Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Haiti Disaster - Now It's Women Only Food Distribution
All of us are shocked and appalled by the terrible earthquake that befell Haiti. But as is usually the case it seems that the relief effort has taken on a political tone as some aid organizations are only handing out food to women.
Story here
Of course, the story bleats that women are being denied their rightful food quota by nasty men pushing in queues. I don't suppose they've thought that men who collect food are taking it back to their wives and children have they? And if men are behaving this way (which I doubt) then surely the women would be mugged on the way home from the aid post and relieved of their sack of rice wouldn't they? If men are so selfish, why is it that when the first TV pictures were shown immediately after the quake, the people shown digging in the rubble, desperately searching for survivors, were nearly all men. The vast majority of those risking their own lives in amongst dangerously wrecked buildings to save others were men as is always the case. Now we're expected to believe that these same men have somehow turned into selfish bullies shoving women out of the way in order to gorge themselves on the food aid.
In my opinion many of these disasters end up as a cash-generating exercise for large charities and organizations that are supposed to be handing out aid. These people collect millions from well-intentioned people at home who quite rightly want to help. But what happens to this money? If you're naive you may think that once you've donated your cash it immediately gets spent on food, shelter and medicine and is sent out pronto to the disaster site to be given to the desperate. Not so dear friend as most of it will be deposited in the charity's investment portfolio to provide future income. This is how large charities work and much of the profit from these investments ends up financing the charity's own infrastructure including salaries, office accommodation costs, computer systems and of course advertising. This is where the women-only part of this story comes in.
The charities want you to send money to them and to do this they need publicity. At the moment there's tons of free publicity being supplied in Haiti by the world's news media and it's this fact that is the real reason for women-only food queues. The media and the charities need the "money shot" to stimulate more donations and this image is far better if it is a heart-rending photo of a female or child, which of course always generates more sympathy than a similar shot of a man. A man starving to death is not as good a "money shot" as a woman or child and the same goes for the rescue effort. Charities want lots of sympathetic images of their organization helping grateful women and children because these shots have a higher sympathy quotient when it comes to generating more donations. From the charities' point of view it's far better to exclude men from the food lines because this tactic will ensure more valuable "money shots" which in turn generate more cash. In essence this is a cynical manipulation of the world's media and the general public and the same goes for the various military and political organizations that like the good publicity that these images present.
I never donate to large charities because this is the world they inhabit - a cynical arena where media manipulation is king and the charity's own self-interest is of paramount importance. They also have a political axe to grind which usually involves man-hatred as can be seen by the myriad of women-only schools, hospitals and food programmes that these people run funded by your money. Feminist thinking dominates most major charities and UN aid organizations, and the exclusion of men in these programmes is endemic and is a core belief of these people.
When I donate to a charity, I choose small organizations which are run by volunteers or to those that operate in a non-political way. This precludes most of the large charities who I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Many squander millions on expenses and hair-brained, ill-thought-out, dogma-driven schemes most of which start with the words "women only".
Story here
Of course, the story bleats that women are being denied their rightful food quota by nasty men pushing in queues. I don't suppose they've thought that men who collect food are taking it back to their wives and children have they? And if men are behaving this way (which I doubt) then surely the women would be mugged on the way home from the aid post and relieved of their sack of rice wouldn't they? If men are so selfish, why is it that when the first TV pictures were shown immediately after the quake, the people shown digging in the rubble, desperately searching for survivors, were nearly all men. The vast majority of those risking their own lives in amongst dangerously wrecked buildings to save others were men as is always the case. Now we're expected to believe that these same men have somehow turned into selfish bullies shoving women out of the way in order to gorge themselves on the food aid.
In my opinion many of these disasters end up as a cash-generating exercise for large charities and organizations that are supposed to be handing out aid. These people collect millions from well-intentioned people at home who quite rightly want to help. But what happens to this money? If you're naive you may think that once you've donated your cash it immediately gets spent on food, shelter and medicine and is sent out pronto to the disaster site to be given to the desperate. Not so dear friend as most of it will be deposited in the charity's investment portfolio to provide future income. This is how large charities work and much of the profit from these investments ends up financing the charity's own infrastructure including salaries, office accommodation costs, computer systems and of course advertising. This is where the women-only part of this story comes in.
The charities want you to send money to them and to do this they need publicity. At the moment there's tons of free publicity being supplied in Haiti by the world's news media and it's this fact that is the real reason for women-only food queues. The media and the charities need the "money shot" to stimulate more donations and this image is far better if it is a heart-rending photo of a female or child, which of course always generates more sympathy than a similar shot of a man. A man starving to death is not as good a "money shot" as a woman or child and the same goes for the rescue effort. Charities want lots of sympathetic images of their organization helping grateful women and children because these shots have a higher sympathy quotient when it comes to generating more donations. From the charities' point of view it's far better to exclude men from the food lines because this tactic will ensure more valuable "money shots" which in turn generate more cash. In essence this is a cynical manipulation of the world's media and the general public and the same goes for the various military and political organizations that like the good publicity that these images present.
I never donate to large charities because this is the world they inhabit - a cynical arena where media manipulation is king and the charity's own self-interest is of paramount importance. They also have a political axe to grind which usually involves man-hatred as can be seen by the myriad of women-only schools, hospitals and food programmes that these people run funded by your money. Feminist thinking dominates most major charities and UN aid organizations, and the exclusion of men in these programmes is endemic and is a core belief of these people.
When I donate to a charity, I choose small organizations which are run by volunteers or to those that operate in a non-political way. This precludes most of the large charities who I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Many squander millions on expenses and hair-brained, ill-thought-out, dogma-driven schemes most of which start with the words "women only".
Sunday, February 01, 2009
British Democracy To End With Common Purpose?
Those of you who, like me, have watched our civil liberties fritter away under this present Stalinist, big brother government, may wonder that this action is part of a wider agenda to set up a police state in Britain. At last I think I'm on to the true source and methods by which this process is being achieved and by whom.
Watch this.
Video clip
And just in case you do not believe that Britain is now well on the way to becoming a police state, here it is from no lesser person than Dame Stella Rimmington, former head of MI5.
"It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism - that we live in fear and under a police state," she said.
story here
It seems that Dame Stella may have been reading my blog. Here's what I wrote on January 9th this year.
"Of course, there are things that need to be kept out of the public gaze, but when a situation arises where those in authority think they have a blank cheque to act in any way they see fit and hide their actions from public scutiny or become unaccountable, then we have a dangerous situation. Indeed, a situation more dangerous than the threat supposedly posed by terrorists and those who would do harm to us. There are also those in government office who would take advantage of events and public fear in order to increase their own power under the guise of acting in the public good. These people can do more harm to us than anyone sat in a cave in Afghanistan."
Watch this.
Video clip
And just in case you do not believe that Britain is now well on the way to becoming a police state, here it is from no lesser person than Dame Stella Rimmington, former head of MI5.
"It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism - that we live in fear and under a police state," she said.
story here
It seems that Dame Stella may have been reading my blog. Here's what I wrote on January 9th this year.
"Of course, there are things that need to be kept out of the public gaze, but when a situation arises where those in authority think they have a blank cheque to act in any way they see fit and hide their actions from public scutiny or become unaccountable, then we have a dangerous situation. Indeed, a situation more dangerous than the threat supposedly posed by terrorists and those who would do harm to us. There are also those in government office who would take advantage of events and public fear in order to increase their own power under the guise of acting in the public good. These people can do more harm to us than anyone sat in a cave in Afghanistan."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Police Have Lied About Crime Figures
My concern over the overuse of statistics by the government with regard to crime has been confirmed by this story.
story here
This is a typical example of why this present government, which is obsessed by centralised control based on statistical input, is doomed to failure. As soon as any organisation is asked to provide statistics to justify promotions and pay rises all that happens is that those who run such organisations use all their mental dexterity to fiddle the figures rather than doing the job they are tasked to do. The police have ample opportunity to do this because their world is far too complicated to be converted into easy-to-read statistics and as a result all manner of scams can be employed to paint a rosier picture of life on the streets than actually exists.
Recently I had cause to ring my local police to report a gang of yobs causing bother near my home. A couple of days later a civilian police representative rang me to tell me that I could now ring area officers on their mobile numbers instead of ringing the police non-emergency number. Of course this little scam isn't to make life easier for me it's simply an exercise in statistical manipulation because calls to the police's main number will be logged as incidents whereas calls direct to the officers' mobiles will not. Hence an apparent reduction in crime and a pay rise for senior officers.
Get the picture?
They also do this to draw down funding from central government - cash that is earmarked for specific projects like anti-social behaviour. When the police want this cash they will encourage the public to report anything and everything in order to make the situation look worse than it is. However, once the cash is allocated the reverse happens and scams like the one listed above are employed to show a dramatic "reduction in crime" as a result of police action financed by the extra cash. In reality the situation on the streets has not changed at all but the all powerful stats show first a rise and then a dramatic fall simply because of fiddling with data input.
The only people who do not realise what is happening in Britain are those within the Stalinist, New Labour government, who, like their Russian heroes, are obsessed with centralised control, reward/punishment for those officials who run organisation like the police and general government meddling at all levels of public services. The police are not the only ones to suffer this fate as all state run public services waste billions supplying worthless statistical data to a government which has clearly lost the plot.
The only effective way to run public services is to have power based as close to the front line as possible. Only then can organisations, like the police, effectively do the job we taxpayers asked them undertake on our behalf and the vocation most police officers are itching to get on with if only they were free from government meddling.
story here
This is a typical example of why this present government, which is obsessed by centralised control based on statistical input, is doomed to failure. As soon as any organisation is asked to provide statistics to justify promotions and pay rises all that happens is that those who run such organisations use all their mental dexterity to fiddle the figures rather than doing the job they are tasked to do. The police have ample opportunity to do this because their world is far too complicated to be converted into easy-to-read statistics and as a result all manner of scams can be employed to paint a rosier picture of life on the streets than actually exists.
Recently I had cause to ring my local police to report a gang of yobs causing bother near my home. A couple of days later a civilian police representative rang me to tell me that I could now ring area officers on their mobile numbers instead of ringing the police non-emergency number. Of course this little scam isn't to make life easier for me it's simply an exercise in statistical manipulation because calls to the police's main number will be logged as incidents whereas calls direct to the officers' mobiles will not. Hence an apparent reduction in crime and a pay rise for senior officers.
Get the picture?
They also do this to draw down funding from central government - cash that is earmarked for specific projects like anti-social behaviour. When the police want this cash they will encourage the public to report anything and everything in order to make the situation look worse than it is. However, once the cash is allocated the reverse happens and scams like the one listed above are employed to show a dramatic "reduction in crime" as a result of police action financed by the extra cash. In reality the situation on the streets has not changed at all but the all powerful stats show first a rise and then a dramatic fall simply because of fiddling with data input.
The only people who do not realise what is happening in Britain are those within the Stalinist, New Labour government, who, like their Russian heroes, are obsessed with centralised control, reward/punishment for those officials who run organisation like the police and general government meddling at all levels of public services. The police are not the only ones to suffer this fate as all state run public services waste billions supplying worthless statistical data to a government which has clearly lost the plot.
The only effective way to run public services is to have power based as close to the front line as possible. Only then can organisations, like the police, effectively do the job we taxpayers asked them undertake on our behalf and the vocation most police officers are itching to get on with if only they were free from government meddling.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
More BBC Propaganda?
The BBC's propaganda machine is at it again. They claim that the recession is hitting women harder than men.
story here
So according to the TUC (feminist dominated) and the BBC (feminist controlled) poor ickle women are most hit by the recession. The article then goes on to argue with itself claiming that more households are reliant on the female wage-earner than in previous recessions. That being the case surely men are just affected as women aren't they? Presumably hubby will have to work even more hours to make up the shortfall now that his wife has been made redundant.
It always amazes me that whatever the situation organisations like the BBC and TUC always focus on how much worse it is for women. It's a never-ending tape loop of propaganda that conveniently edits out all the negative impact on men and simply exaggerates the plight of women. I doubt that neither the BBC nor TUC will be running any campaigns to highlight the plight of men who on average work 25% longer working weeks than women. Nor the fact that 95% of those killed in the workplace are men. Nor the fact that suicide is the highest killer of young men second only to car accidents. No of course they won't because they never do.
Somethings never change do they.
story here
So according to the TUC (feminist dominated) and the BBC (feminist controlled) poor ickle women are most hit by the recession. The article then goes on to argue with itself claiming that more households are reliant on the female wage-earner than in previous recessions. That being the case surely men are just affected as women aren't they? Presumably hubby will have to work even more hours to make up the shortfall now that his wife has been made redundant.
It always amazes me that whatever the situation organisations like the BBC and TUC always focus on how much worse it is for women. It's a never-ending tape loop of propaganda that conveniently edits out all the negative impact on men and simply exaggerates the plight of women. I doubt that neither the BBC nor TUC will be running any campaigns to highlight the plight of men who on average work 25% longer working weeks than women. Nor the fact that 95% of those killed in the workplace are men. Nor the fact that suicide is the highest killer of young men second only to car accidents. No of course they won't because they never do.
Somethings never change do they.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Government Spies At It Again
The Big Brother, Stalinist, British government wants copies of all e-mails kept on record.
story here
Why do they want to do this? That's right, that old favourite "the war on terror."
Of course we all know the real reason they're so keen and it's the fact that politicians and power-mongers are obsessed with prying into the private lives of the British people simply because they can. If the technology's available then let's do it is their war cry. And what war on terror? That's right that grossly exaggerated threat that exists largely in the minds of government snoopers who deliberately fluff-up the size and scale of terrorism simply to get draconian laws passed the public would otherwise never stomach.
Why don't they go a stage further and steam open all our mail and photocopy it before delivery? Perhaps they already do. In fact they admit they listen-in to all our telephone conversations and let the American do likewise. When exactly did we vote for this? Can you remember any political party having this policy in their manifesto? Me neither.
Various governments, past and present, seem to think that they can shout "security" and do anything they wish and often not even bother to tell us mere citizens what they're up to. And the definition of "national security" becomes evermore flexible as time goes by. It used to mean that the security of the nation and its citizens were at risk but now it seems that political embarrassment caused to the government falls within the remit of "national security." Anti-terrorist police recently raided the offices and home of the opposition spokesman on home affairs simply to investigate an alleged mole who had supposedly leaked embarrassing information proving that the government had lied about the scale of immigration. No-one at Scotland Yard has yet accounted for why thirty anti-terror police had nothing better to do than terrorise an MP and his family simply because the government are embarrassed that the British public has found out they've been lied to.
Of course, there are things that need to be kept out of the public gaze, but when a situation arises where those in authority think they have a blank cheque to act in any way they see fit and hide their actions from public scutiny or become unaccountable, then we have a dangerous situation. Indeed, a situation more dangerous than the threat supposedly posed by terrorists and those who would do harm to us. There are also those in government office who would take advantage of events and public fear in order to increase their own power under the guise of acting in the public good. These people can do more harm to us than anyone sat in a cave in Afghanistan.
Britain a democracy? Don't make me laugh.
story here
Why do they want to do this? That's right, that old favourite "the war on terror."
Of course we all know the real reason they're so keen and it's the fact that politicians and power-mongers are obsessed with prying into the private lives of the British people simply because they can. If the technology's available then let's do it is their war cry. And what war on terror? That's right that grossly exaggerated threat that exists largely in the minds of government snoopers who deliberately fluff-up the size and scale of terrorism simply to get draconian laws passed the public would otherwise never stomach.
Why don't they go a stage further and steam open all our mail and photocopy it before delivery? Perhaps they already do. In fact they admit they listen-in to all our telephone conversations and let the American do likewise. When exactly did we vote for this? Can you remember any political party having this policy in their manifesto? Me neither.
Various governments, past and present, seem to think that they can shout "security" and do anything they wish and often not even bother to tell us mere citizens what they're up to. And the definition of "national security" becomes evermore flexible as time goes by. It used to mean that the security of the nation and its citizens were at risk but now it seems that political embarrassment caused to the government falls within the remit of "national security." Anti-terrorist police recently raided the offices and home of the opposition spokesman on home affairs simply to investigate an alleged mole who had supposedly leaked embarrassing information proving that the government had lied about the scale of immigration. No-one at Scotland Yard has yet accounted for why thirty anti-terror police had nothing better to do than terrorise an MP and his family simply because the government are embarrassed that the British public has found out they've been lied to.
Of course, there are things that need to be kept out of the public gaze, but when a situation arises where those in authority think they have a blank cheque to act in any way they see fit and hide their actions from public scutiny or become unaccountable, then we have a dangerous situation. Indeed, a situation more dangerous than the threat supposedly posed by terrorists and those who would do harm to us. There are also those in government office who would take advantage of events and public fear in order to increase their own power under the guise of acting in the public good. These people can do more harm to us than anyone sat in a cave in Afghanistan.
Britain a democracy? Don't make me laugh.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
A New Year Test
A Happy New Year to you.
Here's an interesting little test.
Show this story to any females that you know and watch their reaction.
click here
I'll bet most of them laughed didn't they? I tried this with four females of varying ages and found that they all thought what this woman did to her husband was funny. One added that it served him right. I asked her what she meant and she immediately went off on a wild rant about the man being an adulterer. I pointed out that there was no evidence of this other than the raging of his evil wife at which point she exclaimed that all men are the same etc...etc. I then asked her if a man should be allowed to burn his adulterous wife to death if he found out she was being unfaithful? "Oh no," she cried, at which point I pointed out the lack of consistency in her thought pattern. She looked very confused.
It seems to me that a process of brainwashing has occurred and that many females think that any amount of violence or abuse is OK so long as the perpetrator is female and the victim is male. And that this violence can be for any reason, real or imagined, that the female chooses. Men should see this for what it is and that this belief affects most Western women. Females are intrinsically violent toward men for the most petty reasons whilst simultaneously howling in horror if a man uses violence against a female even in self-defence.
Makes you think.
Here's an interesting little test.
Show this story to any females that you know and watch their reaction.
click here
I'll bet most of them laughed didn't they? I tried this with four females of varying ages and found that they all thought what this woman did to her husband was funny. One added that it served him right. I asked her what she meant and she immediately went off on a wild rant about the man being an adulterer. I pointed out that there was no evidence of this other than the raging of his evil wife at which point she exclaimed that all men are the same etc...etc. I then asked her if a man should be allowed to burn his adulterous wife to death if he found out she was being unfaithful? "Oh no," she cried, at which point I pointed out the lack of consistency in her thought pattern. She looked very confused.
It seems to me that a process of brainwashing has occurred and that many females think that any amount of violence or abuse is OK so long as the perpetrator is female and the victim is male. And that this violence can be for any reason, real or imagined, that the female chooses. Men should see this for what it is and that this belief affects most Western women. Females are intrinsically violent toward men for the most petty reasons whilst simultaneously howling in horror if a man uses violence against a female even in self-defence.
Makes you think.
Monday, December 22, 2008
A Very Funny Man
Those of you who, like me, watched Peter Kay's superb send-up of those hideous pop talent shows, will undoubtedly enjoy this clip. I shall not post again until well after Christmas, so I'd just like to say good bless you all, peace and love to the world, and cherish and protect your freedom, the freedom of all the world's people and remember that we are all cast adrift together on this little, fragile planet of ours.
God bless you Earthlings for you have much to learn.
Here's Peter Kay with his priceless comedy.
God bless you Earthlings for you have much to learn.
Here's Peter Kay with his priceless comedy.
The Political Police and the Big Brother State
There's no doubt in my mind that many senior police officers have become way too ready to cosy-up to the present Stalinist British government. Many police chiefs owe their elevated jobs and rapid promotions to their close relationship with leading government power brokers, and I for one feel that this is a very worrying situation as the police's independence comes into serious question.
Here's one example in my opinion:
story here
You may ask why it is that the head of the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist branch is leading an inquiry into a whistleblower's leeks regarding the British government allegedly lying about immigration. These are not state secrets they are simply facts the government don't want the British people to know about because this would cause embarrassment to ministers who have allegedly lied to Parliament, the press and the British people. This is not a terrorist plot it is simply something the government wishes to keep quiet for no other reason than to save face politically. It seems the police chief in question is carrying on a public slanging match with members of the next government and making all kinds of conspiracy allegations, in my opinion.
Here's one example in my opinion:
story here
You may ask why it is that the head of the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist branch is leading an inquiry into a whistleblower's leeks regarding the British government allegedly lying about immigration. These are not state secrets they are simply facts the government don't want the British people to know about because this would cause embarrassment to ministers who have allegedly lied to Parliament, the press and the British people. This is not a terrorist plot it is simply something the government wishes to keep quiet for no other reason than to save face politically. It seems the police chief in question is carrying on a public slanging match with members of the next government and making all kinds of conspiracy allegations, in my opinion.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Police State, Stalin and New Labour
I watched a TV documentary on Edge TV (Sky channel 200) about the alleged cover up of the truth surrounding the 7/7 bombings in London. Luckily someone has posted the programme on You Tube so it's here for you now. This is part one but the other parts are also available from the same source. It's worth a look.
Funny isn't it that New Labour's beloved CCTV cameras never seem to capture any key events like the 7/7 bombings, Diana's car crash and the attack on the Pentagon in 2001? All of these events were apparently missed by hundreds of malfunctioning cameras or the tapes mislaid. This is what we are told and our governments wouldn't tell lies would they?
More of this at Edge Media TV
Funny isn't it that New Labour's beloved CCTV cameras never seem to capture any key events like the 7/7 bombings, Diana's car crash and the attack on the Pentagon in 2001? All of these events were apparently missed by hundreds of malfunctioning cameras or the tapes mislaid. This is what we are told and our governments wouldn't tell lies would they?
More of this at Edge Media TV
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
An End To Sweatshop Britain?
Britain may be forced to lose its EU law opt-out regarding maximum working weeks.
story here
The interesting thing to note is that in Britain long working weeks is a problem that almost exclusively affects men. One in four men work longer than 60 hours a week and this does not include the self-employed. Only one in two hundred females work such long hours and most work part-time, flexi-time or turn up when you want job-share schemes. On average men work 25% longer working weeks than women across the board.
Over course it goes without saying that the present feminist/Stalinist British government isn't bothered in the slightest that men work such cripplingly long hours. Instead they focus only on the way this affects women who as a consequence of their shorter working weeks tend to earn less than men when you calculate the equation based on weekly gross pay. If you use hourly rate the alleged pay differential disappears so the government never does this because they want to screech that women are hard done by in some way. Notice also the way the government quotes loads of statistics suggesting that the reduction in working weeks would cost the country billions of pounds. It's funny that this same government has seen fit to bring in all manner of increased maternity leave, the right for female workers to pick and chose what hours they work, and what work they will do, while it, the government, insists that these female only benefits are all free of any cost to employers or the taxpayer.
The current British government, nor for that matter any of the Western governments, do not care one iota about men and the blatant discrimination in our lives. Why should they, there are no votes in it?
story here
The interesting thing to note is that in Britain long working weeks is a problem that almost exclusively affects men. One in four men work longer than 60 hours a week and this does not include the self-employed. Only one in two hundred females work such long hours and most work part-time, flexi-time or turn up when you want job-share schemes. On average men work 25% longer working weeks than women across the board.
Over course it goes without saying that the present feminist/Stalinist British government isn't bothered in the slightest that men work such cripplingly long hours. Instead they focus only on the way this affects women who as a consequence of their shorter working weeks tend to earn less than men when you calculate the equation based on weekly gross pay. If you use hourly rate the alleged pay differential disappears so the government never does this because they want to screech that women are hard done by in some way. Notice also the way the government quotes loads of statistics suggesting that the reduction in working weeks would cost the country billions of pounds. It's funny that this same government has seen fit to bring in all manner of increased maternity leave, the right for female workers to pick and chose what hours they work, and what work they will do, while it, the government, insists that these female only benefits are all free of any cost to employers or the taxpayer.
The current British government, nor for that matter any of the Western governments, do not care one iota about men and the blatant discrimination in our lives. Why should they, there are no votes in it?
Monday, December 15, 2008
Bush In Shoe Attack
George W. Bush was narrowly missed by two shoes thrown by a disgruntled Iraqi journalist.
"Perhaps Sir would like to try a larger size?"
Impressive footwork by George W to avoid the flying footwear, however, it would have been better if they had hit. A pair of size 9s right in Bush's face would have been really funny.
"Perhaps Sir would like to try a larger size?"
Impressive footwork by George W to avoid the flying footwear, however, it would have been better if they had hit. A pair of size 9s right in Bush's face would have been really funny.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Untouchables
The inquest supposedly looking into the death of John Charles de Menezes has turned into a sick farce, in my opinion. The coroner ordered the jury to bring in either an open verdict or one of lawful killing, thus allowing the police to get away with the slaughter of a totally innocent man due to a monumental police cock-up. In essence this means that little or no action will follow and those responsible will get away Scot-free. I wonder why the coroner saw fit to act in this way and who, if anyone, ordered him to do so. Cases like this confirm to me that Britain is now a de-facto police state and this is a view shared by others:
story here
However, former London mayor, "Red" Ken Livingstone, has come out in support of the police chief who oversaw this gruesome blunder.
story here
So there you have it, left-wing government supporters now have the police in their pockets in their quest to turn Britain into a Stalinist dictatorship. Perhaps this is why The Metropolitan Police's anti terrorist Special Branch could spare thirty-five officers to raid the office and home of an opposition MP looking for evidence against the Home Office whistle blower who leaked embarrassing information on government cover-ups regarding immigration blunders? Not national security secrets you understand just stuff the government is trying to hide from the British people. Quick send for Trotsky of the Yard!
Where the hell do I live Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia?
What the hell is happening to Britain?
story here
However, former London mayor, "Red" Ken Livingstone, has come out in support of the police chief who oversaw this gruesome blunder.
story here
So there you have it, left-wing government supporters now have the police in their pockets in their quest to turn Britain into a Stalinist dictatorship. Perhaps this is why The Metropolitan Police's anti terrorist Special Branch could spare thirty-five officers to raid the office and home of an opposition MP looking for evidence against the Home Office whistle blower who leaked embarrassing information on government cover-ups regarding immigration blunders? Not national security secrets you understand just stuff the government is trying to hide from the British people. Quick send for Trotsky of the Yard!
Where the hell do I live Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia?
What the hell is happening to Britain?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
British Government In A Panic Over Benefits
The New labour government are in a right old panic over state benefits, especially those paid to single mothers.
story here
This is rich coming from a government who has done all it can to encourage women to live the single mother lifestyle. Since coming to power in 1997, New Labour has thrown handfuls of taxpayers' money at single mothers with the result that their numbers have exploded. Now that the economy is in recession and as a result government income (tax) has declined and government spending (unemployment benefit, money needed to bail-out reckless bankers) has soared, our government is in a right old flap. Well, I hate to say I told you so!
And this is what happens when you reward people for doing nothing:
story here
There's one thing you can always rely on in politics and that is that whenever a Labour government leaves office the economy will be in chaos. Looks like Gordon Brown is running true to Labour's form.
story here
This is rich coming from a government who has done all it can to encourage women to live the single mother lifestyle. Since coming to power in 1997, New Labour has thrown handfuls of taxpayers' money at single mothers with the result that their numbers have exploded. Now that the economy is in recession and as a result government income (tax) has declined and government spending (unemployment benefit, money needed to bail-out reckless bankers) has soared, our government is in a right old flap. Well, I hate to say I told you so!
And this is what happens when you reward people for doing nothing:
story here
There's one thing you can always rely on in politics and that is that whenever a Labour government leaves office the economy will be in chaos. Looks like Gordon Brown is running true to Labour's form.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
DNA Database - Victory For The Innocent
The European Court Of Human Rights has found in favour of two innocent men who asked that their DNA records should be removed from the UK government's database.
story here
This is a major victory for those who, like me, object to innocent people's DNA and fingerprints being kept on the government's database even though those people have not been convicted of any crime nor even been charged with any offence in some cases. The European court agreed in a unanimous decision.
It seems the Stalinists in the New Labour government will have to rethink their policy. It could be that the British people have finally woken up to just what an oppressive regime is currently in power in the UK. The quicker we see the back of this rabble gang of ex-commies, man-hating feminists and assorted power-mad meddlers the better.
story here
This is a major victory for those who, like me, object to innocent people's DNA and fingerprints being kept on the government's database even though those people have not been convicted of any crime nor even been charged with any offence in some cases. The European court agreed in a unanimous decision.
It seems the Stalinists in the New Labour government will have to rethink their policy. It could be that the British people have finally woken up to just what an oppressive regime is currently in power in the UK. The quicker we see the back of this rabble gang of ex-commies, man-hating feminists and assorted power-mad meddlers the better.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Britain - A Police State?
Many people like me are convinced that Britain has shifted from a free democracy to a police state under the present government. Here's another example of what I mean:
story here
The reason for this MP's arrest was given as "conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office"- what the hell does that mean? I've never heard of this charge before and it sounds to me like a euphamism for "conspiracy to cause the government embarrasment".
Whistleblowers have long been the guardians against malpractice in government and it should come as no surprise that a deceitful government, like the one we have in Britain today, should object to them. The police has no place in all this and should at all times remain free from political interference, otherwise we have a de facto police state.
Since coming to power, New Labour has massively increased interference in people's everyday lives for no other purpose than to snoop, pry and monitor British people going about their lawful business. The "thought police" are everywhere and it now seems that only a narrow band of political opinion is permissible. Anyone having an opinion too far removed from that of the government are treated as criminals. For instance, anyone who objects to homosexuality on religious grounds may well find themselves in court if they commit their opinion to paper or a website. The government has introduced 3000 new offences since 1997 most of which deal with what it is permitted to say, do or even think.
The road we are travelling is a dangerous one from which there is no return. The introduction of an ID card complete with DNA, fingerprints and tracking device is only a heartbeat away. In case you think this is science-fiction you may like to know that this tracking technology already exists using proximity readers which could easily track micro-chipped ID cards around public buildings. And remember that these can be mounted anywhere owned by any public body including town halls, bus stations, train stations, government offices et al. In essence anywhere in a built-up area could be monitored and ID cards tracked, all in the name of "security".
Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
story here
The reason for this MP's arrest was given as "conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office"- what the hell does that mean? I've never heard of this charge before and it sounds to me like a euphamism for "conspiracy to cause the government embarrasment".
Whistleblowers have long been the guardians against malpractice in government and it should come as no surprise that a deceitful government, like the one we have in Britain today, should object to them. The police has no place in all this and should at all times remain free from political interference, otherwise we have a de facto police state.
Since coming to power, New Labour has massively increased interference in people's everyday lives for no other purpose than to snoop, pry and monitor British people going about their lawful business. The "thought police" are everywhere and it now seems that only a narrow band of political opinion is permissible. Anyone having an opinion too far removed from that of the government are treated as criminals. For instance, anyone who objects to homosexuality on religious grounds may well find themselves in court if they commit their opinion to paper or a website. The government has introduced 3000 new offences since 1997 most of which deal with what it is permitted to say, do or even think.
The road we are travelling is a dangerous one from which there is no return. The introduction of an ID card complete with DNA, fingerprints and tracking device is only a heartbeat away. In case you think this is science-fiction you may like to know that this tracking technology already exists using proximity readers which could easily track micro-chipped ID cards around public buildings. And remember that these can be mounted anywhere owned by any public body including town halls, bus stations, train stations, government offices et al. In essence anywhere in a built-up area could be monitored and ID cards tracked, all in the name of "security".
Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Never Send A Woman On A Man's Job
Following on from my comments a couple of days ago regarding hapless female workers and their never-ending ability to simultaneously screw things up whilst never admitting any blame, here's another example.
story here
You will notice that at no point during her post space walk analysis does astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper admit any blame on her part. Apparently bad things just happened with her as an innocent by-stander. Well dear, you lost all your gear so how can it not be your fault? Notice too how her male colleague managed to complete the task without losing his entire tool bag. I wonder how Ms. Stefanyshyn-Piperthey was chosen to be an astronaut. Was it one of those quota decisions where candidates are selected due to their not having a penis? Got to make up those politically correct numbers haven't we? We can't have all those male test pilots/high achiever types hogging all the glory even though they are much better qualified for the job.
The "Right Stuff", I don't think so.
I'm sure NASA are less than thrilled that thanks to Ms. Stefanyshyn-Piperthey they now have to track even more space junk. I wonder how long it will be before Ms. Stefanyshyn-Piperthey's toolbag wallops the Shuttle?
"Houston we have a problem."
story here
You will notice that at no point during her post space walk analysis does astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper admit any blame on her part. Apparently bad things just happened with her as an innocent by-stander. Well dear, you lost all your gear so how can it not be your fault? Notice too how her male colleague managed to complete the task without losing his entire tool bag. I wonder how Ms. Stefanyshyn-Piperthey was chosen to be an astronaut. Was it one of those quota decisions where candidates are selected due to their not having a penis? Got to make up those politically correct numbers haven't we? We can't have all those male test pilots/high achiever types hogging all the glory even though they are much better qualified for the job.
The "Right Stuff", I don't think so.
I'm sure NASA are less than thrilled that thanks to Ms. Stefanyshyn-Piperthey they now have to track even more space junk. I wonder how long it will be before Ms. Stefanyshyn-Piperthey's toolbag wallops the Shuttle?
"Houston we have a problem."
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Man Management
The British government has announced new plans to deal with child protection.
story here
This follows the social services debacle in Haringey, London and the death of "Baby P". However, these proposals will not address the real issue and that is the systematic failure of social workers to respond to overwhelming evidence that "Baby P" was suffering abuse at the hands of his mother and her assorted cronies. The reasons behind this failure rest, in my view, in the way in which the almost entirely female social services department organises its working life. Being female, they do everything by committee with no-one having any personal responsibility. This is the way females do things and it's what I call "Hobnob Management".
What's "Hobnob Management"? You ask.
I shall explain! (For those of you who don't know, Hobnob is a brand of chocolate biscuit available in Britain).
Females love talking and eating, so they love "Hobnob Management" because this activity allows them to do both at the same time. First invite all your workmates to a meeting. Lay-on loads of Hobnobs and coffee. Now sit back, scoff the biscuits, guzzle the coffee and all talk endlessly. Any decisions are now joint ones which ensures that nobody is personally accountable when things go wrong.
Men do things very differently because we use pyramid management. This pyramid consists of one boss, several lieutenants below him followed by various lower levels. Each level takes orders from the one above and reports any problems likewise. Thus, there is a clear chain of command and an obvious trail of responsibility which ultimately arrives at the boss. So, if anything goes wrong it's quickly clear who's to blame because there are no committees, no joint decisions, no communal shirking of responsibility.
The question is clear. If Haringey social services had been run by men would "Baby P" still been alive?
The answer is almost certainly yes!
story here
This follows the social services debacle in Haringey, London and the death of "Baby P". However, these proposals will not address the real issue and that is the systematic failure of social workers to respond to overwhelming evidence that "Baby P" was suffering abuse at the hands of his mother and her assorted cronies. The reasons behind this failure rest, in my view, in the way in which the almost entirely female social services department organises its working life. Being female, they do everything by committee with no-one having any personal responsibility. This is the way females do things and it's what I call "Hobnob Management".
What's "Hobnob Management"? You ask.
I shall explain! (For those of you who don't know, Hobnob is a brand of chocolate biscuit available in Britain).
Females love talking and eating, so they love "Hobnob Management" because this activity allows them to do both at the same time. First invite all your workmates to a meeting. Lay-on loads of Hobnobs and coffee. Now sit back, scoff the biscuits, guzzle the coffee and all talk endlessly. Any decisions are now joint ones which ensures that nobody is personally accountable when things go wrong.
Men do things very differently because we use pyramid management. This pyramid consists of one boss, several lieutenants below him followed by various lower levels. Each level takes orders from the one above and reports any problems likewise. Thus, there is a clear chain of command and an obvious trail of responsibility which ultimately arrives at the boss. So, if anything goes wrong it's quickly clear who's to blame because there are no committees, no joint decisions, no communal shirking of responsibility.
The question is clear. If Haringey social services had been run by men would "Baby P" still been alive?
The answer is almost certainly yes!
Friday, November 07, 2008
Is This The Best You Have?
Firstly, congratulations to all you Americans for voting for a president who at least seems to have a brain. The euphoria surrounding Mr. Obama's election victory is palpable and may be due to the joy of electing the first black American president or simply relief felt at seeing the back of George W. Bush.
The alternative candidate, Mr. McCain, I'm sure is a an honest and decent man, although, in my opinion, too old for the office of president. Had Mr. McCain won, many feared that he might die in office given his age and his medical history. That would have led to the frightening prospect of power shifting to his vice-president Sarah Palin.
story here
The thought of this woman having control of the most powerful nation of Earth frankly makes me shudder. Her performances during the election campaign wavered from frightening to laughable, and she often appeared completely out of her depth except when her offerings were carefully scripted by others. When left to speak for herself she showed a complete lack of any understanding of world politics and her statements were either nonsensical waffle or trite showboating. Her limited appeal seems focused toward bigoted rednecks and female voters. During the campaign many feminist pundits trumpeted her appointment as John McCain's running mate as some kind of victory for women, I disagree. The fact that this inept woman was wheeled out as the best female on offer has put back the idea that a woman should one day reside in the Whitehouse as president and I ask again - is this the best you have?
I should like to offer my best wishes to Mr. Obama and the American people. The last few years have been difficult and many problems await your new president's attention. Firstly, get your brave boys out of Iraq and Afghanistan and address the Palestinian problem with new vigour. Peace is achieved by wisdom and wisdom comes from the knowledge that self-interest never leads to a dignified world presence nor the respect and understanding of others. Our world needs cool heads and the recognition that the rights that we demand for ourselves should also be demanded for all the world's people. Injustice breeds hatred and hatred breeds war and violence.
Just one final thought - why is it that a person who has a white mother and black father is always referred to as black? Surely Mr. Obama is as much white as he is black isn't he? Perhaps one day we humans will not feel it necessary to care whether a candidate is black, white or whatever. Perhaps one day the candidate's genetic history will matter no more than his or her star sign or shoe size. Perhaps one day.
Goodnight Earthlings - you have much to learn.
The alternative candidate, Mr. McCain, I'm sure is a an honest and decent man, although, in my opinion, too old for the office of president. Had Mr. McCain won, many feared that he might die in office given his age and his medical history. That would have led to the frightening prospect of power shifting to his vice-president Sarah Palin.
story here
The thought of this woman having control of the most powerful nation of Earth frankly makes me shudder. Her performances during the election campaign wavered from frightening to laughable, and she often appeared completely out of her depth except when her offerings were carefully scripted by others. When left to speak for herself she showed a complete lack of any understanding of world politics and her statements were either nonsensical waffle or trite showboating. Her limited appeal seems focused toward bigoted rednecks and female voters. During the campaign many feminist pundits trumpeted her appointment as John McCain's running mate as some kind of victory for women, I disagree. The fact that this inept woman was wheeled out as the best female on offer has put back the idea that a woman should one day reside in the Whitehouse as president and I ask again - is this the best you have?
I should like to offer my best wishes to Mr. Obama and the American people. The last few years have been difficult and many problems await your new president's attention. Firstly, get your brave boys out of Iraq and Afghanistan and address the Palestinian problem with new vigour. Peace is achieved by wisdom and wisdom comes from the knowledge that self-interest never leads to a dignified world presence nor the respect and understanding of others. Our world needs cool heads and the recognition that the rights that we demand for ourselves should also be demanded for all the world's people. Injustice breeds hatred and hatred breeds war and violence.
Just one final thought - why is it that a person who has a white mother and black father is always referred to as black? Surely Mr. Obama is as much white as he is black isn't he? Perhaps one day we humans will not feel it necessary to care whether a candidate is black, white or whatever. Perhaps one day the candidate's genetic history will matter no more than his or her star sign or shoe size. Perhaps one day.
Goodnight Earthlings - you have much to learn.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Aloha Hawaii
Many thanks to The Hawaiian Libertarian for his comments to my last post regarding marriage. Read his excellent blog here.
Many thanks mate.
Many thanks mate.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Get Married - You Must Be Joking
I'm often asked by women why I've never remarried following my divorce fifteen years ago? Females seem to think that I'm acting in a way that's almost illegal simply because I date women (usually much younger women) but never settle down. Regular readers will know all about my views on marriage, which are largely based on my own experience, and that of other men I know, all of whom have been royally shafted by the divorce courts at the hands of the adulterous sluts whom they were foolish enough to once trust. Add to this the misery of marriage itself and you'll soon see why I now fly solo.
For men, marriage is punctuated by accusing questions from your wife to which there is no correct answer. Any and all responses will be twisted into an argument and viewed as some kind of imaginary sleight by you against her.
Example: She'll ask "Is my sister attractive?" If you answer "Yes," your wife will accuse you of having an affair with her sister or at the very least wanting to do so. On the other hand if you reply "No" your wife will tell you that she looks like her sister and therefore you are calling her ugly.
You just can't win can you? Even if you avoid a reply altogether your wife will construe this hesitance as a sure indicator that you are in love with her sister and not her.
This is the main cause of those daily (or was it hourly) nonsensical arguments that any woman can conjure up out of thin air. A chance remark can spark weeks of nagging about something that only exists inside your wife's own head. An innocent conversation with a friend will be construed into a rampant affair, while her outrageous flirting with other men is OK.
The other option is to stay single and play the field. A woman is only any use when the relationship is new. That's because she's trying to snare you and as such she controls her behaviour. Once she gets comfortable her real personality will appear like a genie from a bottle. At that point any sensible man says "See yer" and heads for the Emergency Exit. Indeed, great fun can be had by doing precisely that. For instance; if you've reached the tipping point where missy is about to become your ex-girlfriend, take her out to some remote pub and wait for her to start complaining. At this point pretend to go to the toilet but instead go home leaving her with an expensive taxi fare home. Why not? The funny thing is that when you do this she'll beg and plead with you to take her back. Don't believe me? Then try it.
For men, marriage is punctuated by accusing questions from your wife to which there is no correct answer. Any and all responses will be twisted into an argument and viewed as some kind of imaginary sleight by you against her.
Example: She'll ask "Is my sister attractive?" If you answer "Yes," your wife will accuse you of having an affair with her sister or at the very least wanting to do so. On the other hand if you reply "No" your wife will tell you that she looks like her sister and therefore you are calling her ugly.
You just can't win can you? Even if you avoid a reply altogether your wife will construe this hesitance as a sure indicator that you are in love with her sister and not her.
This is the main cause of those daily (or was it hourly) nonsensical arguments that any woman can conjure up out of thin air. A chance remark can spark weeks of nagging about something that only exists inside your wife's own head. An innocent conversation with a friend will be construed into a rampant affair, while her outrageous flirting with other men is OK.
The other option is to stay single and play the field. A woman is only any use when the relationship is new. That's because she's trying to snare you and as such she controls her behaviour. Once she gets comfortable her real personality will appear like a genie from a bottle. At that point any sensible man says "See yer" and heads for the Emergency Exit. Indeed, great fun can be had by doing precisely that. For instance; if you've reached the tipping point where missy is about to become your ex-girlfriend, take her out to some remote pub and wait for her to start complaining. At this point pretend to go to the toilet but instead go home leaving her with an expensive taxi fare home. Why not? The funny thing is that when you do this she'll beg and plead with you to take her back. Don't believe me? Then try it.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Banks Say "Don't Blame Us!"
The credit crunch crisis rolls on and a popular theme has developed. Bank executives all claim that the current drama is nothing to do with them and entirely due to world events. They also claim that no-one could have foreseen the impending danger. Well, my friends, this is total crap because I've been advocating for the last three years that just such a financial crisis was an inevitable consequence of the banks' behaviour. Unfortunately, the banks were trapped by their own greed and continued to lend money to those who could not afford it, simply because they were making such huge profits by doing so. The banks were in a situation similar to holding a wolf by its ears - you don't want to do it, but you dare not let go!
For the last ten years, bank executives have paid themselves massive salaries and bonuses on the back of these huge profits, but now it's all gone wrong these same people claim it's not their fault. Indeed, one bank executive claimed the other night on TV that the current crisis came about completely out of the blue. In that case perhaps the banks should be paying me £ 4,000,000 a year as a consultant, although my predictions have been available for the last three years free of charge on this very blog!
As usual, the bank fat cats will escape with their fortunes intact, and it will be ordinary people and the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for their incompetence. And, while we're at it.....what about the governments who allowed this to happen by permitting the financial institutions to "self regulate", a euphemism for letting them do as they please?
For the last ten years, bank executives have paid themselves massive salaries and bonuses on the back of these huge profits, but now it's all gone wrong these same people claim it's not their fault. Indeed, one bank executive claimed the other night on TV that the current crisis came about completely out of the blue. In that case perhaps the banks should be paying me £ 4,000,000 a year as a consultant, although my predictions have been available for the last three years free of charge on this very blog!
As usual, the bank fat cats will escape with their fortunes intact, and it will be ordinary people and the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for their incompetence. And, while we're at it.....what about the governments who allowed this to happen by permitting the financial institutions to "self regulate", a euphemism for letting them do as they please?
