Thatcher's Child

BNP being bullied - keep an eye on this story

2009-06-24T12:38:00.000-07:00

The BNP have been told that they need to employ non whites to comply with the race relations act. The main story is here.
The problem is, it does look to me that there is any power in the threats against them!
The Discrimination laws don't allow a company or organization to actively stop the best person from getting the job on account of their race or colour.

However, the laws don't allow for companies to employ people JUST because they are from an ethnic minority. That is just as racist! The law can't force ethnic minorities from applying for roles with a fascist organisation - which is good!

The problem for the BNP is that it looks they are about to be scammed. While it can't be forced to do what the law doesn't demand, it can be forced to follow a court order - regardless of how stupid it may be.

This is how the whole ASBO scheme has worked which allows people to be imprisoned for playing their music too loud - even though it isn't illegal!

While I hate everything the BNP stands for, I hate the anti BNP even more!

Living with depression

2009-06-22T15:50:00.000-07:00

My life is all about positive living. Not inane happy tree friends, just seeing a brighter possibility when all the sensible people concern themselves with the doom and gloom.

My close friends, on the other hands, don't do this. They have a more interesting time. They get much happier and delirious than I have ever been, and when it wears off, they have to pay the price. They see the blackest black and no light at the end of the tunnel.

Telling them to just snap out of it, to get a grip, grow up, be less self centered etc, is not only patronizing, but wrong. It isn't not only not the answer, but the question doesn't even equate itself with this sort of answer. Its like answering 'what time is it?' with '14 Giraffes'

The answer is more about learning how they think.

To me, if faced with a problem, there are three different responses. Imagine you are travelling along a rural old road, the sort that can get washed out, or blocked by a landslip. You come across such a problem, and your path is blocked. What do you do?

A. Go back to the nearest town, collect a bunch of people. and pester, plead or somehow get them to clear the road for you?

B. Carry on regardless, if its a landslip, you climb over it, if its washed out, you wade over.

C. Find another route to where you want to go?

To me, the responses give me an idea of how you deal with problems, and the type of person you are.

A? You are the sort of person who blames everyone else for your problems. It isn't your fault, and you should be expected to have to deal with it. If you chose A, you are normally the victim in any situation you find yourself in.

B? You are an idealist, you think that you shoud be able to get along the road, regardless of the situation. If you chose B, you are a good candidate for mental health issues.

C? You are a self sufficient type. You don't waste your time trying to risk your neck. You find another way. This is what most people should do - but do we?

What would you do?

Formula 1 - Hamilton isn't a good driver

2009-06-07T07:03:00.001-07:00

I have been a motorsport fan for years. I've followed everything from rallying to Formula 1 to my favourite MotoGP and there is something that really bugs me. Motorsport is a team game, its not just the driver or rider who wins the race.

Everything I have seen seems to show that the real champion is the fella who does the engineering in the background. Get him right, and the team wins. Ever heard of Adrian Newey? His name is usually connected to the winning team. Williams F1 in the 1990's? He was there.

He was behind Mansell, Prost, Hill and the media never noticed.

The same is true in other sports. Who was the Cheif engineer in MotoGP? He helped Rossi get to where he is today. Look it up!

So with Hamilton, how can I say he is not a good driver? The problem is that he has only ever been connected with winning teams so he has never had to prove his ability in a poor team. A good driver pushes the vehicle to the limit and sometimes crashes when he can't get it right.

The best driver is the one who can drive beyond the limit of the vehicle. Mansell was one, Senna another. Rossi is another. Give them a bad vehicle, and they get the very best out of it.

That is what makes a champion!

What teenagers need to know

2009-05-10T12:36:00.000-07:00

As a generation X 'oldie', I'm starting to spot that my generation is starting to get somewhere in the world! 20 years ago (wow, is it really that long ago??!) I was a student type, messing about with cars, computers and not realising how handsome I was! Was I happy? Hell no! Nobody was taking me seriously. I had loads of ideas, and I could see so many things wrong, and waiting for me to fix them.

As time went on, I got less handsome as my confidence increased (How does that work?) I started finding people were listening to me in some subjects, but not in the big things. However, I became independent, got my own place, stopped being the youngest in the group, office, in the pub.

10 years ago, I found that I was living the lifestyle, and getting the reaction I was expecting 10 years earlier! This is how life works.

Its now 10 years later, and I don't care about the stuff that was soo important to me at 20 years old. Saturday nights are about relaxing, not being at the most exclusive rave. Sunday mornings are about getting stuff done, not snoring the day away!

I'm slowly getting heard by more influential people. People are asking me for my advice, and taking it seriously. I'm still not in a position to actually getting stuff done they way I want it done, but I am bending the result to take my ideas into considerion. I couldn't have done that even 10 years ago.

However, there is a bitter pill to look at. Slowly, I understand how pointless the whole thing is! Most of my ideas and thoughts are not new. They have been going around the planet for the last few thousand years!!

I'm currently reading 'Atlas Shrugged'. It was published 50 years ago - it could have been yesterday! Assuming the ideas really were brand new in the 1950's - and realising that millions of people have read the book and understood the ideas, why is life still awful?

If you really want to make the most of your life, maybe the best thing to do is to enjoy yourself, don't piss people off, and be good!

Advertising is a mug's game

2009-04-14T10:13:00.001-07:00

When you see your product on the TV what do you feel? Pride? Successful? Hope?

The only winners in advertising is the ad man! While it is nice to see your advert on TV, on the web, in social media or in the paper, the result is the same. The money you spent on the advert - all the money you spent on the advert - is the profit you get back from the extra sales.

In other words, if you hadn't spent the money on advertising, your turnover would be lower, but then so are your costs, so you don't lose.

Here it is in figures.

Small business of 10 people sell £10,000K of widgets a week with a profit margin of 25%.

An advert costs £1000 a week, and takes 3 full days to arrange (thinking, brainstorming, talking with advertisers, clarifying, confirming etc) So that is 3 days wages for 1 person, possibly the boss + £300

After a run of 4 weeks, turnover is up 25%.

So, that is £12500K widgets a week or an increase in sales of £2500, which is good?

No. The first ad cost £1300, while every other cost £1000 so a total of £4300 after 4 weeks. If sales went up by 25%, that means that the turnover is now 10K better than it would have been.

If the ad man has his way, this would be considered a case study in successful advertising.

When the accountant comes in, the story changes.

If the margin is 25%, that means it makes £2500 per week.

The extra 25% turnover increase that the advertising has brought in, increases the profit to £3125

But - the advertising has cost just over £1000 a week - for it to have been considered a financial success, it should have brought it, at least enough to cover its own cost!! As it is, a 25% increase here has cost the company £375 a week loss!

This is how advertising should work.

Look at your profit for the period covered last year, add the current inflation rate - that is your current target.

If you are going down the advertising route, work out how much you need to increase sales to be able to cover the cost of advertising.
NOW calculate a growth that you would be happy with for that extra investment. 10% is a nice figure.

So, with advertising, you need to hit £2500 + £100 + £1000 + £100 or £3700 profit.
That becomes a turnover of £14800 - rounded up to £15000. More realistically, it needs to do this realistically over 4 weeks - get turnover up to £60000!

For the advertising to be successful, it needs to increase sales by at least 50% in this example.

Is that possible?

I doubt small business see figures like this often!

How to Turn the UK into a Police State

2009-04-03T03:01:00.000-07:00

Last night I was fuming!

I had read this story in the local paper. - Whole of Flintshire becomes 'alcohol control zone'

I read the story, and it turns out the local council realised that when you make one area an Alcohol Control Zone, the kids who cause problems, move elsewhere. So what do they do? They make the whole county an ACZ. But it isn't just Flintshire, Wrexham did the same thing.

Why is this bad?

It is bad, because it is very bad law making.

The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 enables the establishment of an alcohol control zone in any area of a local authority if the local authority is satisfied that nuisance or annoyance to members of the public through disorder has been associated with the consumption of alcohol in that place.

The establishment of an alcohol control zone will not prohibit the drinking in public places but will give the police and authorised Council officers the power to confiscate alcohol from anyone who is causing a nuisance in a public place and to prosecute and fine individuals who refuse to stop drinking in public when
requested by the above officers.

Before making an order a consultation is needed. It is a requirement that the local authority consult the chief officer of police, the licensees of any licensed premises in that area or those which may be affected and any owners or occupiers in the proposed designation area.

So far, so good. So why is it bad law making?

Alcohol drinking has always been a part of UK culture. The problem here is not that people drink, its that the wrong laws are being used, by the wrong people, to make life difficult for people who were not causing any problems!

In the UK, we have an issue where there are laws upon laws for the same crimes. In the case of drinking alcohol.
It is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to drink alcohol.
It is also illegal for being drunk and incapable in a public place.

For all the hassle between not being drunk, but still being rowdy, we have the Public Order Offences
affray - section 3 of the Act;
using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing fear of or provoking violence - section 4 of the Act;
using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour intending to and causing harassment, alarm or distress - section 4A of the Act;
using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress - section 5 of the Act;
Finally, it also includes drunk and disorderly behaviour (section 91 Criminal Justice Act 1967);

So, between these three old fashioned solid laws, we have all the tools to deal with drunken rowdy kids on street corners!

Why do we need any more? Why do we need local councillors to add legal icing to the old laws which worked perfectly well?

There are some who may say - what about the Police Discretion?

I say, that is exactly the problem!

Nobody actually knows what is illegal and what isn't anymore. Of the laws that they break, which ones get followed up, and which one's don't!

You may get away with murder, but you won't get away with speeding!

What we need in the UK is less laws, but a better prosecution of the laws which are broken. In the US, you cannot be drunk in public. If caught, you will spend a night in the cells. If that happened in the UK, people would spend less of their weekends in a drunken haze. Kids would have less acceptable behaviour influences to justify hanging around street corners drinking cider or whatever is the current fashion!

This is a bad law because it effects the way people treat the law. With so many similar laws, with some being enforced and others not, we end up ignoring them all (except for the obvious ones) - which justifies the powers that be to introduce much, much heavier handed powers to deal with any kind of dissent!

If we stuck to having some very simple, basic laws, and then prosecuted anyone and everyone who broke those laws - There would be a much stronger respect for the law and those given the task of enforcing it.

A Police State is where everyone is treated like children and not given an ability to make judgement decisions. While we are all being very careful about not allowing our MP's from getting too busy making laws, no one is checking on local councillors and their thirst for power!

That is how you create a Police State - unless you know otherwise?

Facts that you didn't know - a growing problem

2009-03-11T14:40:00.000-07:00

The older I get, the more I learn. Unfortunatly, the more difference this knowledge becomes from public knowledge. The quote, Everything you know is wrong, seems to fit nicely.

For instance, a simple one to start with.

Who is most likely to be responsible for child abuse - Fathers or Mothers?

The NSPCC recently found that 49% of all Child Abuse cases were due to the child's mother, while 44% were down to men known by the child.

Got that one wrong?

Ok, another one.

Who are the biggest victims of domestic abuse? Men or Women?

This is a statistical nightmare that gets played with by various support groups with agendas. The important thing to remember is that most of the figures you will know are not honest.

If you look at the figures of men and women as individuals who are victims of domestic violence, its 50% / 50%. As many men as women are effected in most years. Where the difference kicks in which suddenly turns this crime into a women being the victim is when you look at repeat victims. Women keep going back! This means that overall, only 23%! of men are classified as victims of domestic abuse.

So, if there are 10 victims, 5 are men, 5 are women. the women keep going back and get hit twice, and make two reports. The end result is 15 cases, 10 of which have women as victims. A very simplistic example, but true never the less! Figures from the National Crime Survey 2006.

Anyway, this sort of playing with figures goes on throughout the media. Think of any statistic and its almost guaranteed that its not completely on face value!

DO you have any examples?

How Dumb are U?

2009-03-04T14:49:00.000-08:00

I heard a very interesting story the other day from someone working with the type of kids we all give up on. It seems one of these dysfunctional kids isn't able to read. He isn't bad at stabbing people, but give him a book and he's lost.

My friend told me they had spotted that he was able to read and write text messages on his phone. So what do they do? They start teaching him to read using text as a base.

It might work, it might not, but its worth a try.

Got me thinking about all the smart kids that schools and uni's throw into the world who are too arrogant to realise how stupid they really are. In our office, we have an 18 yr old kid who did quite well in his exams. We asked him some questions related to the economic news on the TV and he could barely answer anything coherently. It was all just sound bites and cliche. Not an original thought in there!

On reflection though, it isn't their fault. Its the education system. It is totally flawed. We visited our son's school where they were having a pre GSCE evening. It seems the teachers are not only teaching the kids but also involved in the final grading. One teacher told us how he would be marking only when the kids reached the required grade. My first reaction was horror. Not only had the pressure of exams disappeared, but so had the pressure to even try too hard. The mountain is being moved for them!

It is no wonder our office Junior is a bit slow!

To be fair though - when I was 18, I was only a repeater of the news.

The problem today is that the news is very biased against business. so, kids know less than nothing, because most of the useful bits they pick up off the news is left wing nonsense!

Has life always been about getting to your 30's and realising that everything you know is wrong, and you have to start again - or is it just me?

What does a Billion quid look like?

2009-03-02T13:22:00.000-08:00

There is a fantastic posting here about visualizing the US bank bailout! It is mad - it seems that $780 Bn looks like one of the Twin Towers!

So I started thinking, what does a billion UK pounds look like?

In that post, it explained that $500 is 2 inches thick. In UK terms, that would mean that 500 of our smallest denomination, £5, is also 2 inches thick. So that would be £2500 and £10,000 is 8 inches tall or 20 centimeters.

That means that 1 meter is equal to £50,000. 10 meters is £500,000 and 20 meters is a million!

In the media, the difference between a million and a billion is one letter and bigger eyes!

In reality, a billion is 1000 million, so multiply that by 20 meters and the answer is ....

20,000 meters or 20 Kilometers. Divide by 2/3 and the answer is 12 miles.

So, one billion pounds, in £5 notes, would reach 12 miles into the sky!

Our UK government has so far spent 37 Billion pounds on bailing out the banks. That is 444 miles - the distance between The Houses of Parliament, London and the outskirts of Perth in Scotland!

Do you see the public still supporting such a mad waste of money if they could see it running up the M6?

What intelligent design tells us about athiests

2009-02-27T08:08:00.000-08:00

I was never one for church, chapel or anything organised. In my teens and twenties, I was a committed atheist. However, since getting married to an active church goes, my stance has changed.

My stance has nothing to do with ID. It is to do with faith of atheists. They are so committed to the idea that there is no all knowing god like being, that they are no different to the fundamentalists of the other side!

Suggest that a god might exist, and they want proof. Without proof then god doesn't exist for them.

I was the same, until I realised a few things. I am living in the present, just like people of the Victorian times were living in the present. The head of the patent office claimed in 1899, that everything that was going to been invented, had been invented. While we laugh, it is important to realise that he really meant it.

Since then, atoms have changed our lives - and they were only discovered in 1908.

See what happens when you say stupid things before anyone realises how stupid it is?

Wales is a communist state

2009-02-17T10:46:00.000-08:00

Wales, a country within the UK. A country with its own assembly and the ability to create its own laws. OK, not big laws, but through the Welsh Assembly Government, it has the ability to create policies and a few insignificant laws.

One of the most interesting things about Wales is the economic layout of the country. It is a country of mostly oldish people! This is why, on average, 30% of everyone over the age of 16 is not in work! The figures can be seen here, StatsWales, however, they take a while to check over.

So, why is it a communist state?

Firstly, there is very little political discourse in its assembly. There are two parties, Labour and Plaid Cymru. Both are socialist parties, although Plaid could be described as National Socialist if it wasn't a bad term! There is no party with a smaller state mentality, no party with an element of supporting individual responsibility. There is, for instance, no party with policies similar to UKIP. This means that the only choices for the voters is a socialist party or a national socialist party.

The employment balance in Wales between the public sector and the private sector is 70 / 30. This means that only 30% of employees work for a company which potentially makes a profit. More interestingly, there is the element of the private sector working for the public sector through tenders.

WAG spends £4Bn a year on supplies. Of that £4bn, £2Bn goes to Welsh companies. That is not to say that it goes to the 30% of private companies because WAG have a different definition of a business. However, it does mean that the purchasing requirrements of WAG directly influances the private companies who do the supplying.

It all comes down to the idea of One Wales.

The mission statement is as follows:

An agreement between the Labour and Plaid Cymru Groups in the National Assembly.

It offers a progressive agenda for improving the quality of life of people in all of Wales’s communities, from all walks of life, and especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged.

The people of Wales, and their government, face unprecedented challenges. Working together, we have devised a programme of government which meets these challenges head on. Our ambition is no less than to transform Wales into a self-confident, prosperous, healthy nation and society, which is fair to all.

One of the ways it does this is that it uses this guideline in its purchasing decisions.

It will only deal with the types of companies it approves of - companies which sign up to all the right ideas. Diversity policies, Fair trade policies, sustainability policies, climate change policies etc etc. All the stuff that makes a lefty wet with excitement!

So, what can be done? The sorry answer is nothing. The only way to kill a communist state is through bankruptcy. Wales needs to go bust! The figures involved are so small - in real terms - are tiny. The Welsh GDP is around £44Bn - a fraction of the UK figure.

What do you think?

How stupid are women?

2009-02-15T09:11:00.000-08:00

Here is an interesting thought. Are women more stupid than men?

I came up with my thought following this story in the paper.

The full list of 22 Sexiest Valentines is:
TOP 22

1 (3*) Alan Rickman
2 (1) Louis Theroux
3 (5) Kevin McCloud
4 (4) Michael Palin
5 (11) Danny Wallace
6 (9) Paul Merton
7 (new) Robert Peston
8 (16) Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall
9 (2) Jeremy Paxman
10 (16) Jeremy Vine
11 (30) Adrian Chiles
12 (33) David Mitchell
13 (16) Andrew Marr
14 (8) Sir David Attenborough
15 (22) David Cameron
16 (11) Boris Johnson
17 (25) Ian Hislop
18 (13) Ricky Gervais
19 (new) Dave Gorman
20 (new) Bamber Gascoigne
21 (new) John Sergeant
22 (7) Gordon Brown

So, why are their no women on the list?

The poll was carried out by Psychologies Magazine and one look at the site answers the question quite easily. Its a womens magazine - pretending to be something more than just a womens magazine! Think of it as Chat but every story is a simplistic tale of the way psychology is responsible for all the readers problems! Bet they would hate to be told that psychology wasn't even a real science!

The poll is in a section of the magazine under the sub menu Well Being and Beauty - another hint that this may not be a standard scientific journal!

Finally, the story is up on that page, where the definition of the poll is revealed as being:

The Top 20 Sexiest Brains as voted by British Women are (numbers in brackets show last year’s rankings):

So there you have it - a magazine for middle class women who don't read Horoscopes - is subtly responsible for keeping the idea of smart women a dirty one!

Well done you!

How to Topple a Government

2009-02-15T08:45:00.000-08:00

THe more I think about our current situation, the more I think its time the UK had a revolution. They do it throughout the rest of the world, why not here?

I could list the number of things that are wrong on a mile of toilet paper, but the basics are that this country is corrupt from the Cabinet Ministers fiddling their expenses, through to the BBC censoring anything they don't agree with, through to the political system being manipulated by the use of postal votes with no police checks.

A revolution though isn't really the answer, because these people would carry on doing what they do, with just another government in residence. The answer is to change the social attitude to corruption.

So, how do you do this?

The only way is from within. People need to be in positions of power and need to start pointing at all the corruption. Bloggers do this, but it isn't enough - not in the UK anyway. Here we have stories about Labour stealing political seats, and the headlines are full of a celebrity wanting to televise her own death.

When one individual does take a stand, they are generally ignored. That is how the UK political system works. If ignoring is not enough, it is usually done through mockery. The number of people who have lots their careers through being laughed out of office is bigger than you can imagine.

Finally, there is the big danger than the point your are trying to make gets taken over and used against the original cause. The green have seen this happen to them. The greens of the original cause are no longer big in their own organisations as hidden agendas make it to the surface. Patrick Moore of Greenpeace is a good example.

I have been thinking about the solution for a ages now. Do I become a local councillor and fix my own back garden first or is the answer a different route?

In my mind, I wonder if the answer is to don a mask, and kill each big name in a suitably stylish manner. I could be like V and visit these people in their homes - killing them with poison, flying knives and exploding chocolate boxes, but the real enemy is not the individual who signs the papers. It is the ideas they stand for - and it is the people who fall for that one.

Its a great escape from realising the truth that the UK is screwed and there is nothing I can do about it.

Why is everyone so wrong?

2009-02-10T13:26:00.000-08:00

I am getting frustrated with life these days.

Every time I hear some news regarding economic news, some fool comes on and tells us that the government is right to give money to the banks, and that its the government's job to create jobs.

Where to I start?

Government has one job, that is to protect the country from invaders. They are also responsible for law and order but that is basically it. All the other things they do is self interest.

The basics of waste management, the roads and care of the unlucky is usually done by councils and should not be a government issue. Finally, there is the grubby task of keeping tabs on everyone. That is really only about tax collection records, but as an additional service, its quite useful to know a little about who else lives in the country!

So, why am I moaning?

Because all the other areas that government have managed to get their fingers into are just an excuse to keep themselves in a job. The theory is that central management is a cheaper, more sensible way of doing things, however, practice shows that it isn't. Practice shows that the extra paperwork and the lack of local knowledge means that there is a huge waste. There is also a lack of competition which means that price is not considered an important issue. This also adds to the waste issue.

Everything that is currently wrong with our economy comes down to it being the government's fault. They have added regulation on regulation to various industries. The cost of abiding by these rules make entry into these industries more expensive and so it becomes less competitive. This leads to the development of cartels and monopolies. We also find that money is spent of finding new ways around the rules, which creates exactly the risks that the regulations were trying to stamp out!

Before you know it, the government has to throw even more money into regulating the industries more tightly, which not only makes things even worse, but soaks money through the taxation system which is paying for all this. Now, this happens in every aspect of life, but because it doesn't cost much per individual, per industry, it isn't regarded as much of a problem.

Now, over half of all the money being spent in the country is going to maintain the government, which is spending the money badly, because it isn't their money. But the problem continues.

Finally, an industry collapses because all faith in the valuations used within the industry is lost. We all know the numbers make no sense, and it can no longer carry on. Worse than that, the whole system is a house of cards - and eventually, most of it collapses.

Prior to government being so involved in the running of the country, industries were left to collapse. This was the natural order of things. people would lose their jobs and communities would die. They would then get on a bike, move elsewhere and start again, doing something different.

However, this wasn't as damaging as what we see today because of one thing. Today, all industries are connected through the government's economic policies. In the past, it was the relationship between the customer and its supplier which was key. The government wasn't involved. Banks set their own rates, depending on how they saw the local risks. With them being local, they did that well. However, they would still get it wrong occasionally, and a bank would fail.

So, now that the government is involved with managing the economic climate. They fiddle with the rules that industries have to abide by and set the taxation of the customers who have to pay for it all. While no individual or company claims to know how to predict an economic cycle, the government thinks it can control every aspect that makes up an economic cycle to the point that it can guide it.

Does this sound mad to anyone else?

To make things worse, governments are made up of people who have too much arrogance, and not enough ability. They think that by saying something is going to happen, it will! When it doesn't, they think they can say it happened anyway, and people will think it did.

This is not a rant at any particular party or government. It is true of all parties and all governments in the modern day. The scary thing is that it is allowed to continue because nobody is willing to allow things to go back to how it was. Nobody is willing to say that politicians are not needed - because that would indicate that the rest of the system was also a sham which wasn't needed.

The ideal world is one where people live in smaller communities while being able to work in as large a community as possible. The free movement of everything, all watched over by a very strong police force should work well. The police though would only have a handful of laws. These would be aimed at protecting the rights of individuals to fairness. Two rules should do it. No cheating, no violence.
There would be very little tax because there would be very little to pay for. The strongest military possible. The best maintained law and order system. Everything else would be paid for locally. The council would offer services which no other organization was willing to run. The cost would be covered by a local service tax.

The end result would not be nirvana though. It would be alright - it would certainly be more stable and more sustainable that the current system of centralist government witch doctoring.

Nirvana doesn't exist, except in the promises of politicians. However, I hope I live long enough to someone say, in public, that the current system is wrong and it needs to be removed. That will be a good day!

The One Eye'd Scottish Idiot

2009-02-06T10:33:00.000-08:00

Clarkson Strikes Again!

“(In the UK) we've got this one-eyed Scottish idiot, he keeps telling us everything's fine and he's saved the world and we know he's lying, but he's smooth at telling us.

This is such a great story. The result of the fall out in the UK has been very interesting.

The blind have been making a fuss - they think its unfair that they are being lumped in with an idiot.

The Scots have been making a fuss. They are proud of their Scottishness and they don't like being reminded that they also have idiots.

Even the village idiots have been making a fuss. They don't like that their brand of stupidity is being confused with the deliberate ineptness of Gordon Brown.

It is interesting that no one has highlighted that any of the comment is incorrect - just that it isn't nice to speak the truth these days.

Clarkson's apology was very interesting:

"In the heat of the moment I made a remark about the Prime Minister's personal appearance for which, upon reflection, I apologise."

No mention that Gordon Brown was not an idiot or that Clarkson was sorry for saying that the PM was an idiot!

With the BBC having put a line under the whole thing, that's it.
Gordon is not a moron, just an idiot - official!

BBC bans free speech

2009-02-05T14:05:00.000-08:00

You must have heard of the fuss about Carol Thatcher, the BBC and the golliwog.

If you don't know what a golliwog is, it was a creature based on the Victorian stereotype of an native African man. It used to be a big part of British children's stories, with Enid Blyton being a big user of their image in stories. They were also the main logo for Robinsons Jam.

Anyway, the big issue is how the BBC dealt with a private conversation.

It seems that in a green room in the BBC, Carol Thatcher was talking to 11 other people and mentioned that some tennis player had hair like a golliwog. The next day, she was asked to apologize to a BBC executive. She refused, so the BBC removed her from her regular part on the show.

This incensed me.

This was an adult conversation with adults where a comparison was made with a childhood character. As I understand it, it wasn't meant in an offensive way. However, the BBC thought differently.

It seems that the BBC have decided that the term is grossly offensive. The Guardian's list from 2005 didn't even register the word as offensive!

I like offensive words used out of context. There is a scene in Clerks 2 where Randall uses the term "Porch Monkey" and declares he's taking it back. To me the term means nothing, but its possibly in the same league as Golliwog. For the same reason, I use the term Gay to mean useless - just like today's kids do!

Language does evolve and words change their meaning, however Golliwog never did. Its a part of 1930's Britain and has historical significance. It isn't a word worth getting hung up about.

More importantly, the BBC has shown its hand. It decides what people can say, what words people can use and this is wrong. This is a gross infringement of a person's freedom of speech. Take enough words from the vocabulary, and eventually, there would be no way to have a 'bad' conversation. This is BBC Newspeak.

The new fear - Eugenics for the 21st Century

2009-02-03T11:00:00.000-08:00

I found this post and it needs to be read. This is Dr Mengele World - and we are arriving at the station!

The full page is here, but I've reposted it here because the style of the original makes it difficult to read!

2009: A Resurgence of Eugenics?

Daniel Taylor
Old Thinker News
February 3, 2009

As the world moves further into economic chaos, eugenics, an old idea cloaked under modern terminology, is making a comeback. During these times it is easy to see how a resurgence and re-packaging of eugenics could come about. Do you have more than two children? Your carbon footprint has been deemed unacceptable. Your economic burden on society cannot be tolerated during unprecedented economic times. The growing population of elderly individuals will be an incredible burden on a faltering system, we are told. Some governmental think tanks see younger generations pursuing euthanasia policies as an option.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi recently stated that family planning services are a must during these economic times.

Eugenics “went underground” after WWII, but continued under the guise of population control and environmentalism, proceeding partly with the aid of Rockefeller family wealth. Rather than focus on “quality control” the emphasis was on “quantity control”. One of the first books to tie these ideas together post-WWII, titled Our Plundered Planet, was written by Fairfield Osborn, who in 1921 served as the President of the Second International Congress of Eugenics in New York.

Today, we see calls for one or two child policies to be implemented to fight global warming. The Times recently reported, “Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.” The Times article reports that Jonathon Porritt, who directs the United Kingdom’s Sustainable Development Commission, is calling for abortion and contraception to fight global warming.

The economic hardship that the world faces is also creating a climate favorable to population and eugenic policies. House speaker Nancy Pelosi recently stated that family planning services are a must during these economic times. Pelosi says,

“Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”

One of President Obama’s first decisions after being sworn into office included the reversal of Ronald Reagan’s ban on United States funding of international family planning groups that provide abortion services. The issue of abortion has been consistently used as a political football to maintain the theatre of the two party system, but the practice remains at the heart of Rockefeller-sponsored population control directives.

In 2007 The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense released The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Program 2007-2036 report. The report outlines a grim economic future of middle class rebellion amidst falling standards of living, brain chips, and other forecasts. One scenario in particular states that youth in western societies could see the growing elderly population as a burden, opening the doorway to euthanasia. The report states,

“Declining youth populations in Western societies could become increasingly dissatisfied with their economically burdensome ‘baby-boomer’ elders, among whom much of societies’ wealth would be concentrated. Resentful at a generation whose values appear to be out of step with tightening resource constraints, the young might seek a return to an order provided by more conservative values and structures. This could lead to a civic renaissance, with strict penalties for those failing to fulfil their social obligations. It might also open the way to policies which permit euthanasia as a means to reduce the burden of care for the elderly.”

The growing economic crisis, and numerous other crises both real and manufactured, will be held as an example of the need for a new army of social workers and bureaucracy to manage the affairs of average men and women. Among all of the other proposals that the elite are throwing at us to “fix” these problems, such as world governance, the scenario outlined by the DCDC report and other population control proposals could become a reality.

Research related articles:

Lovely day for a bike ride

2009-02-01T13:06:00.000-08:00

Today was a crisp dry start for February. I spent the morning removing the cobwebs from my leathers and went for a spin on the bike. There is something very rewarding about riding a motorbike in the depths of winter - even if it is deathly cold!

I managed a 50 mile round trip of the local area before the fingers of both hands became numb from the cold. Guess I shouldn't have ridden in summer gloves but needs must!

I started by visiting the local bypass and its roundabouts. I needed to get the feel for cornering back again - the main problem with the winter is that roads are cold and that makes the confidence in tyres seem remote. Today was no different. After a while I decided to visit the local biker road.

After a good 20 miles, I got into the swing of things again. I have one rule for cob web removal - no brakes!

You ride without using your brakes because it means you force yourself to read the road and get your speed right for the next corner. I worked out that I could take most of the chevroned corners at around 50 mph or so and still feel calm. It does help that the old VFR I'm riding is quite stable and I know it doesn't turn too quickly.

The more I practice, the more comfortable I feel with the bike. Interestingly, I never felt the bike was underpowered today. Usually, I am disappointed at how slow the bike feels - It doesn't help that the last bike was a Fireblade. That bike was frustrating to ride because it was better than I was!

I think this year is going to be a good bike year. I feel comfortable with the old thing and with the weather not promising to be too hot, It will be ideal for touring - now to go planning!

Hyperinflation - prepare yourself!

2009-01-30T10:36:00.000-08:00

I am getting quite worried about the future of the UK. It is quite obvious that things are not right in the state of our finances. Having said that, we have been here before, and we got out of it - although not as easily as we could have done.

My main issue is that all the signs show that the Pound is going to be sacrificed to prevent us becoming a third world country. Think I'm being a little dramatic? In the last 100 years, the UK has gone from the richest country in the world to the 21st. A few more stupid spending decisions like the last few months, and we will be down with Argentina in no time!

The headlines are well known, we have huge debt, and its only getting bigger. With everyone earning more, that debt mountain isn't that massive. After all, earn a million a week, and a debt of £50 million is nothing for an individual. The problem comes when people have a huge debt, and the money we are earning stops. That is what is happening slowly throughout the country.

With there being little hope of getting people to start spending again on fancy coffee and make up for men, the rate of slow down is going to accelerate. Eventually, we are all going to have problems finding the money to pay for that holiday in 2005.

More importantly, the rest of the world is going to realize that the UK is a bit stuffed. This is going to mean that the value of the currency is going to go down. This is what happens with failing economies. It can help with exports, but currently, there are very few customers anywhere, so still no sales.

So, with the currency going down, the government starts to panic. It decides, rather than let the market set the real value of the currency, it will try and keep the prices high by buying more bonds and the like.When the central bank runs out of money, it will need to do something else. This will eventually mean printing more money. This will help keep the currency value up a little, but the markets know its not changed the value of the country. The eventual outcome is that there is internal inflation as goods from outside the country go up rather quickly. With the UK importing more than it exports, this is going to have quite an effect.

So, we end up with fuel costing more. More expensive fuel means more expensive deliveries, meaning more expensive food. The end result is higher inflation. The problem is, nothing about the value of the country has yet changed, meaning it starts to cycle. Before you know it, there is more money printed, and the currency goes down leading to higher fuel costs. etc. etc.

The only answer is to change our currency.

The problem with this is that this choice comes with a total lack of financial control of what happens next. The Euro - which is the only real option - is not controlled by the Bank of England. Instead, it is the EU which has the final decision on what happens next.

So, what can we do?

I am unable to buy gold - not enough ready funds. Instead, I am buying tins! Food will have a value when bread suddenly cost £3000!

The only advantage in the long term is that my current huge debt will be swapped for a few tins of beans!

Oh well!

This is the start of the real recession

2009-01-25T16:11:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, Corus is going to announce 3500 job losses. There is also a rumour that 1500 jobs are going at Jaguar / land Rover. There is also GKN and Toyota talking about job losses. Finally, there are the thousands of small businesses who will be making one and two redundancies but it won't show up in the news.

Having seen the finance industry and the construction industry be burnt in the past 12 months, The motor industry is the current whipping boy. Retail is also suffering, but the next big job losses will be the levels of middle managers and admin staff within the business services sector. This is not good, but inevitable.

What do we do? The honest answer is let it take it course and learn from it. Making money and growing an economy is more than just playing with new words and selling advertising. It is also more than just creating debt and selling it to the highest bidder. An economy is about creating real wealth that has a value beyond what an expert says its worth.

That might seem to sound like a concept, but look at it this way. A BMW car is a good quality pice of hardware. It is better built than something from France, and has a desirability to it. It has real value. On the other hand, a service like advertising has a much more subjective value. Our economy has become a collection of services feeding off other services, with the end result being something with a very subjective value. We have no well built solid products with a natural value to a second and third owner.

The next few months will see the manufacturing areas of the UK getting a hammering, but its not going to be half as bad as what will be happening in areas like Slough. The home of the office.

Although all the politicians will be falling over themselves to tell us we need jobs over anything else - it isn't really the answer. Jobs by themselves don't create value. If it did, the easiest thing to do would be to ban robots and any labour saving devices!

If we learn anything from this recession, it is that we need to learn to be valuable. We need to have skills and an economy which is producing something better than anyone else in the world.

This isn't a pipe dream. The first mention of the British Isles in history is as an island of Tin makers during the time of the Greeks. We exported the world best tin. In the 1700;s we invented the Industrial revolution and exported the best technologies around the world. We seem to have lost our way. maybe the recession can help us refocus on our core strengths as a nation.

Otherwise, the only answer is to learn Chinese!

More evidence of poor education in the UK

2009-01-25T04:38:00.000-08:00

Here is a question for you.

If I was to drill a hole through the Earth, starting from the UK - where would I end up?

The answer is just south west of New Zealand.

This can be proved on a gadget I found here.

When I mentioned this to our 15 year old son, he couldn't understand it. He was wondering why it ended up there rather than in the Pacific.

We ran through the facts again, yet he still didn't understand.

Then it dawned on us why he was confused. He didn't realise that one end of the atlas of the world, fitted onto the other end of the atlas. He thought that the bit from New Zealand through to the Americas was just water - in the same proportion as there was land within the Atlas.

To someone who had a small globe as a child, I was mortified. Was our reasonably bright child (a few potential A* this summer) close to thinking that the world was flat?

After a good 15 minutes discussion, we can to the conclusion that the curriculum was to blame. Geography no longer looks at the world and is mainly concerned with erosion and ecological matters.

A few days ago, we asked the question again to a collection of 15 year olds, and found our son was not unusual - lots of kids seem to think that the back of the atlas is just water and so is not shown!

This is mad. If kids are not being taught the basics about our planet, what else are they not being taught?

I would love to hear from others regarding their own thoughts and experiences - this is a national disgrace!

A message to us all!

2009-01-20T08:09:00.000-08:00

Sometimes a picture says it all!

recession again!

2009-01-17T14:08:00.001-08:00

I have been involved with a think tank this week looking at what the world of busienss really needs to get out of this economic disaster we are currently facing. The response was very interesting.

Firstly, it seems everyone who knows anything about economics is stating that it is practically the end of the world. Interestingly, many of them are pointing to the way that this recession is different to the last because the figures don't seem as honest as in the past. This makes it very difficult to work out the end result.

There are bright lights in the gloom though. Tourism, exports, healthcare, breweries, tobacco companies, security companies will do well from this recession.

Business is looking for something else though. They want the banks to be a little more flexible with their schemes like Invoice financing. They want big organisations to pay their bill quickly. They want to know where they can get the latest impartial information and advice.

The worst aspect of recessions is that it gets the blame for every company that goes bust - while the reality is that a third of companies go bust within 3 years of startup because there is something fundamentally wrong with their business model. This is as true in a boom time as it is during a bust.

Socialists seem to think that all businesses have a right to be successful, and that is just wrong. There are hundreds of reasons why companies go bust. From just being a stupid idea, to not having enough funding to keep them operational while they collect enough customers to get to a tipping point of becoming profitable.

Business is much more complex than just being about making huge profits for fat cats. Its just a shame that media types never learn enough about it to be able to report on their issues subjectively!

The real reason for the recession

2009-01-12T14:26:00.000-08:00

Yes, I have the answer!

It was the (enter your hate group here)!

Actually, no it wasn't. The answer is that it was the law of unintended consequences combined with the short term thinking of politicians.

The problem goes all the way back to the days of a long time ago. The world has worked on the lending of money and paying it back since the beginning of history - to some extent. Originally, it would have been the lending of gold in exchange for some more gold later on in time. Interest was a dirty word for religious reasons! By the end of the 19th century, we were in a position where banks had gathered a lot of gold and were a very important part of the political system.

Eventually, they started wondering if they could make more money by making borrowing a little easier. The end result was the 1929 crash! This is where the story actually starts. Governments used the opportunity to put some restrictions on the banks. Many of the problems that we have had over the past few months, are based on decisions made at this time.

The point that had been dismissed was that there are cycles in business, just like there are in every other aspect of life on Earth. That cycle is thought to be around 8.6 years long. Business grows for the first 8.6 years, and drops for the next 8.6 years. Obviously, it isn't that accurate, but there is a pattern there.

The bigger the boom, the bigger the bust. Think of it as a forest fire getting rid of the dead wood. What is left over will grow faster and stronger. Eventually, another fire happens and the cycle happens again.

As the bust of 1929 was so huge - because the growth had also been great - the governments of the time decided that it was up to them to fix things. They brought in some regulations and hoped for the best. Eventually, things got better, and the governments took the kudos. Next time a bust happened, they pulled the same stunt and slowly, the rules became longer and longer.

By the bust of the 1970's the rules and the spider's web of government involvement was getting so overwhelming that it was taking longer and longer to get out of the bust. By the mid 80's a revolution of sorts took place and some regulations disappeared. However, this wasn't enough to stop nature's bust in the 1990's. The next boom, from 1994 onwards was a biggy as the markets became much bigger. The boom became huge.

Government's helped make it bigger by growing their influences so by the time the bust was due, they put it off by playing with figures. The natural peak should have been 2003, however thanks to some ignorant reporters, and a happy public, it never happened. Rules were changed to allow loans to be given with easier access, and credit cards were allowed to be maxed out with greater ease!

The boom finally came to an end when the value of the houses, that funded the loans that were keeping people in the money they were used to, couldn't go up any further. This is a very simplistic view of the cause, but because the boom was extended and extended, the bust would also be extended.

The figures that showed it was time for a bust revolve around the value of houses compared to the average income. Traditionally, the value of houses should be 2.5 to 3 times the average income. By 2006, this figure was close to 5 times. This was impossible to maintain! With average income not really going up, houses prices would have to drop. To get back to 3 times average wage, the average house price needs to drop to around £110k

There is another way. Average income could increase. This is possibly what might happen with the government's current actions. However, the government has not got the same incentives as the public. The government are only interested in dealing with the economy because it effects their votability. An unhappy public tend to vote out the party it sees as being at fault.

So, who is to blame for the recession? The real answer is nature! However, government's, through their fiddling have made it worse. Without their rule changing, the banks wouldn't have had the guts to risk their money on daft 125% mortgages!

Is smoking bad for you?

2009-01-12T12:44:00.000-08:00

I have always wondered how my grandad was able to live to the age of 95 and didn't die of cancer - while my gran died at 79, having never smoked a day in her life.

Following a comment I made on Devil's Kitchen comments, I found that I'm not the only one who wonders about the real cause of lung cancer.

There is plenty of information on the net regarding lung cancer. A great majority of it is funded by the Anti Smoking Industry. There is money in stopping people from smoking. The majority of this money comes from supplying the Non Governmental Organisations who will be supplying giving up smoking packs. There is also jobs, as well as a mission for the righteous. This is a win win situation for the likes of Johnson & Johnson.

The posting I did came up with a list of interesting reports which have not hit the headlines. It seems to me that the real danger is oil. The benzine from petrol and the dangers of diesel fumes were studied in the 1950's and a very strong relation was spotted. Unfortunately for the general public, the report was caught up in the anti smoking studies, and before you know it, the story was set. Smoking and lung cancer were forever linked.

Dr Kitty Little is one of the people who started the ball rolling. There are a number of ideas she had which really got me thinking. What is interesting with her thought process is that she worked through the scientific process. She came up with a theory, and then tried to disprove it. This is an old fashioned idea, but it is the basis of all science. Shame school teachers don't do it anymore!

The question is, how many other things we have got wrong? More importantly, what would happen if Dr Little was right? That could be the secret of the century!

How Stupid are the Youth of Today?

2009-01-09T10:46:00.000-08:00

One of the things on the back of my mind on a regular basis is how many simple things the kids of today don't know. It is not so much that they have yet to learn things - that is one of the follies of youth. It is that there are things that they can't do which I'm sure should be on the curriculum which bugs me.

Simple maths is one example. What is 10% of £1.45? In my day, I am sure that most of the public would have been able to do this as a mental arithmetic problem. I'm not saying everyone could have done it with ease, but I feel that most people would have given it a go. Today's kids don't do maths without a calculator. They cannot do mental arithmatic and that is too bad.

How about some of the other bug bears I have? I won't list examples but there seems to be an element of knowing the facts, but not understanding the process. They can't do something which involves having to think about why something happens.

Maybe I am being too harsh. After all, my hormones have sorted themselves and I don't get excited when a girl talks to me anymore. I've done the interesting things in life all ready, so I have the time to work things out. I also understand the idea of hidden agendas. This is where life gets confusing enough for fully grown adults, I do understand why kids can't grasp it.

For instance, I know that the current economic climate is very dire. I also understand that its going to get much, much worse. Finally, I despair at the politicians ideas for fixing the problem. When you ask the youth about these issues, they barely know anything. What they do know is just a parroting of what they may have caught of the TV. They cannot think beyond a few soundbites.

I was a youth during the last recession and I must admit that I was thinking about how unemployment beckoned after school. Today's kids don't seem to see how their future is much dimmer than they imagine. Is this stupidity? Or is it a defence mechanism?

I would love to hear from a youth who could set me straight!

Why assasination is not the answer

2009-01-08T10:32:00.000-08:00

When I was younger, I used to think it would be a great idea if someone would shoot Thatcher. I really couldn't stand the lady. She didn't seem to see sense. I still think she is mad, and that is after being out of power for 18 years or so.

I currently think it would be nice to see Gordon Brown swinging like Sadam. The sensible side of me knows it would be a waste of time. Politics is not about individuals anymore. It's a career choice for the sort of people that nobody ever liked in school! They did their homework, they were the ones who would tell tales. Politicians are the sort of people who have no useful skills.

When a politician dies, their place is taken by another, almost identical drone. They may have something they are interested in, but the majority are the sort who can summarize your conversation before you have even finished speaking to them! The have the answers, even though they may be wrong. By the way, if you point out that they are wrong, you'll normally find that politicians are able to agree that you are right, and then tell you that their answer is also right - and probably more right than your answer. It is a skill that seems to pay well!

Anyway, the only way to get rid of the current Prime Mentalist is to let them lose the election honestly and see them slowly realise that the public don't like them. It is death of their ego that will give us satisfaction. Many people might remember when Thatcher left No10 with tears in her eyes. Priceless!

Seeing her on the TV as a old and fragile but frankly as mad as a box of frenchmen is much more satisfying than reading about the day a bullet immortalized her.

If anyone was daft enough to kill Gordon the Moron we would soon find that he would become a saint - and we would be stuck with this economic meltdown for the next 12 years! At least if the Tories win the next election, I might see Gordon getting the mauling he deserves - by some brainless TV host in a few years, when Brown the Brainless enters political Big Brother for the money!

The only problem I see is that Dave won't be any better - and might even be worse!

London is not the UK

2009-01-07T15:58:00.000-08:00

I spent the new year in London. We were at the bottom of the giant Boris and only 100 yards or so away from the London Eye. It was the best fireworks display I ever saw.

However, the rest of London is rubbish!

The problem, as I see it, is that government policy is based on what MP's and the lobby crowd see on their way to Westminster. They cannot see, or don't acknowledge that outside the M25, life is different.

I was staggered by the lack of miserable white faces I saw in the capital. Everyone is a shade of skin, and generally speaking another language! This isn't a BNP racist rant, it is just a simple observation. London seems to be the centre of the world as far as culture is concerned. If you were to stand on Oxford Street for more than an hour, I'm sure you would heard 90% of the world's languages being spoken. But that is not true where I live!

The issue for me is that all this multiculturalism seems to work in London. There are no majorities of one race or creed, so everyone is in the same boat. The natives who are there are rarely London born, having escaped from their corner of the UK to see the bright lights. The real Londoners now live in Essex, Brighton or the Home Counties. This means everyone is an immigrant - which is how it should be!

In the rest of the Uk, we don't live by these rules. Here, most people rarely move more than 30 miles from where the were born. When we see someone with an odd accent, we are suspicious. They might be scousers, brummies or even Scots - whatever the case, they are not one of us! Multiply that concept with a different language and, horror or horrors, darker skin and you have an issue on your hands.

Politicians make things worse by insisting that we should all now live by multicultural rules. If something works in London, it should work in the rest of the UK. We have not yet touched on the religious question or the sexual ones. Politicians never wonder why every Daffyd finds the route from LlanDewi Brefi to G.A.Y. It is the same reason that London can do multicultural and the rest of the UK can't!

Most towns in the UK are 95 - 99% white. There are pockets of Indians, Chinese and misc Asians & Africans, but the figures are quite decisive. This is not a multicultural society. It is not a particularly kind society to anyone who is different. So when the laws are put in place to try and make us behave a little less naturally, things start to get a bit messy.

There is a simple answer. Make London a country in its own right.

What do you think?

every day is looking more like 1991!

2009-01-07T15:24:00.000-08:00

I am looking forward to seeing ITV doing their job loss feature on the news at ten again. They would have a 2 minute section where they would list all the jobs lost that week and all the jobs gained that week. It was one of those heart warming things that the news does do any more. It made you realise it wasn't just you who was on the wrong end of the stick.

I can't see them doing it though. It would be deemed un PC for some reason. Possibly because it would remind us all of how useless Labour really is!

My First Rant

2009-01-07T09:33:00.000-08:00

This blog is my latest idea for ranting!

I want to help create better awareness of the life of an average family man in the UK.

As you can guess from the title, I am someone who was effected by Margaret Thatcher during my youth.

My views have been built on this experience.

I look forward to hear from people 'out there'!