One of many excellent links......
It's the first of 10 short clips. Well animated and voiced by Clive Anderson
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Saturday, 26 November 2011
Hum ?
So, I was listening to the radio while working (driving) the other day. They were focusing on the priministers' speech and comments about the forth coming public sector strike action, which is due next wednesday.
It happens that they were mainly spot lighting possible consequences of the participation of members of the Immigration and Borders agency staff at the various major airports.
Now Mr Cameron, the current (conservative) priminster was on about how few, percentage-wise, members of the various unions had actually voted for strike action, to try and prevent serious effects on the public service unions pensions etc, how the current government proposals would mean that they end up contributing a higher amount of their wages, end up working for longer, with a lower amount of pension at the end of their service.
Cameron was complaining. No surprise there. Except, a couple of months ago, we had a referendum, about whether it was time to change the current method of how elections are decided. The "Yes" campaign wanted to change to the "alternative vote" method, whereas the "No" campaign (of which, Cameron was part) wanted to leave it as it is i.e. "first past the post", like a horse race.
Now there's a problem with this. First, one of the No campaign points was that it's too complicated for us "mere mortals" to understand. But if that's the case, how is it that an ordinary bloke like me, understands that that is how the leaders of the various political parties are elected, yet I'm too thick to understand.
Second, if he doesn't like it (the "alternative vote for national elections"), then why is he complaining about the unions and industrial action being decided by "first past the post" results ?
Like anything Mr Cameron, you "can't have your cake, and eat it". It's one or the other. Either put up with the result by the current method, or let us change it to something that is fairer and more representative.
After all, I doubt whether we'll get "proportional representation" in my time, even though this is, by far, the fairest method to decide who represents us. But all the time that those in power, insist that we don't vote for a party, we vote for an individual name, then it's unlikely to happen.
Myself ? I consider myself "old Labour". Not because I necessarily agree with all the policies, but because they always seem to offer the fairest deal to the greatest number of people (usually the working classes). Yet I dislike the attachment of the "vocal, woolly headed, educated liberal do-gooder" types, that have got on the band wagon, probably for similar reasons. After all, it's at suggestions of theirs, that have removed so much power/authority from the Police, courts, the family, etc. Which has resulted in a large number of feckless teenagers, who have little or no respect for society. Yes, the parents have some blame in this as well.
Yet "they" won't criticise parents, as it would lose them voters - and given that the current government is a coalition (with the indecisive, power hungry, hedge sitting LibDems), that might change things to them being open to a "no confidence" vote that could remove the tories from power, so they won't do that will they.
Plus, if the kids know that the authorities have little power to "draw a line" that shouldn't be crossed then there's little reason for them to change and "toe the line". They can just continue to be a pain in the arse, as would currently appear to be the case.
But I digress.........
So Mr Cameron, you either have to put up with the self inflicted "first past the post" and work out how to deal with industrial action, or you have to allow us to have a more representative voting system, where you might not get quite as many seats in parliament at the moment, and yes, it would also give a small voice to the more "lunatic fringe" parties, but it would be fairer.
After all, we like to think that Britain is all about "fair play" don't we......
Unless it doesn't do what the politicians want, of course.......
It happens that they were mainly spot lighting possible consequences of the participation of members of the Immigration and Borders agency staff at the various major airports.
Now Mr Cameron, the current (conservative) priminster was on about how few, percentage-wise, members of the various unions had actually voted for strike action, to try and prevent serious effects on the public service unions pensions etc, how the current government proposals would mean that they end up contributing a higher amount of their wages, end up working for longer, with a lower amount of pension at the end of their service.
Cameron was complaining. No surprise there. Except, a couple of months ago, we had a referendum, about whether it was time to change the current method of how elections are decided. The "Yes" campaign wanted to change to the "alternative vote" method, whereas the "No" campaign (of which, Cameron was part) wanted to leave it as it is i.e. "first past the post", like a horse race.
Now there's a problem with this. First, one of the No campaign points was that it's too complicated for us "mere mortals" to understand. But if that's the case, how is it that an ordinary bloke like me, understands that that is how the leaders of the various political parties are elected, yet I'm too thick to understand.
Second, if he doesn't like it (the "alternative vote for national elections"), then why is he complaining about the unions and industrial action being decided by "first past the post" results ?
Like anything Mr Cameron, you "can't have your cake, and eat it". It's one or the other. Either put up with the result by the current method, or let us change it to something that is fairer and more representative.
After all, I doubt whether we'll get "proportional representation" in my time, even though this is, by far, the fairest method to decide who represents us. But all the time that those in power, insist that we don't vote for a party, we vote for an individual name, then it's unlikely to happen.
Myself ? I consider myself "old Labour". Not because I necessarily agree with all the policies, but because they always seem to offer the fairest deal to the greatest number of people (usually the working classes). Yet I dislike the attachment of the "vocal, woolly headed, educated liberal do-gooder" types, that have got on the band wagon, probably for similar reasons. After all, it's at suggestions of theirs, that have removed so much power/authority from the Police, courts, the family, etc. Which has resulted in a large number of feckless teenagers, who have little or no respect for society. Yes, the parents have some blame in this as well.
Yet "they" won't criticise parents, as it would lose them voters - and given that the current government is a coalition (with the indecisive, power hungry, hedge sitting LibDems), that might change things to them being open to a "no confidence" vote that could remove the tories from power, so they won't do that will they.
Plus, if the kids know that the authorities have little power to "draw a line" that shouldn't be crossed then there's little reason for them to change and "toe the line". They can just continue to be a pain in the arse, as would currently appear to be the case.
But I digress.........
So Mr Cameron, you either have to put up with the self inflicted "first past the post" and work out how to deal with industrial action, or you have to allow us to have a more representative voting system, where you might not get quite as many seats in parliament at the moment, and yes, it would also give a small voice to the more "lunatic fringe" parties, but it would be fairer.
After all, we like to think that Britain is all about "fair play" don't we......
Unless it doesn't do what the politicians want, of course.......
Thursday, 17 November 2011
It's "children in need" again tomorrow.....
So, tomorrow, the BBC will be doing it's utmost to dig into our pockets in the name of charity.
With other concurrent events, like "Evans" auction for thing that money can't buy (Wogan used to do that, but since he left the brekkie show, Evans has taken over).
Now none of us really mind donating to charity. There are at least some, properly worthy causes out there, both home and abroad.
Me ? I'll just keep donating to my own favourite charity i.e. the me appreciation society.......
With other concurrent events, like "Evans" auction for thing that money can't buy (Wogan used to do that, but since he left the brekkie show, Evans has taken over).
Now none of us really mind donating to charity. There are at least some, properly worthy causes out there, both home and abroad.
Me ? I'll just keep donating to my own favourite charity i.e. the me appreciation society.......
More "ordinary" cynicism !
So the "poison dwarf" (George Osbourne MP, current chancellor of the exchequer) has sold off the nationalised "Northern Rock" to Virgin, albeit at a loss.
It's claimed that the loss is the best possible "value" to the tax paying public.
Couldn't possibly be more Tory shite could it ? Lets face it, a previous Tory government, led by the wicked witch (fucking Thatcher, the hectoring bitch), sold off pretty much all of the other "family silver" to buy votes with tax reduction didn't she/they.
No one on earth will convince me, that the current state of our "public utilites", wasn't already predicted by some smart arsed, right wing, "think tank". I honestly believe that despite all the bollocks that was spoken at the time "it will create competition, etc etc", they knew that in the relatively short space of time, that it would be their mates who'd own the shares, so that the only people who'd benefit would be the corporate element (senior management) and the shareholders.
I mean, it couldn't possibly be that they're all run in a cartel/mafia type way colluding to fix prices as much as they dare to rip the public off. They wouldn't dare, would they ?
Now the little fucker is trying a similar thing again, except he's got less "family silver" too sell hasn't he. So he'll sell off what he can, telling us that it's in our own benefit, not giving a monkies fuck about the working majority. He doesn't have to does he. Like most of the bastards in the highest levels of government, he's minted so it doesn't matter to him does it, as long as he can spin it to "our benefit"
Fuck off, lying twat! It's just yet another way of getting "national" money into your "PLU mates" pockets, all for our own benefit.
It's claimed that the loss is the best possible "value" to the tax paying public.
Couldn't possibly be more Tory shite could it ? Lets face it, a previous Tory government, led by the wicked witch (fucking Thatcher, the hectoring bitch), sold off pretty much all of the other "family silver" to buy votes with tax reduction didn't she/they.
No one on earth will convince me, that the current state of our "public utilites", wasn't already predicted by some smart arsed, right wing, "think tank". I honestly believe that despite all the bollocks that was spoken at the time "it will create competition, etc etc", they knew that in the relatively short space of time, that it would be their mates who'd own the shares, so that the only people who'd benefit would be the corporate element (senior management) and the shareholders.
I mean, it couldn't possibly be that they're all run in a cartel/mafia type way colluding to fix prices as much as they dare to rip the public off. They wouldn't dare, would they ?
Now the little fucker is trying a similar thing again, except he's got less "family silver" too sell hasn't he. So he'll sell off what he can, telling us that it's in our own benefit, not giving a monkies fuck about the working majority. He doesn't have to does he. Like most of the bastards in the highest levels of government, he's minted so it doesn't matter to him does it, as long as he can spin it to "our benefit"
Fuck off, lying twat! It's just yet another way of getting "national" money into your "PLU mates" pockets, all for our own benefit.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
TV and Film Discrimination ?
I've come to the conclusion that the TV and Film industry management are discriminatory.
Well, if you watch any amount of TV or Fims/Movies, they go to great pains to make the actors and other who spend their time in front of camera look different.
Now I'm not thinking of making black or asian people look white or even hiding poor complexions with makeup and the like. No I'm alluding to the fact that the casting people seem to always go for the "vertically challenged" i.e. short arses.
Not always of course, but it does seem that unless its completely necessary, they stay away from "normal" or god forbid, tall people!
I mean, surely not all tall actors aren't wooden, like Arnie or Dolph ? Ok, so Clint is a little type cast as he does mean and moody so well, plus with some parts "they" can't just cast one of the taller black actors as in a lot of parts, that wouldn't be believeable.
So it just seems that these industry is run by the short arsed mafia!
They keep all the good jobs to the shorties keeping the lofties in a sort of lanky box, only getting them out when they absolutely have to...
Well, if you watch any amount of TV or Fims/Movies, they go to great pains to make the actors and other who spend their time in front of camera look different.
Now I'm not thinking of making black or asian people look white or even hiding poor complexions with makeup and the like. No I'm alluding to the fact that the casting people seem to always go for the "vertically challenged" i.e. short arses.
Not always of course, but it does seem that unless its completely necessary, they stay away from "normal" or god forbid, tall people!
I mean, surely not all tall actors aren't wooden, like Arnie or Dolph ? Ok, so Clint is a little type cast as he does mean and moody so well, plus with some parts "they" can't just cast one of the taller black actors as in a lot of parts, that wouldn't be believeable.
So it just seems that these industry is run by the short arsed mafia!
They keep all the good jobs to the shorties keeping the lofties in a sort of lanky box, only getting them out when they absolutely have to...
Saturday, 12 November 2011
Rememberance - it's that time of year again......
Anyone who know's me, will be aware that I served with the Royal Navy, from September 87 to October 96.
I'm also a "card carrying" member of the Royal British Legion.
So it's no big surprise, that when the Rememberance weekend comes around every november, I can be a little maudlin. I usually look through the list of names at this website. Well not all of them, but from the date I "joined up" to the present day.
I do this, so I can try and properly remember the people who I worked with in one way or another during my time with the RN, who for whatever reason, died during their own service with the RN.
I'm gonna just list them, as I might otherwise, start to forget them, which would be disrespectful of their memory to my way of thinking.
They all died in different ways, mostly not in any kind of combat environment, but other, more "ordinary" ways i.e. car accidents, natural causes, etc etc. So here they are :-
Matthew (Stan) Baldwin - 11/11/91
Dean Marriott - 8/4/92
Michael (Mack) McKenna - 7/6/93
Preston W (Smudge) Smith - 9/10/95
Mark (Beasty) Beeston - 2/4/97
Stephen Atkins - 5/9/97
Carl Meagher - 10/12/98
Carolyn Crumplin - 24/11/02
Those are the people I spotted in the listing, there might be more. Hopefully, if there are, I'll spot them when I look through the list next year at about this time.
If nothing else, I remember them as all being nice, pleasant, good people. So as long as I'm around, you won't have been forgotten.......
I'm also a "card carrying" member of the Royal British Legion.
So it's no big surprise, that when the Rememberance weekend comes around every november, I can be a little maudlin. I usually look through the list of names at this website. Well not all of them, but from the date I "joined up" to the present day.
I do this, so I can try and properly remember the people who I worked with in one way or another during my time with the RN, who for whatever reason, died during their own service with the RN.
I'm gonna just list them, as I might otherwise, start to forget them, which would be disrespectful of their memory to my way of thinking.
They all died in different ways, mostly not in any kind of combat environment, but other, more "ordinary" ways i.e. car accidents, natural causes, etc etc. So here they are :-
Matthew (Stan) Baldwin - 11/11/91
Dean Marriott - 8/4/92
Michael (Mack) McKenna - 7/6/93
Preston W (Smudge) Smith - 9/10/95
Mark (Beasty) Beeston - 2/4/97
Stephen Atkins - 5/9/97
Carl Meagher - 10/12/98
Carolyn Crumplin - 24/11/02
Those are the people I spotted in the listing, there might be more. Hopefully, if there are, I'll spot them when I look through the list next year at about this time.
If nothing else, I remember them as all being nice, pleasant, good people. So as long as I'm around, you won't have been forgotten.......
Taxation changes to help the economy ?
Apparently, a group of "City Financial experts" is recommending that the "poison dwarf" a.k.a. George Osbourne MP, the current chancellor of the exchequer, change the current taxation rules about the top rate of 50% tax, and reduce it to the current "higher rate" of 40%, as it will help the economy.
Funny that eh! Probably pure chance, that the "City Financial experts" are most likely to be among the highest earners paying the "top rate".
So no conflict of interest there then!.........
Personally, while I don't object to people who work hard at their given profession/job etc, to being paid a bonus for success, what I do object to is the ridiculously high bonuses that are paid by the "City". I believe that government should legislate against any bonuses that are larger than the persons annual salary level.
After all, these people are some of the highest earners in the country, which enables them to live a very pleasant, comfortable lifestyle. So to limit their annual bonuses to match their annual salary, isn't exactly a "kick in the bollocks". It's a very nice, sizeable "thanks for your efforts/hard work this year".
It would give a larger slice of the financial cake to share holders, who, after all, are the ones that provide the finance for the dealers/brokers/experts to play at "casino" in the financial markets in the first place......
Ah well, nothing like that is likely to happen until any type of business/corporate "lobbying" is criminalised. Likewise, any "legal person" status is removed from business as well.
All about as likely as building airports for squadrons of flying pigs..........
Funny that eh! Probably pure chance, that the "City Financial experts" are most likely to be among the highest earners paying the "top rate".
So no conflict of interest there then!.........
Personally, while I don't object to people who work hard at their given profession/job etc, to being paid a bonus for success, what I do object to is the ridiculously high bonuses that are paid by the "City". I believe that government should legislate against any bonuses that are larger than the persons annual salary level.
After all, these people are some of the highest earners in the country, which enables them to live a very pleasant, comfortable lifestyle. So to limit their annual bonuses to match their annual salary, isn't exactly a "kick in the bollocks". It's a very nice, sizeable "thanks for your efforts/hard work this year".
It would give a larger slice of the financial cake to share holders, who, after all, are the ones that provide the finance for the dealers/brokers/experts to play at "casino" in the financial markets in the first place......
Ah well, nothing like that is likely to happen until any type of business/corporate "lobbying" is criminalised. Likewise, any "legal person" status is removed from business as well.
All about as likely as building airports for squadrons of flying pigs..........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)