)

Can't marry til 21?

I came across this article in the Mail (ssh..)

It's about a Canadian who fell in love with and married a British man - she unwittingly overstayed her tourist visa and is being deported, not realising you still need to apply for a marriage visa

Fine, I appreciate the rules that these days you need to apply for a marriage visa - however, why exactly do you need to be 21?

The age of consent is 18 - why does this lady need to wait 18 months to be eligible? The age was apparently raised to prevent forced marriage...ok then...

I would ask two things - 1) would it not be better to increase scrutiny on foreign marriages rather than apply an unfair blanket ban on those under the age of 21? and 2) Is this a breach of human rights? Sounds like age discrimination to me...

Odd, very odd

I'm not usually one to harp on about BBC slants, but I was puzzled by this entry to their magazine:

Could the UK drive on the right?

This is in response to Samoa changing from the right to the left

Some could argue it's somewhat inclined towards EU integration, most would I think, see it as the usual oddball stuff that comes out of magazine - they are just engaging in debate after all, and they have to apply it to Britain after all - there's not much point in asking, 'should France move to the left?'

But I was bemused by this:

And cars with steering wheels on the left could be cheaper.

Barely, if at all - one of the reasons Samoa changed was because of Japan's influence - obviously they make right-hand drive cars (that's Japan, the world leader in car and electronics manufacturing) - most of the Pacific rim countries drive on the left, as we do

So if we were to change we would be the same as the EU - it would mean European cars wouldn't have to be altered for us, but we would instead receive altered cars from Japan (the no.1 producer of cars) - and bear in mind we get a fair bit of employment from people like Nissan, we would lose that were we to go 'continental'

Plenty of the world still drives on the left, there is still a big market out there and the differences are well entrenched in car manufacture - I doubt to make us another outpost of the EU would change anything when we already have a market of 50 million (inc. Ireland) for the Japanese, who also have India and the petrol-heads of Australia to export to

It might make your Citroens, VWs and Peugeots slightly cheaper but who really cares? It's a very minor change to make - the parts are still the same, and Japanese cars are much cheaper in maintenance despite us being next to the blooming continent

We don't have American cars, and we don't want them, so that's out too - so what exactly do we gain?

Bugger all is what, the pretence behind this article is really that if all the world drove on the right it would be better - but is that going to happen? I don't think so, unless Japan, India and Australia are forced right then nothing will change economically - all that will happen is we pay billions (4 billion is a very conservative estimate apparently) and probably cause some needless deaths to pointlessly change the traffic direction and come out of the Chunnel on the right side...

Fortunately the article does end with a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' but it does seem to be a little too pro-Europe on this, are they just coming from the point of view of the booze cruise?

This is the best they've got at the Guardian?

As I've said before, I rarely bother with the Guardian anymore, and here's a prime example of why:

'Compare the Meerkat ad is racist'

Right, so to parody an accent is racist...

Even if Peter Jones' 'Ukranian girlfriend' is offended it doesn't matter - should we always listen when somebody is offended? Bollocks should we, we'd never be able to speak, let alone have media - and there's a pathetically flimsy argument being used here

Meanwhile he says TV would never use Indian or Caribbean accents in such a way - wouldn't they? There are lines to be drawn (such as drawing an Indian as smelly perhaps) but using an accent is not generally regarded as offensive is it? In what way is this accent being used - is it saying Russians are meerkats? Wear smoking jackets? It's a meerkat with a Russian accent, if it had a French accent would it be a problem...and would the French be offended? (He also says Meerkat is how 'Eastern Europeans' commonly mispronounce market - do they? The Russian Meerkat himself does a pretty good job of separating the two)

I don't particularly like the way British accents are portrayed abroad - either as toffs or cockney geezers and I would argue seeing an anthropomorphic animal with one of my nation's many accents would probably offend me less than the usual portrayal of stereotypical British behaviour, simply using an accent does not imply anything and therefore his whole case is based on mocking a dialect for not being able to pronounce a word, something I have yet to be shown is even remotely true - I hope he had a go at Team America's 'So Ronery' song, which actually did what he seems to take offence at

It's just a silly parody - and as for we don't allow accents to be mocked - I give you the Lilt advert and of course, Apu from the Simpsons - voiced by white guy Hank Azaria, which must surely be far worse than a bloody meerkat with an accent

And then there's this gem:

[The ASA] said it had not had any other complaints.

I asked my girlfriend why that might be. She told me that people from eastern Europe were brought up in a society where it was not normal to complain, especially to such sectors as the government and the media....they would not know of the existence of the ASA and the power to demand that an advert was taken off television. It is also the case that...they would not want to be seen to be causing trouble. It then dawned on me that this ad was targeting a sector of the population who would be unlikely to fight back.

Right, that's not at all specious reasoning - because no-one has complained those offended must be too scared to complain...this, based on two incidences of unverified anecdotal evidence - that in itself is enough to can this article for poor analysis

Just read the comments for what people thought of this bilge, I just hope his girlfriend was worth it...

Hat-tip: Guido