Monday, 28 November 2011
Nope it seems even russia has rednecks!
Sunday, 27 November 2011
The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the greenthing back in my day." The cashier responded, "That's our problem today. Maybe your generationdid not care enough to save our environment."
He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day. Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles tothe shop or off licence. They sent them back to the plant to be washed,sterilized and refilled and re-used. So it could use the same bottlesover and over. So they really were recycled.
But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have lifts and escalators inevery shop and office building.
We walked to the local shops and didn't climb into a 300-horsepowermachine every time we had to go to a supermarket.
We bought fruit and veg loose - and washed them at home. We didn't haveto throw away bins full of plastic, foam and paper packaging that needhuge recycling plants fed by monster trucks all day, everyday.
But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have thethrow-away kind.
We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobblingmachine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry theclothes.
Kids got hand-me-down (mostly hand made or hand knitted) clothes fromtheir brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing shipped fromthe other side of the planet.
But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in ourday.
Back then shops repaired things with funny things called spare parts -we didn't need to throw whole items away because a small part failed.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in everyroom. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief(remember them?), not a screen the size of Wales.
In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't haveelectric machines to do everything for us.
When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a waddedup old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut thelawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power and hand clippersfor the hedges.
We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a brightly lit, airconditioned health club to run on treadmills that operate onelectricity and then drink millions of bottles of that special waterfrom those plastic bottles.
But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a plastic cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.
We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new plastic pen,and we replaced blades in a razor instead of throwing away the wholeplastic razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school orwalked instead of turning their parents into a 24-hour taxi service.
We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of socketsto power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadgetto receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space inorder to find the nearest fish & chip shop.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we oldfolks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a young smartass.
Susan Boyle - Dont you wish your girlfriend was hot like me;
Stevie Wonder - i can see clearly now;
John Terry - Ebony & Ivory
Katie Price - like a virgin;...
Rihanna - hit me baby one more time;
Michael Jackson - the drugs don't work;
Joseph Fritzl - love shack;
Stephen Hawking - im still standing!
Have I left anyone out yet?
Friday, 25 November 2011
Thursday, 24 November 2011
The Guardian has become somewhat of a bête-noire at Shouting at Cows towers, after its flagrant hypocrisy, pointless lifestyle tit-bits and it being awash with nepotism and mate’s favours saw it become merely a horrible waste of trees. The latest Guardian article to make us crush grapes left, right and centre, was a piece entitled ‘The 8 types of student’; nothing more than a crass generalisation about how all students are, essentially, bit part characters from The Young Ones.
Now we love a baseless jab as much as the next person, but during a time of an utterly bleak outlook for students with over a million young people unemployed, 1 in 5 graduates out of work and rising tuition fees, perhaps this wasn’t the most opportune moment to release a story which basically indicated that all students are just unemployable fools who don’t want to grow up. Because that’s why they’re unemployed, after all. Because they’re fools. I’m sure they had a jolly good guffaw about it down at Guardian HQ. “These students, eh! No wonder they can’t get jobs!”
I personally would have included a 9th category, that of the earnest student who got themselves into debt in hope of having a better future for themselves but now find themselves fucked, as there are no jobs available and can’t afford to do a 3 month unpaid internship anywhere. But that would require a degree of rationality. And there’s no room for rationalism in a newspaper that printed a story from the pen of Johnny fucking Marbles, about that era defining moment when he chucked a pie at Rupert Murdoch, making the entire opposition to News International look like a bunch of vapid twits who had drunk too much fizzy pop.
Inspired by this, I scratched my head to discover 8 types of people that would actually read the dross served up by The Guardian, and manage to make it through a whole copy without going berserk and scrawling ‘Football Weekly and arbitrary reviews of coffee beans does not a good paper make’, on the walls of their home, in what would be one of the more nuanced, constructive and eloquent mental breakdowns.
1) Champagne Socialists of the Islington Sect
Arguably the core support of the Guardian, and one we have documented previously, these lot give the Guardian its ‘lifestyle bible’ tag. Normally working in such vital industries as freelance B2B consulting, for these people, the paper will tell them what to read, what to wear, what to think, what to like, what to hate and what to sympathise with in order to be a morally sound person, yet at no point will it make them feel guilty for installing a brand new, £20,000 Scandinavian kitchen. It’s the sort of social group who will read it and pontificate about its stories involving Syria and Governmental spending cuts at dinner parties, before the cheeseboard and dessert wine is served.
They like the fact that the paper will give them moral footing, yet won’t be intrusive enough to suggest that maybe, if you really do care about the people that you espouse to, sending your children to private schools and building your own million pound dream house in Putney probably isn’t the most responsible use of your endless amounts of cash.
2) The Downtrodden Partner
Possibly the most common category amongst ‘sensible’ folk, these are the ones who go back to The Guardian time and time again, simply because it’s the least offensive of all the papers. The Telegraph these days resembles nothing more than the recorded utterances from a 1920′s Billiard Room. The Independent has been a farce ever since the Joann Hari debacle. The tabloids provide nothing but tits and cheap holidays to Spain, while The Mail/Express are COMPLETELY FUCKING MENTAL.
The Guardian has been the go-to paper for those who just want to know what’s going on in the world from the least offensive outlet. The problem these people have, is that for every decent story they read, they seen some bit of rubbish about how to knit jumpers for your apples, or the latest serving of complete tripe from Laurie Penny, concerning what quirky shite she’s been up to this weekend, or some baseless rubbish from her about how THE POLICE ARE TRYING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD! Then they read a half decent scoop again, and promise themselves that this time, it’s different. But it’s never different. Ever.
3) Political Hipsters
Everything is a commodity of status these days. Fashion, housing, haircuts, who can wear the most pointless hat; everything. A knowledge of Politics is no different. These people need easily digestible tit bits from the news to wow their friends down some ejjit-ridden pub in Camden, so they can be introduced to people as, “Oh yah, this is Toby. He’s into politics. It’s kind of his thing.” Sounds often heard from these people include, “fucking Barclays, not paying tax.” When you explain to them that GMG (Guardian’s owners) have been privy to the same tax evasion as Barclays, you’ll see their brain began to fry, whilst they get distracted by a passer-by in a particularly fetching pair of spray-on jeans. At this stage, the only way you can win their attention back is to wow their artistic side by doing something zany, like pissing into a biscuit tin and entering it for the Turner Prize. But by this stage the moment is gone, and you’ll probably be barred from the public house for indecent exposure. And require a new receptacle for your custard creams.
4) Painters and Decorators
Having worked briefly as a painter and decorator in Australia, one thing I can say first hand is that it’s a messy job. You require a lot of newspaper. Thankfully, the Guardian is absolutely massive, and allows you to cover everything from your sofa to toaster, to avoid any specs of paint staining it. Proving that everything has a use!
5) ‘Soppy wet, bleeding heart’ liberals
Caricatures and stereotypes are prevalent on both sides of the political spectrum. For every right wing nutter who thinks the homosexuals will cause the apocalypse, there’s some simpering berk on the left, who thinks that we can save the world through veganism. When Bob ‘£145k’ Crow secured a £50,000 a year deal for tube drivers by essentially blackmailing London, the comments section on the Guardian’s story was awash with remarks like ‘Good on you!’, and ‘Congrats! Good to see proper people getting money, rather than the bloody bankers.’ Now, despite the fact that £50,000 is an abhorrent amount of money for a job where all you have to push a button and pull the brake every few minutes, the tactic used by the RMT to get the raises was not too dissimilar from how the bankers secured their ridiculous salaries, by essentially saying, “Fuck it, we won’t work. Probably get a job in another country, tbh tbf imo, lolz.”
The problem though, is that to comprehend this would require thinking. And some people don’t have time for thinking. If it looks left-wing, and smells left-wing, then that’ll do. The Guardian ran a story where they pissed around Crow’s office and talked about his bust of Lenin, despite the fact that Crow is on £145,000 a year, which IS AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WOULD MAKE VLADIMIR LENIN PHYSICALLY SICK! I might just sit in town tomorrow in a beret and Che Guevara T-shirt, counting a gratuitous amounts of £5 notes whilst fawning groups of people come up and shake my hand, congratulating me for ‘fighting the good fight!’
6) Opposition MPs
Life in opposition is brilliant. You can promise anything and everything because you’re out of power. You can’t produce any of it until you get voted into government. It’s like saying, “If I get elected, could I create a third tap on home sinks; hot, cold and 2004 Italian Chianti? Well, there’s only one way to find out.” [Ed: Fight!] After a half decent performance during the leadership debates, The Guardian strongly backed Nick Clegg, who once in power reneged on all his promises, most notably raising tuition fees. The Guardian then got behind the simpering twat Ed Miliband, holding him up a some sort of second coming of Christ, despite the fact that, not only is he not the best MP in Parliament, he’s not even the best MP in his own family. Opposition MPs therefore see the Guardian as this fantastic resource where they can have some mawkish interview about how much they just ruddy, love the poor, before expecting front page splashes under the banner, “Can this person save the economy?” After all, The Media is always in opposition. They can say whatever they like!
7) Alan Rusbridger’s extended family
Families tend to be supportive. My mum still recounts those moments on a freezing cold Sunday morning, where she’d stand and watch me play football with an enthusiastic look on her face, despite the fact that if you asked her what the offside rule was, she’d be left struggling. What with The Guardian being Rusbridger’s little pet project, I have no doubt that he gets a call from a similarly supportive member of his family every day, talking about how much they enjoyed that pretentious review of a minimalistic French film about a dilapidated country house, where not a lot happens, but we all grow stronger for the experience.
8 ) Middle Class Marxists
Possibly my favourite of the Guardian’s fanbase, these are the over pampered, under worked sect of the readership who have read a bit of Zinn and Chomsky, and think that the US are responsible for everything that’s gone wrong ever. Wars, illness, poverty, the cancelling of Knightrider, the death of former Carry On stalwart Hattie Jacques; everything. They have a modern day interpretation of Marxism, where they don’t want to become “Part of the system, Maaan!” but still want iPads and sweet-ass cameras, which sees most of them living with their parents till they’re 30. These people will attended rallies and bemoan police brutality, after the coppers get another tin of paint or piece of fence thrown at them. Whilst they will have no problem generalising an entire police force as ‘pigs’, if anyone dares to generalise a social group that they’re sympathetic with, then they’re just the worst bastards in the Western World.
The Guardian is great for these people, as they’ll print some rabble rousing story designed to stick the fire into easily influenced bellies of the ‘youf’, before printing a sycophantic obituary to Steve Jobs, or an advert for the latest cannon camera with a ‘60s’ filter. Cause it’s vintage, innit. I love vintage. It’s all, like, old n shit.
So there you have a detailed analysis of the Guardian’s readership. And it must make you proud, that in this time of the media being dominated by sensationalist reporting and opinionated columns, it’s nice to see that one paper can appeal to such a wide array of people. God speed, Grauniad!
Thanks for this as I wouldnt use the Guardian to line my chicken coop so apart from instinctively knowing when the Vegan, lefty Gay rights types employed as Managers by certain large public bodies are Guardian readers I certainly wouldnt get the chance to share such gems.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
This person obviously has no control over his dog, now labs especially untrained ones can be no end of trouble but the problems are usually tracked to the other end of the lead, got a problem dog?
Got a problem with where to exercise him?
Why not let him loose where you can cause the most damage?
What a complete and utter feckwit!
I have a springer bitch that likes deer far too much for her own good, we realised this early on and trained her to the whistle and when we see a deer we put her on the lead!
Whilst we are on this knotty subject whats good for the tree huggers seems to be ok for the Govt in Scotland
Although you can rely on auntie to sensationalise everything as per usual!
Me I'm going to be controversial here, I dont feel one way or the other for the animals as long as its done properly and with the minimum of fuss and stress, personally I prefer culled animals to enter the food chain and I do have a recipe for Badger ham, I dont hate killing, I actually quite enjoy the well executed shot, its just not the be all and end all, its the end of the stalk and the start of the food process!
Although the origins of the “WC” abbreviation for “water closet” are English, it has been adopted into everyday usage in German, Italian, Dutch and Hungarian.
Even the French use it, and we all know what they're like about diluting their precious language. But now councillors in Gwynedd, North Wales, are being asked to justify the decision to include the term “WC” on road signs in the area.
The issue is due to be debated at the next meeting of the county council’s “language subcommittee” following a complaint about the use of the non-Welsh initials, which it is feared could become a rallying point for nationalist sentiment.
The dispute hinges on the use of the abbreviation on a sign on a roundabout on a new £35 million Portmadoc bypass advising motorists about a nearby public convenience. And it's a particularly annoying dispute for two reasons, both of which assume a depth of stupidity in someone or other.
The first is that the “WC” sign is an internationally used and recognised symbol, and to object to it is to suggest that Welsh people are too ignorant and insular to know what it means.
The second is that the alternative Welsh word is “toiled”, and to suggest that English tourists won't be able to guess what that means is also pretty thick.
Let's face it, English visitors soon realise that Welsh is not a real language at all, but a made-up one which borrows words from French (“eglwys” = “church”, or “ffenestr” = “window”) and English (“dim bikio” = “no cycling”, “dim dympio” = “no dumping”, “trowsus” = “trousers”) with gay abandon.
Mind you, Portmadoc is no stranger to absurd and unnecessary controversy. Recently there was a row about a £650,000 bridge (“pont” - not French at all) over that very same bypass. The bridge was built to help bats cross the road.
Clearly there are no budget cuts for wildlife in Wales. In England and other civilised places, of course, bats can fly. Welsh bats would have to be different, wouldn't they?
On the University of Wales website there's an online translator which renders “bat” as “bat”. Can't think why we bothered to look it up, really.
Meanwhile a bit further south in Aberystwyth council chiefs are planning to fly a gypsy flag on the promenade. The plan will mean either removing another national flag from the display, or splashing out on a new flagpole.
Aberystwyth prides itself on the 52 flagpoles which grace its seafront, all flying European or other national flags. But town councillors have now provoked a row by agreeing to include the Romany Gypsy flag.
Supporters of the move say they want to mark the area's 'long tradition of gypsies'. But councillor Aled Davies suggested the move was a waste of money, saying 'Those flags are supposed to be for small nations, and the gypsies don't have a nation as such.
Should we really spend money on a flag and flag pole during the current economic climate?' The flags along the promenade are all either flags of the minority nations of Europe (so not gypsies, then), or flags of other EU member countries (so not gypsies, then), or flags of countries which send significant numbers of visitors to Ceredigion (ah. Now there's a clue. But ... a country?).
The GOS says: Please would you Welsh speakers not write in and tell me I've got it all wrong about Welsh because you had all those English and French words first. You didn't. That's bollocks (“bwlllwcs” - not a Welsh word, but one belonging to an ancient indigenous language I just made up. Rather like Cornish, actually).
The Welsh language was invented for a bet in 1973 by two men from Bridgend. The Welsh for “bet” is – you've guessed it - “bet”.
Welsh national dress was invented by Augusta Hall, an Englishwoman who objected to the Welsh habit of flitting round the mountains in the nude (“noeth”). The thing about gypsies reminds me of the most annoying aspect of the Dale Farm débacle: the claims that evicting the illegal travellers is “racist”.
Travellers are not a race. Gypsies are not a race. You and I aren't a race. Travellers, gypsies, you, me, we belong to the human race, but we have no right to invent little subdivisions and call them “races”.
Our DNA is 99.9% identical, we move, breathe, walk, eat, shit and fuck identically, whether we live in a condominium or a caravan, whether our parents came from Rawalpindi or Rochdale.
If you want to make yourself feel separate and special, or if you want to invent some reason why you are being discriminated against, then you need to use an expression like “ethnic subdivision of the human race”.
Then you can claim that people are being ethnically subdivisionist towards you. Or alternatively, you can invent yourself a special language and demand that everyone recognise it. But I think we've already dealt with that.
With thanks to the Grumpy Old Sod for injecting some common sense into the debate!
Saturday, 19 November 2011
On drive 5 Richard as usual bagged Charlie, at least this time he had loaded his gun, perhaps the amount of birds remains we find will lower in number. Anthony retrieved the dog fox from Sassy who had decided to retrieve it herself making a half decent job, Brush is in the soak now;
The finally tally was an impressive 3 Cock Pheasants and 3 hens, 3 pigeons, 3 Squirrels, 2 woodcock and 1 fox, quite the varied bag;
We decided to not count the cartridges this time but next time we will try and do a quick pound in lotto for the shots fired total. Joe certainly will be going for a high number.
Friday, 18 November 2011
Thursday, 17 November 2011
So there I am busy looking at the various job offers when Neil pops this over to me, an old familiar friend and one I'm sure rings true;
Sunday, 13 November 2011
Friday, 11 November 2011
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Monday, 7 November 2011
I cant post it or embedd it so click, let it load and play!
"So, David Cameron. It's all fine and dandy to help the Libyans win the right to self-determination and democracy, but when we ask for the same thing at home it's a different kettle of fish.
Or should that be a different barrel of oil, perhaps?
It feels very odd to say this, given that in our opinion the Daily Mail is the worst newspaper in Britain – even worse than the Sunday Sport, which doesn't make any pretence to be a serious newspaper, but we must: the Daily Mail's strangely unattributed commentary on the recent Commons vote on an EU referendum is spot on, and accurately reflects both the facts and the mood of the majority of voters.
Basically, we've been sold down the river by successive governments. Nothing new there, then. In the Daily Mail's own words ... How's this for a starkly unequivocal promise? ‘The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over 30 years ago. Liberal Democrats, therefore, remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British Government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.’
Such was the solemn manifesto pledge made to the British people by every Lib Dem candidate who stood for election less than 18 months ago. Yet on Monday night, guess how many of the party’s 57 MPs stood by that promise and voted for a Commons motion approving the principle of an EU referendum that would include an in/out option?
The shocking answer is just one — Adrian Sanders of Torbay — a solitary honourable man in a party of puppets. As with tuition fees, the other 56 apparently thought nothing of breaking their word to the people who voted them into power.
Or how about this for another unequivocal manifesto pledge? ‘We will be positive members of the European Union but we are clear that there should be no further extension of the EU’s power over the UK without the British people’s consent.
We will ensure that by law, no future Government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the euro without a referendum of the British people.’ So said the Conservatives, every one of them, before that same election in May 2010 — and all praise to the 96 (out of 306) Tories who mounted the biggest rebellion in their party’s modern history on Monday night, keeping their word to their constituents and defying their leader’s orders to vote against the motion.
But given that manifesto pledge, what in the name of integrity possessed David Cameron to impose a three-line whip in the first place, instructing his MPs to breach their electors’ trust on pain of losing their government jobs or their hopes of promotion to the front bench?
And how profoundly depressing and unedifying to see those lifelong Eurosceptics William Hague and Michael Gove wriggling like maggots on a hook as they betrayed every belief about Europe they’ve espoused throughout their political careers. Cameron seems to think that running a country is like running a PR campaign.
It is not. Truly, there is something hideously wrong with the state of democracy in Britain today, when candidates say one thing to the electorate, only to be told by their party leaders to do the direct opposite when they are voted into the Commons.
Nowhere, of course, has that deficit been more glaringly apparent over the years than in the political establishment’s contempt for voters in all matters touching upon Europe. Indeed, the entire history of the relentless expansion of the EU’s powers since we joined what was then the Common Market in 1973 has been a tale of brazen deceit, broken promises and disenfranchisement of the electorate by all three major political parties.
Remember Labour’s 2005 manifesto pledge on the new European Constitution? ‘We will put it to the British people in a referendum.’ Nothing, surely, could have been more unequivocal. Yet when it came to signing the Lisbon Treaty, in which the new constitution was enshrined, Gordon Brown conveniently forgot about it. Or, rather, he fobbed off the public with the monstrous lie that Lisbon (referred to in official documents as ‘the Constitutional Treaty’) was not, in fact, a European Constitution at all.
The Tories and Lib Dems were no better. Both promised explicitly to put the Constitution to a referendum. But as soon as they were in a position to do so, they smirked and said: ‘No point now. Lisbon’s been signed.’
Wherever Europe is concerned, there’s always some snivelling shyster’s excuse, some weasel-worded legalistic technicality seized on by the politicians to wriggle out of their commitment to give the public their say.
And these days, when all else fails, there’s always that catch-all standby: ‘Sorry, old boy. The Coalition agreement won’t allow it.’
So it is that, one by one, the ancient powers of Britain’s once sovereign Parliament, paid for by the blood of our ancestors, slip away to Brussels — into the hands of unaccountable European Commission, where voters will never be able to touch them again.
And how can we boast of the West’s belief in liberal representative government while that abomination against democracy holds increasing sway over every aspect of our lives, from immigration control to working hours? Meanwhile in the Continent’s capitals, the Europhile political class pushes its ambitions ever further, enmeshing one nation after another in its anti-democratic web. Today, on the streets of Athens, Lisbon, Madrid, Rome and Dublin, we are seeing the disastrous consequences of those political ambitions.
For the slow-motion car crash of the euro — long predicted by wiser heads who understood the economic madness of a one-size-fits-all single currency for countries as diverse as Germany and Greece — is bringing misery and unemployment to countless millions.
Let the Mail lay all its cards on the table. This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe — and particularly not at a time like this, when withdrawal would add immeasurably to the uncertainties threatening our recovery and rocking the confidence of the markets.
For the same reason, we earnestly hope EU leaders will find a solution that saves the euro from disorderly collapse.
Inevitably, we believe, this will mean rewriting the EU constitution yet again, to bring the countries of the Eurozone under a single economic government, with more uniform tax and spending policies — almost certainly to be dictated by Germany.
Whether this can work in the long run is anybody’s guess. The Mail doubts it. But in the depths of this crisis, we see no other way. Herein, of course, lies great danger for Britain. For as a leopard never changes its spots, so the Euro empire-builders will surely seek to extend any new fiscal and regulatory powers beyond the Eurozone, with their eyes fixed firmly, as ever, on the wealth of the City of London.
But here, also, lies a golden opportunity, perhaps never to be repeated, to redefine our own relationship with the EU in a way that sets democracy back on its rightful throne at Westminster.
For what the Mail wants passionately — and we believe the overwhelming majority of Britons share our wish — is to reclaim powers over such matters as immigration, social policy and business regulation, which should never have been conceded to Brussels and which are daily threatening our ability to compete with developing super-giant economies such as India and China.
We have no illusions. Yet again, the Europhile élite will seek to introduce its constitutional changes in a way that leaves a loophole for the Coalition to duck out of its statutory obligation to hold a referendum on the transfer of any new powers to the EU.
So the Mail has a simple proposal: let there be a single-question referendum, asking the public if we wish to reclaim powers from Brussels, yes or no. True, it will not satisfy those who wish to withdraw altogether. But for them, better this than the nothing they will otherwise be offered.
As for the timing, let the referendum be called the moment a new treaty is drawn up. Or if it becomes clear that the new rules are to be introduced on the sly, without a treaty, then let it be held within 12 months from today.
There can be no more lies, no more deceit, no more creeping federalism without consent. This time, those unequivocal manifesto promises must be honoured. Only then will our political class redeem the disgrace of Monday night — and begin to reconnect with the people they were elected to represent.
Well said, that editor. And reporter Jason Groves went further to explain which powers we should be fighting to recover from Brussels ... Crime and Immigration Brussels was handed sweeping new powers to interfere in the British criminal justice system in the run-up to the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009 when some 90 new powers in this area were given over to the EU. They include the creation of a controversial European arrest warrant, allowing foreign countries to issue arrest warrants to Britons and try them in their absence, and the creation of a new, over-arching EU judicial body called Eurojust.
British judges and ministers are now barred from blocking the extradition of UK citizens to other EU countries — even where the charges appear to be trumped up. Eurojust already has the right to demand sensitive personal data about British citizens. It potentially has the power to investigate them directly, and even to initiate criminal investigations in this country.
The measures also allow for the UK’s DNA and fingerprint databases to be shared with other EU countries. EU rules on the free movement of labour are directly responsible for the unprecedented levels of immigration to the UK from Eastern Europe in recent years. It is questionable whether Prime Minister David Cameron can meet his pledge to cut net immigration to under 100,000 without breaching those rules.
The Lisbon Treaty will end Britain’s veto in many areas of immigration and border control, and ministers are now fighting an attempt by Brussels to repeal a law allowing Britain to deport asylum seekers to the country where they entered the EU. There are mounting concerns, too, about EU plans for ‘burden-sharing’ on immigration, which could see Britain forced to take more African immigrants arriving in southern European countries like Italy and Greece. EmploymentBrussels produces an endless stream of politically-correct social and employment law, which is blamed by business for crippling Britain’s international competitiveness and driving up unemployment.
The think-tank Open Europe estimates that EU employment legislation introduced since 1998 alone has cost the UK economy £38.9?billion. The controversial Working Time Directive — which limits the working week to 48 hours and places restrictions on shift patterns — is thought to cost Britain more than £3.5bn a year. It has played havoc with working practices in public sector organisations such as the NHS, and has resulted in a massive rise in the number of employment tribunals, which themselves impose a crippling burden on business. The number of tribunal cases soared by 56 per cent to 236,000 last year alone. One quarter of them stemmed directly from the Working Time Directive. Brussels’ obsession with employment rights has resulted in a new EU Temporary And Agency Workers Directive which will give one million agency workers in the UK the same rights as permanent staff, costing almost £2bn a year.
Brussels has already granted full employment rights to part-time workers and those on fixed-term contracts. Small firms cannot afford to give part-time workers these rights and are put off taking on new staff and growing their businesses for fear of being sued. Other legislation in the pipeline includes proposals to increase fully-paid maternity leave from six weeks to 20.
Economy Brussels is assuming ever-more control over the regulation of financial services, and is now pressing for a new tax on financial transactions which could cost the UK more than £15bn. The new transactions tax would deal a devastating blow to the City, which is by far the biggest financial centre in Europe. Protecting the City from the dead hand of Brussels is seen as a key Government priority. There are major fears, too, that further political integration among the countries that use the euro could allow them to force through protectionist changes to the single market that damage Britain.
Even the Lib Dems are worried that the upheaval in the Eurozone could result in new moves that would disadvantage British businesses. Britain contributes almost £4bn a year to the EU’s failed regional development programme, which recycles taxpayers’ cash into local economic development projects.
The UK gets back barely a third of what it puts in, and huge sums are lost to bureaucracy. Repatriating the cash would allow ministers to target it on British priorities. Over the seven-year cycle of the current EU budget, Britain will pay in almost £90bn but get back just £40bn — a net loss of £50bn.
Our net contribution is bigger than those of France, Denmark and Spain put together. The biggest beneficiary of the EU’s largesse is Poland, which will get £56bn over the period.
Human Rights The Charter of Fundamental Rights is having a deep impact on life in Britain. It was included in the Lisbon Treaty and has given EU citizens more than 50 new rights — including a wide-ranging right to strike.
Labour claimed it had negotiated a ‘protocol’ that meant the Charter would not apply in the UK. But recent rulings by the European Court of Justice suggest this so-called opt-out is worthless. In particular, the ruling that insurance companies can no longer offer different premiums to men and women based on gender — which will send premiums soaring for women drivers — appears to draw heavily on the Charter.
Other controversial rulings, such as the order to give prisoners the vote, stem from the separate European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This post-war convention, on which the Human Rights Act is based, is not strictly an EU measure, but many experts believe it would be almost impossible for Britain to quit the Convention without also leaving the EU.
Fishing The Common Fisheries Policy handed control of Britain’s once plentiful fishing grounds to Brussels. The policy is blamed for the destruction of Britain’s proud fishing industry, with the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds in revenue. Britain’s annual cod catch fell from 300,000 tonnes a year when Britain joined the EU to a low of just 7,000 tonnes in 2007. Fishermen blame the dramatic decline directly on EU mismanagement.
Non-EU countries like Iceland have retained booming fishing industries and healthy fish stocks by keeping out competitors, like the Spanish, in a way that membership of the EU’s Fisheries Policy makes impossible. Withdrawing from a system that gives every EU country — including landlocked nations like Austria — a say in managing our fishing grounds is seen as essential in restoring them to health.
Farming The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which pays subsidies to farmers, costs £38bn a year — equal to almost one-third of the entire EU budget. The policy levies high tariffs on food imports, pushing up food prices in Britain and costing the average British family about £500 a year. The CAP’s damaging impact on exports from developing countries far exceeds any benefit from the EU’s foreign aid budget.
The scheme is also a byword for bureaucracy, with the average financial claim by an individual British farmer costing £742 to process, even for amounts as small as £5. The unfairness of the CAP was the basis for Britain’s EU rebate — but we still get back barely half of the cash we put in. Britain is already the second biggest net contributor to the EU budget after Germany. But this position is set to worsen dramatically in the coming years following a decision by Tony Blair to surrender much of the historic rebate secured in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher.
The GOS says: All jolly good, quite agree. And why won't any of this happen? Here's a clue: Mrs.Miriam Clegg, wife of Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg, has just got a job as “independent adviser” to Acciona, the world’s largest provider of wind farms.
The company, which specialises in energy, construction and services, was recently awarded a contract to run Britain’s first desalination plant on the site of the Thames Barrier.
Acciona has also built four wind farms in this country. Mrs.Clegg's day job is as a partner at DLA Piper, a London-based law firm, where she is in charge of international trade and EU law practice.
Before that she worked for the European Commission, where she met Nick Clegg who was an aide to Leon Brittan, the then-EU trade commissioner.
You see where I'm going with this?
The EU is a colossal gravy-train. With the companies that service it, tender to it, pander to it, feed off it, the whole mess is a giant trough of lucrative swill in which all the politician piggies and lawyer piggies and bureaucrat piggies can snout and snuffle as much as they like.
That's why we can't have the referendum we were promised. Because most of the politicians who control the government have got an eye to the main chance. I mean, they've got to have something to look forward to when the shine rubs off Westminster, haven't they, and a cushy job with the EU or one of its satellites companies will fit the bill rather well.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
Lets face it the same Scottish Govt alond with the Welsh and The Main Govt when Benn was Defra minister denied farmers in TB stricken areas the right to cull badgers to improvine Bovine and then Human health!
I dont know about you but I doubt even hugh Furry Eat them all has a recipe for Caledonian Pine!
Wheres the logic in that? Oh the logic is the deer are property of absentee landlords from England (or so they say) and Badgers (I challenge anyone to encounter a Badger and describe it as cuddly) are infecting Cattle belonging to rich land owning farmers (or so they say). Perhaps its time for a change. Yes I do have a recipe for Badger ham!
Saturday, 5 November 2011
3 Cock Pheasants, 4 Hen Pheasants and 6 woodpigeons. A good day after all!
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
So basically this deal involves a voluntary haircut that nobody volunteered for, the use of some money that won't exist when it's needed to leverage up 4-5 times by borrowing off a country that isn't going to lend, and agreement to be bailed out by a country that um, doesn't agree to be bailed out unless it votes to be
You've got to hand it to Merkozy. It was a stroke of fucking genius, this one.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Is it that the birthplace of democracy is asking for a referendum on its future that's upsetting the French and Germans or the risk of it ending the huge unelected social economic experiment with our money?