December 29, 2010 Leave a comment
I want to thank CharonQC for this one.
I’m honoured and humbled.
Don’t feel left out though, help yourself to one.
Because it turns out you were wrong.
December 29, 2010 7 Comments
It’s all voluntary.
Yes. Yes, you did read that right. A government plan to increase philanthropy.
Banks are to adopt a system that allows people to make a small donation to charity whenever they withdraw cash.
The Government also wants shops to offer customers the opportunity to “round up the pound” when using a debit or credit card, with the extra money going to charity.
Pfffft. Whatever. A million reasons why that’s a crappy idea, from the outset.
Where will all those pennies go? Who is the arbiter?
No doubt favoured schemes and fake charities will do very nicely out of it: ASH will get cash to bully and denormalise smokers. The RSPCA will have more money to pursue vindictive and unjust private prosecutions against animal lovers. The NSPCC will have spondoolies to spend on stigmatising and eliminating home-schoolers.
And there are plenty more where those came from. The special interest groups and QUANGOs masquerading as charities are queuing round the block to take your money and use it to persecute the person stood next to you.
In any case, could it be that, actually, we give plenty and there’s no need at all for ..
The plans in a discussion paper published by Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, who wishes to foster a culture of charitable giving.
‘Wishes to foster a… ‘. That’s straight out of the ‘3rd sector’ bullshit bingo playbook.
Okay, sorry Francis. You’re gonna have to fuck off, I’m afraid. You’ve swallowed that big throbbing charity cock whole, mate.
And whatever he’s been reading recently, must have been a pretty well drug-induced view of the concept of altruism.
“We are arguing for new social attitudes that celebrate giving,” Mr Maude said. “Talking about what we do for good causes is often seen as vulgar. But sharing experiences can inspire others.
“Giving is too often characterised as worthy and selfless, but there’s nothing wrong with doing things for each other and repaying kindnesses.
“If we can agree as a society the values that underpin helping each other we can unlock huge potential for a stronger, bigger society.”
Have you ever heard such utter shit?
But wait. It gets better.
Under the proposals, which will lead to plans for legislation in the spring, people could also be prompted to give money when they fill in tax returns or apply for passports, driving licences and other state services. They may also be encouraged to donate over new mobile phone services.
That’s right. While the government is charging monopoly rates for mandatory pieces of paper, the proceeds of which keep millions of bureaucrats off the streets, you’ll also be leaned on to donate to a CHARITY!?
Hectored at every fucking transaction.
Think about that, next time you’re paying for your road tax, the proceeds of which go nowhere near road building and maintenance.
Mull it over as you click ‘submit’ to pay tens of thousands of pounds in tax each year, on threat of imprisonment. Money that will be siphoned off, from your pockets, into the pockets of scroungers, wasters, peasants, bureaucrats, foreign aid, the fucking QUEEN.
Consider it as you stare down the barrel of a new calendar year, in which you’ll work the first 5.5 months just to pay for the state, and before you’ve earned a penny to put food on your table.
Feeling philanthropic? Then you’re a fucking idiot.
Mr Maude said the Coalition was not trying to “compel” people to give. But he unveiled two schemes that would offer taxpayers’ money to match private donations.
Go on, read that again.
The coalition is not ‘trying to compel people to give’.
But he unveiled two schemes that would offer taxpayers’ money to match private donations.
I‘m a taxpayer. It’s MY MONEY. YOU’RE COMPELLING ME TO GIVE, you utter cunts.
But, you know… people in this country already give quite a lot to charity, I reckon.
Britons are already among the most generous donors in the world. This country is currently ranked as the eighth most charitable nation.
About 73 per cent of people donate money each year with individuals giving charities an estimated £10.6 billion a year.
So… errr. What precisely is the compelling argument for this massive project of make-work and syphoning even more money away to favoured special interest groups? What makes them think, especially with times as they are, that we have ANY MORE TO GIVE??
However, Britons are much less generous at donating their time by volunteering compared with many other countries.
Oh… right. We’re uncharitable with our time?
Yes, you fucking cunt. We don’t HAVE time. We are TIME POOR compared to those in most western countries. We work longer hours, we commute further, on a less efficient infrastructure.
And what if we do want to volunteer? That’s right. We have to be CRB checked, measured, approved, licensed and authorised. Risk assessed, health and safety trained, diversity aware, compliant and certified.
In summary, Francis Maude, if you want to give the impression that you, and the government are ‘in touch’ with the people, I have a simple suggestion that will go a long way to achieving your goal:
December 20, 2010 1 Comment
This link just in from a co-conspirator, to whom I’m grateful.
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6Â°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren’t going to know what snow is," he said.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between," he said.
Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating".
Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.
Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.
"We don’t really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".
Not any more, it seems.
Also, BBC from 2004
The data collected by experts from the university suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.
Pffft. Fuckwits, the lot of them. And if you believed them, so are you.
December 10, 2010 1 Comment
Not in the way the left so often claim to, but still, there are questions of a genuine global corporatist stitch-up that should concern us all.
That any topic should come as a surprise to me, being reasonably well read, in terms of keeping abreast of current affairs, is cause in itself for concern.
A clandestine international treaty is currently being negotiated among parties including the United States, Canada, New Zealand, the European Union, Japan, Singapore, and Morocco. It can justly be called the greatest threat of our time to the advancement of human civilization. Considering the magnitude of the other abuses of power pervading the world today, this might seem an exaggeration, but the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) contravenes every principle of civilized society, both in its content and in the nature of the proceedings leading to its creation.
It threatens to undo the accomplishments of the great Internet revolution and to thrust humankind back to a time when individuals had no public voice and no countervailing power against politically privileged mercantilist institutions. ACTA tramples on essential rights that have achieved even mainstream recognition: innocence until one is proven guilty, due process, personal privacy, and fair use of published content. Moreover, because of its designation as a trade agreement, ACTA could be imposed on the people of the United States by the president, without even a vote of Congress.
So far, so alarmist, huh?
Some excellent background information on ACTA can be found in posts by Stephan Kinsella (here and here) and Justin Ptak (here), as well as in a detailed communiqué from the American University Washington College of Law. The first official draft text of ACTA was released only as late as April 20, 2010, even though the treaty has been negotiated since 2006. A subsequent draft text was leaked on July 1, 2010. An earlier discussion draft was made available on WikiLeaks on May 22, 2008. Indeed, the extreme secrecy in which the ACTA negotiations have been shrouded should itself lead to the strongest doubts regarding the merits and desirability of its framers’ intentions.
Learn how not only will all free-content providers end up on the wrong side of the law, but how powers will be introduced enabling, and perhaps obligating at the request of a corporation or trade body, border forces to inspect the personal property of travellers for ‘contraband’ or ‘pirated’ copyright material. That means, potentially, having to account for the contents of your pen drive, you laptop, your phone and your iPod.
The EU protests that it isn’t so.
But do you think it won’t happen?
As Stolyarov reminds us:
It is immaterial whether or not the intent is to target massive commercial cross-border "pirating" operations: where the authority to engage in a certain act against ordinary individuals exists, it will be invoked somewhere, sometime, by somebody.
Yes they will. Oh yes the will. The thin end of the wedge isn’t always a fallacy or rhetorical diversion.
In any case, US border agencies already have all these powers – unsurprisingly, what with the all powerful, protectionist dinosaurs, RIAA and MPAA being US organisations. This makes it all the more likely that the US based WTO and UN will support throwing this global, totalitarian, cultural faraday cage over us all, and the EU will sign up with alacrity.
I plan to do more reading on this, but on first inspection, it seems like a nightmare waiting to be unleashed on us.
December 10, 2010 4 Comments
I see that while the police weren’t able to keep a crowd of yobbos away from the Prince of Wales, they were able to put the fear of all holy fuck into a 12 year old boy who wanted to picket his constituency MP, David ‘Heir to Blair’ Cameron, over the closure of local facilities.
Click through, and once you’ve digested the main thread of the story, steel yourself for a masterpiece of self-serving dissemblance from the Thames Valley Power Rangers.
December 2, 2010 4 Comments
While the mongs are focussed on the results of our bid for the 2018 World Cup, a couple of excellent examples of how liberal and unstatist our new coalition overlords aren’t.
First, there will be regulation of what clothes shops are allowed to sell for children.
ORLY? Presumably, these children are feral orphans, who are turned loose into the world at 7 years old. They don’t have parents to raise them, guide them or retain responsibility for them. Enter Nanny. Presumably the same Nanny that Andrew Lansley says he’s making redundant from the Department of Health.
And as if that’s not bad enough,
The document also promised to create a new group of experts to tackle “low levels of body confidence” among children and teenagers. Ministers are concerned that many young boys and girls feel they have to live up to impossibly thin airbrushed images of celebrities in magazines and advertisements.
Oh. Okay. Because the 60s, 70s & 80s didn’t have skinny models.. anorexia wasn’t invented until 1997 after all..
And anyway, maybe ‘the kids’ feel that the images they have to live up to are impossibly thin because they graze on Greggs pasties and Krusty Cremes, and play Xbox all day.
In any case, what is is that the government thinks qualifies it to have opinions on any of these things, less still to start imposing whatever ludicrous, misguided and spendthrift schemes they have in mind?
Speaking of which…
I.. errr.. oh will you all just fuck right off.