This is why we hate you all..

Ed Miliband, whose party is widely acknowledged to retain an unfair advantage in terms of Scottish MPs’ votes on English matters, refuses to countenance righting this wrong, on the basis that the Conservatives’ desire to do so is a matter of ‘narrow party advantage’.

And that, Ed, is why I would like to see you, and every single one of your political compatriots, tied to a lamppost in Parliament square and bum-raped by a rabid rhinoceros.

AJ

Police…

Sussex Police: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-29282731

Greater Manchester Police: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-officer-arrested-work-over-7790069 

South Yorkshire Police: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/28/rotherham-abuse-scandal-south-yorkshire-police-tough-questions

Cambridgeshire Police are just 2 of the 100 police in this FBI list: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-139434/More-100-police-suspicion-paedophilia-crackdown.html

Wiltshire Police (23/09/2014): http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/11474771.Top_cop_probed_in_alleged_cover_up/?ref=twtrec 

Merseyside Police (23/09/2014): http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/merseyside-police-officer-charged-sexual-7762271 

I’m sure there are other examples from all around the UK of police either covering for child abusers, or being actual child abusers. As they turn up, I’ll update this post.

If you trust them, if you want them to have more powers – or even keep the powers they have – you’re probably protecting those who enable children’s lives to be ruined in the most heinous way possible.

Think on.

AJ

Scottish independence… vote nyeai

Are you sick to death of the ‘debate’ over Scottish independence? Me too.

The arguments for and against Scottish independence have been exercised to death over recent months, and the culmination of all this will be done and dusted this time next week.

I wrapped the word ‘debate’ is quotes above because it’s not really been a debate, has it? It’s been like watching a wise but oh so dowdy father trying to reason with a fat, spoiled, recalcitrant child – a child of an age prior to self-awareness and an understanding of the concept of consequences – to whom everything is not fair.

Well, if I may put words in the mouth of the dowdy father, “you’re damned right it’s not fair, Jimmy. I work like a Trojan to keep you in sweeties. I arrange my affairs to accommodate you and I allow you a say in decisions about my life.  Time after time, I put you first,  but what thanks do I get for it?”

So when Jimmy says, “I’m leaving home. You’re a tyrant abroad in my life”, dowdy dad – if he had a spine – would say, “fine, son. Take care, now. I’ll look back fondly on these 300 years you’ve been living out my pocket without a word of thanks. Be sure to write, now.”

There’s much I find like about Scotland. The city of Edinburgh, if not the people. The people of Glasgow, if not the city. The countryside, if not the towns. The drinks if not the food. The musicians, writers and comedians, if not the politicians, churchmen and benzo-addled dole monkeys.

There are only two reasons I’ve ever wanted Scotland to be granted what may or may not yet turn out to be its wish:

  • The West Lothian question. This is the one where – as a result of Labour’s devolution kludge – Scottish MPs can vote in Parliament about English matters, even though these very same matters are, for Scotland, devolved to Holyrood. Closely related to this is the significant likelihood of these Scottish MPs being left-wingers, who love to dip their jammy hands into other people’s pockets.
  • The Barnett formula. This is the one where English tax-payers significantly subsidise Scotland, shielding modern Scotland from the consequences of its propensity for ‘poor me’ welfarism.

In spite of any of my past bluster, I had never actually wanted to lose Scotland as part of Britain – after all, why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

There had always been the possibility of fixing the above two problems without such disruptive, costly and extreme measures as Scottish independence.

But all that changed last week, when Gordon Brown – of all fucking people – emerged from his crypt to announce that in the event of a no vote this week, Scotland would be given pretty much everything it wants in terms of devolution, irrespective of what that means for the rest of the UK.

Somehow, the syphilitic cyclops has managed to secure an agreement from panicking cowards Cameron, Clegg and Miliband that his plan would be implemented with haste by whichever of them happen to be in power now and after the 2015 general election.

So, without a by your leave, all of the main political parties have agreed to give Scotland whatever it wants and fuck the English in the eye-socket with a skean dhu.

No mention of stopping the subsidy of benefit-addicted Scots by the more industrious English (specifically those of south & east England). No mention of keeping Scottish political noses out of English parliamentary affairs.

Without any democratic say so whatsoever, the Scots will get the lot and any hope of a just settlement for the English is now down the crapper.

So for me there is now no dilemma at all.

Vote yes & away tae fuck, the lot of you.

AJ

Update: The ‘Vow’ from the LIBLABCON mob, and the potential backlash from English MPs about the pledge to keep the Barnett formula unchanged.

Update 2: Apparently, I’m not the only one unhappy about Brown + LIBLABCON’s stich up of the English… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11098825/David-Cameron-faces-Tory-bloodbath-over-unfair-cash-for-Scotland.html

Update 3: Bwahahahahaaaaa http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11100400/My-funding-formula-for-Scotland-is-a-terrible-mistake-Lord-Barnett-admits.html

Best of breeders

I know. I know. I know that the Daily Telegraph comment pages are just a masterclass in trolling.

I try to resist, but with this, they’ve gone too far.

Janet Daley came up with a whole premise that makes me want to eviscerate my fellow man.

image

Apparently, Cameron is out to win over the votes of ‘hard-working families’. Whatever his futile ruse is, it’s not adequate for Janet Daley.

She is unequivocal about her answer to the challenge:

he does not address the most prevalent form of anxiety and distress that bedevils a majority of families (and not just those who are "troubled" in the sociological sense): the strain caused by worries about money. Given that this is a problem which could be directly remediable by government – in the form of tax relief for people raising children – it seems distinctly odd that he should fail to mention it.

Tax relief for people raising children. That’s right.

She thinks that people who make the choice to have children should have to pay less tax than people who do not have children.

That’s right. The people who consume school places, place extra burden on medical services, produce extra waste for landfill (disposable nappy mountains anyone?), and demand clean, safe public parks for their children to play in, want to pay less tax than those people who don’t use schools, make scant use of the NHS, produce far less waste (refuse, water, sewage) and have no need of childrens’ playgrounds.

All of these things that children consume cost money. The state provides those funds out of various pots of tax revenue.

Even if those who procreate pay the same in tax as those who don’t, those with children are being subsidised. They pay no extra taxes at any level to fund the services that they require and the child-free do not require. If one adds a tax break for the fecund, those who can’t or won’t breed are being baldly penalised for their  circumstances or choices.

Bringing up children is hard, they say. It’s expensive and tiring.

I know all of this – that’s why I don’t have any children. I made the choice on the basis raising kids places burdens that I have no appetite for.

I’ll have to live with the consequences of my decisions when I’m old and there’s no-one to look after me, they say.

As if.

As if having kids is a guarantee of support in your dotage (it’s not even a guarantee they won’t push you down the stairs so they can have your house).

As if these parents who demand tax breaks are even bearing the consequences of their decisions now, let alone in 40 years time.

Despite not wanting children, it doesn’t mean I’m uncaring or unwilling to accept any undertakings. I have 3 cats and a horse.

The cats cost nearly £2000 a year to feed, plus vet’s bills etc, making nearly £2500 a year.

Keeping a horse is even more expensive. If I want to do everything myself, then I can expect to spend upwards of £5000 a year. If I require any assistance, i can expect that cost to double.

It’s hard. I wanna hand-out. Wah Wah Wah.

No. I don’t. I made considered decisions and now I’m prepared to live with them. Which is as it should be.

In economics, there’s the concept of externalisation. The industrial polluter who saves money on clean technology and emits fumes that are other people’s problem and not the industrialist’s is externalising the cost of his activities. You may of heard the exhortation to “Make the Polluter Pay”.

This means that the externalities must be eliminated and those responsible for producing things that pollute or consume common resources must bear the cost of their activities.

I see no reason why the exact same principle should not apply to having children.

In short, if you want to pollute the world with your offspring, you have to pay for the consequences, and not expect those of us who have made more prudent choices to pick up the tab.

AJ

Update:  This just in from the Daily Mash.

image

When the system works properly…

This is an amusing example of when agents of the state completely bugger something up, yet it unintentionally has a desirable outcome.

image

Thousands of pupils in the UK are being given scant or wrong advice about the best A-level subjects to study to gain a degree place, a survey has found.

The study by the Student Room online forum suggests many students have poor guidance on what to take at A level.

Of more than 6,000 students in the study, hundreds said they found they had taken the wrong subjects to access a chosen university course or career.

Almost a third (32%) of those who took part in the study rated their school’s careers advice as "weak".

About a quarter (23%) said they did not have enough information to make informed choices about their future careers or the subjects they should study to achieve their ambitions

Well this sounds bad. And yet so so typical. But here comes the good news:

"My school didn’t tell me that maths was a requirement for the majority of chemistry and natural sciences courses, which means I am now very limited," one student commented.

Maths is required for a Chemistry degree? Orly? Ho ho ho.

Yet another lost out on a place to study medicine at one university after being wrongly told A-level biology was not needed for this particular course.

LOL. May I be so bold as to suggest that if you didn’t realise you’d need a Biology A Level to do a medicine degree, you are too stupid to pursue a career in medicine?

One student said: "You’re told to pick subjects which you enjoy and are good at. So I took a total mismatch of subjects with no real end goal and nobody said to me that I might struggle to find a university course because of my mixed set of A-levels."

When I was growing up, I’d realised by the age of about 13 that with some distinguished exceptions, most teachers were clueless about pretty much everything. in some cases, even the topic they were supposed to be teaching. The careers advisors made the teachers look good!

This is why I made damned sure I had other sources of information about these things. And all this was possible before the Internet was ever heard of. I know!

What’s most worrying is that in this information age, kids can get to the age where they’re choosing their A-Levels and not only are they being still spoon-fed by teachers, but they seem to think that teachers & careers advisors can be relied upon to provide  such competent and comprehensive advice that there’s no need to go online and read about the university courses your hoping to access with your A-Level choices. I mean, isn’t it obvious that someone who did an arts degree then went straight into teaching or “careers advice” knows nothing about what a chemistry degree may entail? They may not know what working in the private sector entails either, for that matter.

Perhaps the teaching of critical thinking isn’t as good as it ought to be.

The mind boggles, and yet, haphazardly, the state has saved us from at least one unlikely candidate for medical school.

AJ

No sympathy week

Most drivers of diesel-engined cars deserve no sympathy. In fact they deserve opprobrium.

More than 10 years ago, when Gordon Brown was chancellor of the exchequer, the Inland Revenue (latterly HMRC) changed the regime for company cars, fuel taxes were tinkered with, and the way the Department of Transport charged for road tax were restructured. All of this was designed to encourage people to buy diesel-engined cars and equally to penalise those who bought petrol-engined cars.

This was on the premise that diesel-engined cars emit less CO2 than equivalently powerful petrol -engined cars, and CO2 is bad which is, of course, manifest bollocks.

Back when this was implemented those of us with a clue were angered by the government choosing to tackle possible but unproven effects of CO2 emissions, while roundly ignoring the known and proven carcinogenic effects of the particulate emissions from diesel exhausts.

Let’s see what Wikipedia says about diesel particulates.

Particulates

Diesel particulate matter (DPM), sometimes also called diesel exhaust particles (DEP), is the particulate component of diesel exhaust, which includes diesel soot and aerosols such as ash particulates, metallic abrasion particles, sulfates, and silicates. When released into the atmosphere, DPM can take the form of individual particles or chain aggregates, with most in the invisible sub-micrometre range of 100 nanometers, also known as ultrafine particles (UFP) or PM0.1.

The main particulate fraction of diesel exhaust consists of fine particles. Because of their small size, inhaled particles may easily penetrate deep into the lungs. The rough surfaces of these particles makes it easy for them to bind with other toxins in the environment, thus increasing the hazards of particle inhalation.

Health effects

Exposures have been linked with acute short-term symptoms such as headache, dizziness, light-headedness, nausea, coughing, difficult or labored breathing, tightness of chest, and irritation of the eyes and nose and throat[citation needed]. Long-term exposures could lead to chronic, more serious health problems such as cardiovascular disease, cardiopulmonary disease, and lung cancer.[11][7][8] The NERC-HPA funded ‘Traffic Pollution and Health in London‘ project at King’s College London is currently seeking to refine our understanding of the health effects of traffic pollution. Ambient traffic-related air pollution was associated with decreased cognitive function in older men.[10]

Mortality from diesel soot exposure in 2001 was at least 14,400 out of the German population of 82 million, according to the official report 2352 of the Umweltbundesamt Berlin (Federal Environmental Agency of Germany).

The study of nanoparticles and nanotoxicology is still in its infancy, but the full health effects from nanoparticles produced by all types of diesel is still being uncovered. It is already clear enough, however, that the health detriments of fine particle emissions are severe and pervasive. Although one study found no significant evidence that short term exposure to diesel exhaust results in adverse extra-pulmonary effects, effects that are often correlated with an increase in cardiovascular disease,[12] a 2011 study in The Lancet concluded that traffic exposure is the single most serious preventable trigger of heart attack in the general public, the cause of 7.4% of all attacks.[9] It is impossible to tell how much of this effect is due to the stress of being in traffic and how much is due to exposure to exhaust.[citation needed]

Since the study of the detrimental health effects of nanoparticles (nanotoxicology) is still in its infancy, and the nature and extent of negative health impacts from diesel exhaust continues to be discovered.

And there it is.

There is a valid situation in which to use diesel. This is for lugging loads. If you have a 3-ton+ vehicle or tow a 2-ton+ trailer, you’re in the diesel zone. There’s no other choice until these hybrids that deliver a lump of torque using an electric motor are able to pull 3.5 tons of trailer.

If you don’t lug loads and you still bought diesel, either you thought it was greener, in which case you’re either a deluded idiot, or you thought it’d save you money, in which case you’re an antisocial twat who doesn’t care about harmful air pollution so long as he saves a few pence.

By the way, you didn’t save a few pence, did you? Diesel-engined cars are mostly more expensive than petrol, diesel fuel is more expensive than petrol, DERVs aren’t that much more economical unless you drive like a vicar, and the engines are far more complicated, meaning lots to go wrong and more complex and expensive servicing requirements. You basically need to be doing north of 25,000 miles a year for a diesel-engined car to be a genuine money saver.

At the same time you tolerate a car with lumpy power delivery, a nasty rattling Barleymow-sounding engine, smelly exhaust gases and foul smelling fuel that you REALLY don’t want on your skin or clothes, and a heavy engine that ruins the whole balance of the car.

So, I laughed heartily upon learning that there is now political acknowledgement of the damage being done to air quality by the mass uptake of diesel engines, and that the answer to this problem is to what diesel cars with additional congestion charges.

image

A chap in the Telegraph is having a whinge, mainly because – quelle surprise – he runs a diesel engined car.

The problem arose because in the battle against climate change, CO2 emissions were seen as the only benchmark. The fact that supposedly "green" diesel cars contribute to asthma, lung disease and heart disease was rather put to one side. What mattered was that they emit less CO2 and are more fuel-efficient than their petrol equivalents. They were favoured with lower road tax and cheaper insurance, and in 2012 diesel sales overtook petrol for the first time. All of which means that as part of the long-term project of cutting emissions and ameliorating climate change, we have paid an immediate cost by filling up the air with lethal diesel particles.

Despite him raising several very good points, he confesses to driving a Citroen Diesel, so I suspect he falls into both the idiot and the twat categories.

So, diesel drivers, it’s time for you to get soaked, and it’s long overdue.

Enjoy. I will.

AJ

Update: Bwahahahahahaaaaaa

image

Edmund King, the president of the AA, said: “Some drivers will feel betrayed and misled because they were encouraged to go for the dash for diesel.

Hahahahahaaaaaa. No really. Bwahahahaha. Tough titty.

“In the 1990s there was a near hysteria about carbon dioxide, and yet nobody looked at the bigger picture.

“The drivers thought they were doing the right thing, but now they are being told that it has serious health implications. They are being made to feel guilty for something that they were encouraged to do.

See, the thing is, some of us knew full well that this was the case.

In 2001, Gordon Brown, the then chancellor, overhauled vehicle excise duty so that cars that emitted a higher level of carbon dioxide faced a higher level of vehicle excise duty.

Labour introduced the new regime despite official warnings that diesel vehicles emit “10 times the fine particles and up to twice the nitrogen dioxide”.

See?

Frank Kelly, the chairman of the Department of Health’s committee on air pollution, said the public were still being misled about the benefits of diesel cars.

He said: “I have full sympathy with the public who have not been provided balanced information on this issue.

No way! No sympathy ever. The information was out there, and if people had trusted their own senses, they’d have known that diesel emissions are terribly bad for us. But no. The offer of saving a few pence and the blinkers are on.

“Drivers do not want to go to the garage one morning only to find what was previously worth a lot of money has plummeted in value overnight because politicians have suddenly moved the goalposts.”

Funny that, because that’s exactly what happened to the more powerful petrol-powered cars when Gordon Brown did his scowly Jockanese thing in 2001. The malevolent monocular porage-guzzling cunt. The arse dropped out of the market for V8s and a lot of people lost a lot of the money they had invested in their cars.

So, fuck it. Let this be a lesson to anyone who thinks the government only fucks other people – people they think deserve it – over.

They’ve fucked people like me over plenty, while pecksniff, diesel-driving cocksmokers looked on and chuckled. And now the boot is on the other foot. Fuck you all. Bwahahahahahaaaaa.

People with the oldest, dirtiest diesels will feel the financial squeeze most. They face paying more to use their cars and getting less for them when they try to sell.

Boo hoo! :-(

Once again, my day is made.

AJ

This…

A pox on feminism.

AJ

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: