Pippa Middleton's a nice bit of crumpet...

If you ever wanted a prime example of the never ending genius of the human mind to do something completely meaningless and trivial, here's a prime example...



Apparently, this resulted from a poll done by Beefeater to find Britains favourite bit of crumpet.

Not only purile, unnecessary and sexist, but also a huge waste of food. After all, there's people starving in Africa, you know...

...and is it just me, or does her bum look big in that?

Pippa Middleton's a nice bit of crumpet...

If you ever wanted a prime example of the never ending genius of the human mind to do something completely meaningless and trivial, here's a prime example...



Apparently, this resulted from a poll done by Beefeater to find Britains favourite bit of crumpet.

Not only purile, unnecessary and sexist, but also a huge waste of food. After all, there's people starving in Africa, you know...

...and is it just me, or does her bum look big in that?

Charity begins at home

Here we go again!...

Whilst I am duly sympathetic to the plight of those starving in refugee camps in East Africa and am duly impressed by the generosity of the British people in donating £15 million of the money they are not supposed to have, I continue to draw a line at enforced charity giving.

On top of the £15 million, the government has announced that it will contribute a further £52 million to the appeal. This is all very well, but that £52 million of taxpayers money on top of the £15 million that the taxpayers have already given voluntarily. In my view, that's not on.

It's one thing to be asked to donate. It's quite another thing to have it taken off you via the tax system and donated on your behalf without asking for or attaining your consent.

Maybe the people in the horn of Africa should at least try and sort out their own differences and problems. Perhaps their governments should take some responsibility. Or maybe people just shouldn't choose to live where there is no viable life support?

Whatever, it's a good excuse for yet another concert...

Charity begins at home

Here we go again!...

Whilst I am duly sympathetic to the plight of those starving in refugee camps in East Africa and am duly impressed by the generosity of the British people in donating £15 million of the money they are not supposed to have, I continue to draw a line at enforced charity giving.

On top of the £15 million, the government has announced that it will contribute a further £52 million to the appeal. This is all very well, but that £52 million of taxpayers money on top of the £15 million that the taxpayers have already given voluntarily. In my view, that's not on.

It's one thing to be asked to donate. It's quite another thing to have it taken off you via the tax system and donated on your behalf without asking for or attaining your consent.

Maybe the people in the horn of Africa should at least try and sort out their own differences and problems. Perhaps their governments should take some responsibility. Or maybe people just shouldn't choose to live where there is no viable life support?

Whatever, it's a good excuse for yet another concert...

Immunisation

OK - I accept this will probably not be a very popular post. I expect I will be called a cruel, heartless, unfeeling bastard. But I'll risk it - because I think this needs to be said...

I'm not going to suggest that getting rid of Polio from the face of planet is a bad idea, because it isn't. After all, it worked for smallpox - well, except for the bits they keep at Porton Down for biological warfare purposes of course. The question I am going to ask is this :

"Why is it always us?????"

Cameron has pledged £1.3bn towards the campaign. The UK has already committed more than any other nation - £2bn over 30 years. The extra £814m comes on top of the UK's existing commitment of £680m between 2011 and 2015.

Other countries - including the United States - have contributed far less ($450 million) despite their considerably larger populations and economies. The Germans contributed £49 million, for Christ sake! That's like pissing into the wind! Even Bill Gates is giving a $1 billion...

The fact is that the UK is funding about a third of the total global programme. That's scandalous.

And how does Cameron justify this expenditure? He said there was a "strong moral case" for keeping pledges Britain had made to the developing world, no matter the economic circumstances at home.

"Today we come together because we have the chance to save another four million lives." He said the idea of children dying from pneumonia and diarrhoea should be "unthinkable" in 2011.

"To those who say fine but we should put off seeing through those promises to another day because right now we can't afford to help: I say - we can't afford to wait."

Laudable aims, Dave - but you're wrong.

Let's stop trying to impress the world with our leadership because, frankly, they're just laughing at our naivety and stupidity...

Immunisation

OK - I accept this will probably not be a very popular post. I expect I will be called a cruel, heartless, unfeeling bastard. But I'll risk it - because I think this needs to be said...

I'm not going to suggest that getting rid of Polio from the face of planet is a bad idea, because it isn't. After all, it worked for smallpox - well, except for the bits they keep at Porton Down for biological warfare purposes of course. The question I am going to ask is this :

"Why is it always us?????"

Cameron has pledged £1.3bn towards the campaign. The UK has already committed more than any other nation - £2bn over 30 years. The extra £814m comes on top of the UK's existing commitment of £680m between 2011 and 2015.

Other countries - including the United States - have contributed far less ($450 million) despite their considerably larger populations and economies. The Germans contributed £49 million, for Christ sake! That's like pissing into the wind! Even Bill Gates is giving a $1 billion...

The fact is that the UK is funding about a third of the total global programme. That's scandalous.

And how does Cameron justify this expenditure? He said there was a "strong moral case" for keeping pledges Britain had made to the developing world, no matter the economic circumstances at home.

"Today we come together because we have the chance to save another four million lives." He said the idea of children dying from pneumonia and diarrhoea should be "unthinkable" in 2011.

"To those who say fine but we should put off seeing through those promises to another day because right now we can't afford to help: I say - we can't afford to wait."

Laudable aims, Dave - but you're wrong.

Let's stop trying to impress the world with our leadership because, frankly, they're just laughing at our naivety and stupidity...

Foxy hits the spot

You will have gathered from the picture on the left that I was somewhat unimpressed with Liam Fox when I told him what to do with his nuclear deterent...

Well, I have changed my view somewhat after he came out publically against Cameron's balmy plan to enshrine the overseas aid budget in law!

My regular reader will know that I am no lover of ringfencing the aid budget at a time when this country is in the economic crapper, but to suggest that 0.7% of this country's income should be set aside by law is, frankly, completely fucking nuts!

What the hell are you thinking about, Cameron? Is there fuck all else more important for you to be concentrating on at the moment apart from this piece of patent absolute nonsense!?

So all credit to Liam Fox for saying that "I have considered the issue carefully, and discussed it with Andrew (Mitchell) and William Hague, but I cannot support the proposal in its current form."

A source close to Fox insisted that he was not opposed to the government's plan to increase spending on aid, saying: "The defence secretary fully supports the principle of a 0.7% target on international aid. The issue is simply how best to reflect this in law."

Quite right, Liam. If the government decides to give our hard earned money away to a load of bone idle Johnny foreigners then that's one thing. But the government is the government. It does not need to legislate for itself to do anything - it just does it!

It seems a shame to me that we don't have this guy running the country...

Foxy hits the spot

You will have gathered from the picture on the left that I was somewhat unimpressed with Liam Fox when I told him what to do with his nuclear deterent...

Well, I have changed my view somewhat after he came out publically against Cameron's balmy plan to enshrine the overseas aid budget in law!

My regular reader will know that I am no lover of ringfencing the aid budget at a time when this country is in the economic crapper, but to suggest that 0.7% of this country's income should be set aside by law is, frankly, completely fucking nuts!

What the hell are you thinking about, Cameron? Is there fuck all else more important for you to be concentrating on at the moment apart from this piece of patent absolute nonsense!?

So all credit to Liam Fox for saying that "I have considered the issue carefully, and discussed it with Andrew (Mitchell) and William Hague, but I cannot support the proposal in its current form."

A source close to Fox insisted that he was not opposed to the government's plan to increase spending on aid, saying: "The defence secretary fully supports the principle of a 0.7% target on international aid. The issue is simply how best to reflect this in law."

Quite right, Liam. If the government decides to give our hard earned money away to a load of bone idle Johnny foreigners then that's one thing. But the government is the government. It does not need to legislate for itself to do anything - it just does it!

It seems a shame to me that we don't have this guy running the country...

Disappointed...

OK, I'm a mug. I admit it. I fell for it.

I was stupid enough to belief that when we got rid of the dreaded Broon and his crowd of incompetent wastrels that things could only get better. I suppose I should have remembered that Blair used that line as his campaign song, and look how that turned out!

Now I know that the Conservative Party did not win the election and that a coalition has to make compromises, but I really did expect better of Cameron.

I expected him to deal with the excesses of the bankers, not just let then carry on paying themselves obscene bonuses. At the very least not in the banks that we actually own...

I expected him to honour his manifesto promiss for an Eu referendum. I did not expect him to do a complete 180 degree U-turn on the issue after being presented with a petition with over 350,000 signatures on it. I expected better reasoning than that he thought it was 'inappropriate'...

I expected him to stand his ground on NHS reforms not to start faffing about pretending to 'listen and reconsider' when the decisions have already been made...

I expected him to make tough decisions about the public finances, not give away our money to foreign countries who don't need it just to suck up to them to support us in a war we shouldn't be involved in in the first place...

I expected him to start making plans to brings the troops home like he said he would...

Instead, I am forced to use the most powerful word in the English language to judge his performance so far. I am disappointed.

I thought better of you, Cameron. I thought you were a statesman. I thought you had backbone. I thought you would make a good Prime Minister.

I was wrong.

Disappointed...

OK, I'm a mug. I admit it. I fell for it.

I was stupid enough to belief that when we got rid of the dreaded Broon and his crowd of incompetent wastrels that things could only get better. I suppose I should have remembered that Blair used that line as his campaign song, and look how that turned out!

Now I know that the Conservative Party did not win the election and that a coalition has to make compromises, but I really did expect better of Cameron.

I expected him to deal with the excesses of the bankers, not just let then carry on paying themselves obscene bonuses. At the very least not in the banks that we actually own...

I expected him to honour his manifesto promiss for an Eu referendum. I did not expect him to do a complete 180 degree U-turn on the issue after being presented with a petition with over 350,000 signatures on it. I expected better reasoning than that he thought it was 'inappropriate'...

I expected him to stand his ground on NHS reforms not to start faffing about pretending to 'listen and reconsider' when the decisions have already been made...

I expected him to make tough decisions about the public finances, not give away our money to foreign countries who don't need it just to suck up to them to support us in a war we shouldn't be involved in in the first place...

I expected him to start making plans to brings the troops home like he said he would...

Instead, I am forced to use the most powerful word in the English language to judge his performance so far. I am disappointed.

I thought better of you, Cameron. I thought you were a statesman. I thought you had backbone. I thought you would make a good Prime Minister.

I was wrong.

International Climate Week

Did you know that this week was International Climate Week? No.? Well, until I saw it on the BBC breakfast programme yesterday morning, nor did I.

Apparently, Monday 21 March 2011, marked the start of the UK’s first ever Climate Week. It is a new national occasion, backed by the Prime Minister, has-been eco knobhead Al Gore and celebrities such as Paul McCartney, as well as "a huge number of people and organisations from every part of society".

Climate Week apparently provides an opportunity to raise awareness and highlight and inspire innovative ideas which will help protect our planet and the people who live on it. As far as I can see it has failed spectacularly!

Basically, it's a bit of touchy feely bullshit thought up by the Department for International Development. You can read about it by clicking here. I especially like the flash at the head of the site where it thanks 'British Taxpayers' which I found particularly offensive. No bugger asked me if they could give my money away at a time when I need it myself.

Apparently this amazingly inconspicuous set of events is sponsored by Tesco, Kelloggs, French energy supplier EDF (Hmmmm...is this appropriate?) and RBS which you will remember is also funded by the taxpayer. Still, it did get an award for "Best Initiative for a Government or Statutory body (see here) as did HM Revenue and Customs for "making environmental targets a departmental priority.

I am tempted to say that collecting tax from loads of people who haven't paid up might be a better priority for HMRC because, after all, they haven't contributed to this piece of pathetic self aggrandisement - it's just us mugs...

International Climate Week

Did you know that this week was International Climate Week? No.? Well, until I saw it on the BBC breakfast programme yesterday morning, nor did I.

Apparently, Monday 21 March 2011, marked the start of the UK’s first ever Climate Week. It is a new national occasion, backed by the Prime Minister, has-been eco knobhead Al Gore and celebrities such as Paul McCartney, as well as "a huge number of people and organisations from every part of society".

Climate Week apparently provides an opportunity to raise awareness and highlight and inspire innovative ideas which will help protect our planet and the people who live on it. As far as I can see it has failed spectacularly!

Basically, it's a bit of touchy feely bullshit thought up by the Department for International Development. You can read about it by clicking here. I especially like the flash at the head of the site where it thanks 'British Taxpayers' which I found particularly offensive. No bugger asked me if they could give my money away at a time when I need it myself.

Apparently this amazingly inconspicuous set of events is sponsored by Tesco, Kelloggs, French energy supplier EDF (Hmmmm...is this appropriate?) and RBS which you will remember is also funded by the taxpayer. Still, it did get an award for "Best Initiative for a Government or Statutory body (see here) as did HM Revenue and Customs for "making environmental targets a departmental priority.

I am tempted to say that collecting tax from loads of people who haven't paid up might be a better priority for HMRC because, after all, they haven't contributed to this piece of pathetic self aggrandisement - it's just us mugs...

Cardinal cock of the week

Another Sunday, another bloody interfering priest...

This is Cardinal Keith O'Brien, yet another Catholic who thinks that being a Papist entitles him to stick his nose into politics and tell the governement what to do. The Cardinal accused the Foreign Secretary of doubling overseas aid to Pakistan to more than £445 million without demanding religious freedom for Christians and other religious minorities, such as Shia Muslims.

He claimed that three-quarters of all religious persecution in the world is now directed at Christians, resulting in a collapse in the number of followers in some Middle East countries. On the other hand of course, it could just be that they simply don't like what you are peddling?

He went on to say "In countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, Christians face violence, intolerance and even death because of their beliefs.” Hardly surprising as they are not Christian countries and have put up with centuries of Catholic missionaries trying to show them the error of their ways. Perhaps I should mention the Crusades at this point?

I support freedom of worship - provided it doesn't include you ramming your views down my throat - but it's not right to use aid to enforce it in other countries.

The church is the church. The government is the government. Our government does not insist on people holding specific views in the UK and it is quite wrong to use aid money to blackmail other countries' governments into doing things our way.

( You can read the full story in the Daily Telegraph by clicking here )

Cardinal cock of the week

Another Sunday, another bloody interfering priest...

This is Cardinal Keith O'Brien, yet another Catholic who thinks that being a Papist entitles him to stick his nose into politics and tell the governement what to do. The Cardinal accused the Foreign Secretary of doubling overseas aid to Pakistan to more than £445 million without demanding religious freedom for Christians and other religious minorities, such as Shia Muslims.

He claimed that three-quarters of all religious persecution in the world is now directed at Christians, resulting in a collapse in the number of followers in some Middle East countries. On the other hand of course, it could just be that they simply don't like what you are peddling?

He went on to say "In countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, Christians face violence, intolerance and even death because of their beliefs.” Hardly surprising as they are not Christian countries and have put up with centuries of Catholic missionaries trying to show them the error of their ways. Perhaps I should mention the Crusades at this point?

I support freedom of worship - provided it doesn't include you ramming your views down my throat - but it's not right to use aid to enforce it in other countries.

The church is the church. The government is the government. Our government does not insist on people holding specific views in the UK and it is quite wrong to use aid money to blackmail other countries' governments into doing things our way.

( You can read the full story in the Daily Telegraph by clicking here )

Aid no longer required

Blimey! A British Prime Minister who is actually prepared to make a U-turn! Shurely not...

Well - as usual nothing is quite the same as the headline. The headline is that a major review has been completed which has resulted in Britain no longer giving taxpayer money to countries that don't need it.

The review was ordered by International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell and. as you might suspect, he's not going to put himsef out of a job. Apparently sixteen countries have been identified as no longer in poverty and so they will no longer get our money. They include Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Moldova, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo and Serbia.

Quite why were giving aid to Russia in the first place eludes me, but I digress...

Read on - Aid to India will be 'frozen'. Well, that'll bugger up their space program and nuclear power station building!

However, vast amounts of extra money - 30 per cent of the entire aid budget - will be pumped into unstable terrorist hotspots such as Yemen and Somalia, in a bid to help them to crack down on citizens exporting violence. Can I point out that the Yemenis seem to be keeping their violence at home at the moment.

So the aid budget is still ringfenced - it's just that we've decided to not give to some countries who don't need it and give to other countries that don't need it instead...

The total amount being spent on aid will soar from £7billion to £11billion in 2015 - at the same time as front-line public services here at home are being slashed.

Mr Mitchell said the plan was to 'buy results' rather than 'lob money at problems' - that is setting targets and stopping aid if they are not met. He is also likely to order the removal of funding from international organisations which have not delivered. For example, the £12million given to UN cultural body Unesco is likely to be axed.

'From now on we will only give aid where we can follow the money and ensure that the British taxpayer is getting value for money,' he said.

Sorry, old son, but as far as I can see, the British taxpayer is getting fuck all for his money!

Aid no longer required

Blimey! A British Prime Minister who is actually prepared to make a U-turn! Shurely not...

Well - as usual nothing is quite the same as the headline. The headline is that a major review has been completed which has resulted in Britain no longer giving taxpayer money to countries that don't need it.

The review was ordered by International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell and. as you might suspect, he's not going to put himsef out of a job. Apparently sixteen countries have been identified as no longer in poverty and so they will no longer get our money. They include Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Moldova, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo and Serbia.

Quite why were giving aid to Russia in the first place eludes me, but I digress...

Read on - Aid to India will be 'frozen'. Well, that'll bugger up their space program and nuclear power station building!

However, vast amounts of extra money - 30 per cent of the entire aid budget - will be pumped into unstable terrorist hotspots such as Yemen and Somalia, in a bid to help them to crack down on citizens exporting violence. Can I point out that the Yemenis seem to be keeping their violence at home at the moment.

So the aid budget is still ringfenced - it's just that we've decided to not give to some countries who don't need it and give to other countries that don't need it instead...

The total amount being spent on aid will soar from £7billion to £11billion in 2015 - at the same time as front-line public services here at home are being slashed.

Mr Mitchell said the plan was to 'buy results' rather than 'lob money at problems' - that is setting targets and stopping aid if they are not met. He is also likely to order the removal of funding from international organisations which have not delivered. For example, the £12million given to UN cultural body Unesco is likely to be axed.

'From now on we will only give aid where we can follow the money and ensure that the British taxpayer is getting value for money,' he said.

Sorry, old son, but as far as I can see, the British taxpayer is getting fuck all for his money!

Ring-fencing the aid budget

Sorry, Mr. Osbourne, George, Mr Chancellor, Sir - but what the fuck are you talking about?

You have just been telling us at some length that this country is in the deep shite and that we all need to make sacrifices for the good of the country. Apparently, you keep telling us ad nauseum, we can't spend money we don't have.

So as you are so fucking clever, please explain to me how a country that has no money (i.e. us) is able to give money we don't have to other countries that have no money either?

I seriously suggest that you take the ring fence from around the overseas development budget and shove it up your arse - which at least will stop you talking out of it...

Ring-fencing the aid budget

Sorry, Mr. Osbourne, George, Mr Chancellor, Sir - but what the fuck are you talking about?

You have just been telling us at some length that this country is in the deep shite and that we all need to make sacrifices for the good of the country. Apparently, you keep telling us ad nauseum, we can't spend money we don't have.

So as you are so fucking clever, please explain to me how a country that has no money (i.e. us) is able to give money we don't have to other countries that have no money either?

I seriously suggest that you take the ring fence from around the overseas development budget and shove it up your arse - which at least will stop you talking out of it...