Saturday, 11 May 2013

10.5.13 FUCKED UP UK



Yes, it's very clear that the UK is completely fucked up.  A quick review of recent news, and a double-check with today's papers provides enough examples for there to be no doubt whatsoever that this country is screwed, that its people are in many cased either screwed or screwed up, and that institutions are buggered. Just scroll down through these depressing stories that underline the loss of goodness in society.  Whilst there are of course some good things to applaud, the sea of shit that's engulfing the country shows a decline that's hard not to acknowledge.

  • Amazingly it is now possible to get 'Legal Highs' from Amazon. These are of course the dangerous substances that are only legal because legislation can't keep up and make them illegal quickly enough.
  • The Police forces in the UK are inept, unreliable, unable to properly prioritise actions and guilty of turning a blind eye when it suits them.  We end up with mad extremes; a child is told by policemen to wash away hopscotch boxes chalked on a road because she's guilty of criminal damage, but a massive probe into the Police (by the Police) as to why nothing was ever done about Jimmy Savile has resulted in there being nothing to suggest anything done wrong.  Fucking amazing!
  • The Police will of course fine you for speeding, but never catch anyone who damages your car or steals from your home.  They will arrest you for tweeting someone is a cunt, but won't tackle real criminals.
  • The people of the UK were promised a referendum on EU membership, but were denied one by the government.  What a great way to highlight what fuckers those in power are.  Only with recent UKIP popularity is there half-hearted effort to suggest (via more wriggling) that we might be happy to allow some negotiation steps leading to reform instead of having any opinion.
  • The Police have spent over £150,000 on investigating 'plebgate' and of course have had to stump up millions watching Julian Assange. Then there's the enormous mess related to phone hacking, which they knew about many years ago but chose to ignore.  We pretend in the UK that there is no corruption, and are so very critical of other countries where corruption is rife.  I rather think we need to get our own house in order.  Whatever happened to zero tolerance, and doing the right things?
  • Miliband should by deed poll change his name to 'Milibland' because he is the most boring, irrelevant and ineffective waste of space one could imagine as a challenger to the government.  As for Ed Balls, I think 'Bollox' would be more appropriate, based on the content of his rhetoric.
  • The government could not deport Qatada despite pathetic efforts over many years, and it's complete embarrassment that he may well now be leaving after offering to do so.  Talk about fucked up.  The real problem is the European Convention, and the so-called 'human rights' arguments that give our fucked up twats who wear wigs and red gowns the chance to meddle and fuck over the government and UK citizens with technical arguments and excuses as to why we have to keep him here.  They are quite simply jobsworths of the highest order.  In France, by the way, undesirables are deported, and their appeals are heard afterwards, to see if they'll be allowed back in.  The last time I checked, France was also in the EU and bound by legislation.  The UK is screwed up, though.
  • Chris Huhne - some might say, on top of being a liar and a cheat, that he is self-serving and will be out of prison very shortly [is it a quarter of your sentence now, if you behave well?] to annoy, and demonstrate that there's one rule for the rich and another for everyone else.
  • The Health Service is fucked, as we all know, because we seem obliged to allow anyone from around the world to use its services and resources, whilst there are cuts being made left, right and centre.  Then there's the alleged extra workload created by GPs doing so much less than in the old days.  Well, Labour fucked up the GP's contracts and gave them loads of money for working hours that suited them.  The 111 helpline is fucked - surprise surprise.
  • Tony Martin has been burgled, not for the first time, and despite catching the theif, decided he had to let him go.  Taking no action in such circumstances was the only option for him, because last time he was arrested.  In the USA, if you are burgled and shoot the offender, you're not only within your rights, you're applauded.  He served 3 years for manslaughter, although was originally jailed for 9 years for murder.  The two burglars posed a threat but he was punished.  This week he allowed the thief to escape because he did not want to tackle him after his last experience.  Fucking Police always side with the offender, as do the courts.
  • Just to highlight the above point, a 'joyrider' who died after a Police gave chase was arguably at fault.  The driver, aged 22, refused to stop.  He was driving without lights on in a stolen car.  It is quite obvious that his family will have been devastated, and that his seven year old son has lost his dad.  But can someone explain to me why £20,000 has been awarded in settlement of a case brought against the Police by the family?  Despite the Police who chased the stolen car not being 'trained' to do so and not 'standing down' when asked to do so by senior officers, they were nonetheless doing their job - enforcing the law.  More madness.
  • It will come as no surprise at all that there's an alleged cover-up in the church!  Yes, Apparently the Very Reverend Robert Waddington (who died in 2007) was accused of abuse, and now Lord Hope is embroiled in a scandal.  He claims church rules did not require him to report matters to the Police.  Oh, so a 13-year-old sleeping in a cleric's bed and being subjected to years of abuse was something to be kept secret?  These are the fucking people who have the audacity/nerve/front to lecture us on morals, religion, love they fucking neighbour!  Hypocritical cunts - period.  Whatever 'Very Reverent' means, he was hardly a very good example of humanity. There is someone called Butler (who is a 'Right Reverent') who's head of the Churches National Safeguarding Committee (what?) and he has offered a statement: "As a church we will always apologise for past systems that let down the vulnerable and offer support to anyone whose life has been affected."  Excuse me - who the fuck would want support from these institutions who are at fault?  As so apologising later, bollocks.
  • Meanwhile, there are numerous examples of so-called experts and social workers in positions of power whose accusations of abuse have left families wrecked.  Children have suffered and parents have been branded as abusers on evidence that's dubious as hell.  I have read a number of accounts where kids have been put into care on the flimsiest of evidence, and it's taken years for the parents to get their kids back - if indeed that has even happened.  This is the other extreme from those who've been in the clutches of 'the church' and a dodgy block in a dress or cassock.  On the word (opinion) of an 'expert', lives are wrecked, and there's never any come-back on the CIC.
  • Nick Clegg is a complete waste of space.
  • Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, William Roache, Michael Le Vell, Jim Davidson, Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr, Dave Lee Travis, numerous church figures and non-celebrities.  The whole subject seems to dominate the news.  There are surely people being tarred with a shared brush (?) here, and it's impossible to know what to think anymore.  Most probably some will be guilty, some will be innocent, but there is no doubt a lot of 'grey'.  However, I reckon that everyone ever mention, especially linked to the Operation Yew Tree efforts, will never escape the stigma of being embroiled, even if they've done nothing.  
  • Cara Delevingne drops a small packet of white power and now the whole country knows about it.  Hmmmm - far be it from me to comment on the nature of the substance, but I suspect the 'role model' attributes of this highly overpaid 20-year-old are not going to be challenged even though there's every reason to do so.  Everyone keeps quite, as though there's a universal acceptance that this is all normal.  It's this aspect that's distasteful and shows endorsement of all that's wrong.
  • Every week there's a new revelation regarding how Police officers are suing and getting payouts.  Apart from trying to catch me doing 50mph in a 40mph zone, I don't think they generally have any positive impact on my life, and they certainly don't do any more than go through the motions when there's something more serious to look into.
  • Care workers in the UK are expected to work in tough conditions for not much money.  It takes a special sort of person to deal with the job.  In any walk of life, there are those who do not fit.  The latest is Fiona Salmon who pinched, manhandled, slapped and punched residents at a nursing home.  Causing nosebleeds, verbally abusing them and even sitting on them [she weights 28 stone] are further 'skills' she put into practice.  What a sad day for all other care workers when someone like this is exposed.  What compounds my annoyance is the further input in the courtroom.  The judge said it was "extremely unlikely that she would ever be a care worker again".  Excuse me!  NEVER is what it should be, NOT anything with the word 'unlikely' in it!  What about a lifelong ban?  As for the woman defending Fiona Salmon in court, it seems the excuse given for the abuse was that: "She had become tired working nights and was also at the time in a bad relationship."  Ha!  What shite. Finally, the sentence was nine months.  That means nine weeks, considering that many offenders now serve just a quarter of their sentence.
  • David Moyes gets death threats from supposed 'football fans'.  How sad when someone shows loyalty and commitment (rare in the fucked-up world of football) to a side for over a decade and gets rewarded with a top job.  We should applaud Manchester United for the appointment, and for avoiding a high profile foreign manager arriving with an entourage, to last a year or two at most.
  • Barbara Hewson suggests lowering the age of consent, and has the nerve to expect us not to be outraged by Stuart Hall's behaviour.  Her own behaviour is reprehensible!  She comes out of this even worse than the dappy Helen Flanagan who says we ought to show respect to an old man!
  • Two fifteen-year-old cunts rob and kill an 85-year-old partially-sighted woman.  After the attack, Paula Castle was in hospital for a day, fighting for life, while the pair were again attacking old and disabled people.  As Paula Castle died of head injuries, Rose Mohamed had her bag containing £120 stolen.  With no remorse and a history of crime, the pair were sentenced to six years.  As already mentioned, that will probably mean an earlier release, with them serving 2 years.  It is preposterous to call this justice.
What a fucking mess.

[CIC = Cunts In Charge]

...

10.5.13 Vanity, Superfluity & Stupidity

In this week's TV guide, I have necessarily taken a look at the stupid number of programmes that feature the presenter's name.  This suggests that the programme is actually all about the person and not about the content, the theme or the relevance.  Instead, personality is key.  In a few cases, it might be argued that the presenter is actually vital to the programme, and maybe "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA" is a good example.  Certainly it's the featuring of Gordon Ramsay that makes this show of any interest - in fact, it only exists because he is in it.  However, there are other programmes where any cunt could present them, and the featuring of names is more to do with vanity, and superfuity most definitely applies.  On the latter, I had to look up the word, after first considering 'Superfluousness' which is correct, if a little cumbersome.  'Superfluosity' was deemed slang, and 'Superfluity' labelled an alternative that would suit.

Here are some of the annoying listings.

Sarah Beeny's Selling Houses  [Not sure if this is possessive or a comment on what she is doing]
Paul Hollywood's Bread  [This is possessive but could it be Cockney rhyming slang?]
Dickinson's Real Deal  [This one's been going for ever]
Caroline Quentin's National Parks  [Vanity & Stupidity - she doesn't own them]
George Clarke's Amazing Spaces  [Is he indeed?  How does he amaze them?]
Gok's Style Secrets  [But he's got no style and is there anything left to say?]

In all of the above, the name could be omitted, to give us: Selling Houses, Bread, Real Deal, National Parks, Amazing Spaces and Style Secrets. There's one more that could be added, although the format for the title is slightly different.  I refer to: My Tasty Travels with Lynda Bellingham.  I think that 'Tasty Travels' would have been more than sufficient for me to ignore the programme.


The other approaches are more direct in their relaying of who's involved.

Paul O'Grady: For the Love of Dogs
The Martin Lewis Money Show
Ben Fogle: New Lives in the Wild

Again, what was wrong with: For the Love of Dogs, The Money Show, New Lives in the Wild?



One cannot have the word 'vanity' on TV being mentioned without Simon Cowell being included.  I am sure tonight's edition of BGT will be 30% entertaining and 70% a waste of time, but that's actually a good split based on TV overall.

Monday

Before I forget, I'd like to make sure there's no confusion regarding the content of Monday's repeated edition of "The Hairy Bikers' Food Tour of Britain".  The TV listing shows the content as: "The duo cook a once-lost recipe in Henley, Oxfordshire."  To the credit of the BBC, this outline of the content is rather better than the alternative of: "The duo cook a recipe once lost in Henley, Oxfordshire."  This would allow multiple interpretations, of course.  For the avoidance of confusion, the latter could relate to the efforts to cook food based on a recipe that was once-upon-a-time lost in the town of Henley.  Or it could be interpreted as the duo cooking the recipe just the one time while somewhere-or-other-in-Henley-but-not-too-sure-where.  It could further be interpreted as the duo going to Henley and starting to cook only after becoming lost.  Now that we've cleared all of that up, give it a miss.  [PS. The duo 'cook' instead of 'cooks' was of course NOT to the BBC's credit at all]

Wednesday

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is  Mark Franks and Paul Hayes travel to Brussels, Belgium, in search of antiques.  How stupid is the viewer supposed to be?  Stupid enough for some guidance on where the fuck Brussels is.  And shouldn't the presenters be called Euro Euros and Paul Hayes, Middlesex?

Secrets of the Shoplifters  The undercover retail police tackle theft on the high street in the run-up to Christmas.  Hmmmm . . Channel 4 giving us a timely repeat, eh?

Thursday

Great British Railway Journeys Goes to Ireland  Michael Portillo embarks on a journey through the Republic of Ireland.  Well, it's not a fucking Great British railway journey then, is it!!!

Dam Busters: The Race to Smash the German Dams  James Holland presents an analysis of the 1943 RAF attacks on German dams, and examines whether the impact has been underestimated.  Sure that has to be 'Pun of the Week', with the 'impact' reference?

That's the weekly round-up.

...

Wednesday, 8 May 2013

8.5.13 Longest Programme Titles of the Week

It seems that there is now a trend for programmes on TV to have overly long titles.  Further, there seems to be no regard for breaking rules of grammar, meaning that there are examples of multiple colons!

I have counted the letters and punctuation marks, rather than the characters (to include spaces) in determining the results for this week.

In eighth place is the only entry with two sentences in the programme name. More annoying, though, is the fact that we now have to be told that there are normal people in the fucking show rather than celebrities.  What a turnaround, and a bollocks end result for this tired old offering now.

8th -  Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? The People Play  [38]

In seventh position, another listing that felt the need for further explanation after the first three words that would have been quite sufficient.

7th - Queens of Jazz: The Joy and Pain of the Jazz Divas  [40]

Sixth place goes to the dodgy 'double colon' entry.

6th - Perspectives: Hugh Laurie: Copper Bottom Blues  [41]

Fifth spot is linked to someone whose films are extraordinarily long as well.

5th - Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States  [43]

Fourth place goes to a film we've all heard of, this being the longest named of the three.

4th - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl  [45]

Third position again features the USA and one colon with the forty-five letters.

3rd - The United States of Television: America in Primetime  [46]

The runner up position goes to the other double-colon entry for the BBC2 programme.

2nd - Danny Boyle: Man of Wonder - Extended: A Culture Show Special  [51]

But the runaway winner by a full seventeen letters is the marvelously titled show on BBC4 last Monday.

1st - Nelson's Caribbean Hell-Hole: An Eighteenth Century Navy Graveyard Uncovered  [68]

...

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

7.5.13 The Biggest Threat Of All

What do you think the biggest threat to the UK is at the moment, and perhaps the greatest risk for mankind?

Is it . . . .

1) Global warming?
2) The economic downturn?
3) Excessive costs of benefit claimants?
4) Phenomenal growth in the population?
5) The demise of bees?
6) Soil erosion?
7) MRSA?
8) Smoking?
9) War?

NO !

10) Loss of the rain forest?
11) A dip in sales of Lottery tickets?
12) Wankers in banking?
13) Too many carrier bags in circulation?
14) Acid rain?
15) Underage smoking and drinking?
16) Molehills?
17) Rocketing fuel prices?
18) Too many cookery programmes on TV?
19) Repeats on TV?

NO !

20) Internet shopping?
21) Crime?
22) Unemployment?
23) Payday loan companies?
24) The Grinch?
25) Phone hacking?
26) Blocked arteries?
27) Unmade beds?
28) Acne?
29) Tax evaders?

NO !

The real threat to everyone in the UK is sugar.  Why else would manufacturers be on a fucking mission to remove it from so many things. Sugar is apparently evil, and must be banished from our lives.  We are incapable of exercising any judgement, and have to be dictated to by greater powers - those in charge - the CIC.  Yes, the 'Cunts In Charge' have deemed it essential that we are deprived of anything that was once tasty, and that our options are constrained so that we do not enjoy things.  How else could anyone possible explain the ludicrous removal of sugar from sweets, drinks and foods, irrelevant of whether there is a "healthy" option alongside the normal one?  This is the cause of Mars bars now being completely inedible.

Today, I was forced to purchase from Morrisons some Sprite which had been doctored.  I am not referring to the 'Zero' sort of Sprite, which is of course designed for people who want to (or have to) choose zero calories,  I am talking to the normal stuff - well, what was normal until recently.  Via the wrapping, I am now encouraged to 'rediscover' the great taste of Sprite. FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE, seeing as the sugar content is 30% lower than other normal drinks.

Worse than this was the complete absence of summer fruits high juice in any form other than NAS.  Actually, this does not stand for "Nasty And Shit", although it should do.  No, it's the dreaded "No Added Sugar".  This is a backwards concept because for decades, cordial has had a sugar content and been acceptable as a drink.  Now we are supposed to applaud and purchase foul tasting liquid that twists the concept, suggesting that the real drink has been preserved and is untainted by the addition of that horrible stuff called 'sugar'.  Well, bully for Morrisons for not adding sugar.  The trouble is, I did not want that shit, the DIS version.  Yes, that is the correct term for this stuff - the one that's "Deficient In Sugar".  I wanted the proper/normal stuff, and could I get any - could I fuck.  No, there were about 60 bottles on the shelf, all short of sugar and taste, and not a single cunting litre bottle that hadn't been fucked up by some cunt taking out the sugar and then claiming a pat on the back for not adding sugar.



The only possible way that no added Sugar is a good thing is in respect of Alan.

Madness.

...




Monday, 6 May 2013

6.5.13 Flanagan Again-agan

I have no idea what's more disappointing, or more annoying.  That Helen Flanagan has embarrassed herself with another comment marking her out as a clueless twat, or that the readers of FHM have voted her the "sexiest woman in the UK".  Her defence of Stuart Hall is outrageous, considering he's molested and abused girls (one only nine years old).  There is at the same time severe concern on my part, even if the outrage cannot match that regarding the Stuart Hall comment, for the arguable sanity of male readers if they are so shallow and themselves twats, so as to endorse this female's presence in the world of 'celebrity'.



Everything about HF is vacuous, false, unattractive, shallow, dozy and pathetic - but seeing as she's prepared to expose parts of her body, it's apparently all right to like her and vote for her ???  Bollocks.  As for Stuart Hall, despicable, conniving and disgusting.  If he does have a heart attack because of the pressure of the media glare, I for one would not be sorry, unlike drippy Helen.

But the worst news of the last 48 hours concerns Helen's announcement that she's ready to have a baby!  Oh fucking hell!  I can think of nothing more worrying than her giving birth while she has no grip on reality at all.  I fear for the unborn mite, and I am struggling to comprehend how she has concluded she's 'ready'.  Mind boggling.

...

6.5.13 James Arthur - Hooker News

It seems that we're obliged to hear all about James Arthur's exploits and how he kept his socks on.  In The Sun, all the details were relayed to us after the full rundown was apparently provided by Ria Vincent.  The 23-year-old was pictured in yesterday's paper, although I wish she hadn't been because it put me off my food.  Why the newspaper thinks I want to view an unattractive tart whose aim is to make money I simply don't know.

It seems she used to fancy him, although "now I just think the guy is a total loser.  When you meet him in the flesh you realise he is just a bit of a geek who doesn't really know what he's doing.  He wouldn't even take off his socks."



What a whinging bitch!  Why on earth are you even writing about your exploits? It's your fucking job!  Literally!  I don't write about my job in the paper, so why the fuck are you writing about yours?    I rather suspect that the 'loser' (as you referred to him) is you, actually.

...

6.5.13 Begging Adverts & Charity Overload

There are, as I've said so many times before, far too many charities in the UK. Well over 20,000 supposed organisations that "do good".  However, there are so many dubious tactics now employed in generating income (for that is exactly what it is) that it's hard to retain any sense of belief in a fucked up system endorsed at government level as well.

The UK government insists on continuing to give away billions of pounds despite recipient countries not wanting it, or deserving it or being thankful for it. The foreign aid budget is not diminishing at all, even in the harshest economic times.  The stupidity and misplaced attentions of people in high office is astounding.

Charities try to generate an income, to feed not the causes for which they raise money, but in the first instance to meet running costs.  These are the salaries for staff, and the premises that are maintained.  There are in lager organisations, 'fat salaries' for those who manage to get donations up to high levels, even though it's quite possible that it's the money that no longer finds its way to another charity which has no high-earning fundraiser.  I dislike the notion that the first £30,000 of donations covers the cost of one salary, and the next £10,000 pays for the 'company car' and so on.  The other anomaly is the apparent worthiness of TV adverts to make us feel guilty - the mos recent having just come on to my TV in the last hour.

A charity called 'Sense' tells me to have my phone ready, and then explains how I can (and should) help a deaf blind child today, by texting TOY to 70007, thereby giving £3.  This will be used to buy a toy for a blind deaf child.  I have no wish to pick out blind deaf children as a target; I am simply questioning the motives and methods of an organisation adopting such adverts as a tactic. Surely the money spent on the advert could be used to get toys?  I would not text and give £3 unless I knew a lot more about the financial calculations that proved (if indeed that's the case) this approach is viable and cost effective.  If the response leads to 1000 people texting, then £3000 will be received.  The advert say's £2.96 will get to the charity.  Okay, so it's only 4p to cover the text costs, but what about the advert?  This whole approach is like the charity fundraising trips, where people get sponsored to do things, but the first £1700 covers the flights and organisational costs for a two week cycling trip to raise money for distressed field mice in Borneo.

If there is a need for input to help deaf blind children, and I am positive there is, then the government should be doing something about it - that's what I pay taxes for.  Instead, it gives money away to corrupt regimes, to pointless causes and in stupid amounts without first assessing the priorities adopted in the receiving countries.  Commonly, the receiving countries are themselves ignoring what's needed and accepting foreign aid to plug the gap created. Meanwhile, in the UK, charities are forced to beg for money from the same taxpayers whose money is frittered away by the government.  How may more requests for £3 or £2 per month are we going to get?

What's to be done?

Charities in the UK should merge massively, reduce running costs, and improve the percentage of money that reaches the causes they are focused on.

The government should target resources to the worthwhile charitable entities.

The government should stop wasting my money when there are deserving needs on our doorstep.

The general acceptance that something is good if "it's for charity" should be challenged more, and the proper economics should be disclosed to anyone considering donating.  It would be interesting to know what is left on average for a £1 donation, after distillation.  I reckon 90p in every pound is gone before the recipient sees anything.

...