19 September 2008.
Two separate but related international stories broke today: Firstly, an Australian bar has come under scrutiny after running a “No Undie Sundie” promotion in which women receive free drinks in return for the removal of their undercrackers. In Uganda, meanwhile, the ethics minister wants a ban on mini-skirts because they are dangerous to male drivers.
Why should there be any consternation over these subjects? What right do “authorities” have in prohibiting women wearing (or not) what they want? If women are willing to rid themselves of their laderhosen then so be it – that is their human right. It is not like these women are running through Melbourne’s streets like Frank the tank, or facilitating organised naturism.
In any case, there are some fairly high profile and successful bars around the globe where the main attraction is girls wearing a lot less than simply no underwear. Indeed, these women get paid for doing so in the form of cash rather than simply alcoholic beverages, yet these rarely attract the attention witnessed today.
Or, to view the consternation from another angle, I’d happily shed my boxers if a bar was offering free pints of San Miguel in return for me freeing up the crown jewels. Unfortunately, a promotion of that nature is about as likely to eventuate as Osama Bin Laden walking out from his cave waving a white flag while singing God Save The Queen.
An Australian observer commented that a girl removing her thong in a bar is tantamount to an invitation to sexual assault. Forgive my reckless understanding of legislative terminology but if there is an invitation involved how can any act that follows constitute an assault?
Similarly, the Ugandan ethics minister stated that the women wearing mini-skirts are essentially naked. Now perhaps Uganda has a unique slant on the English language but surely someone is either naked or not. If someone has donned a mini-skirt they are not naked in my book. It equates to describing something as slightly random or partially impossible. There is no continuum with naked at one end and clothed at the other.
Or perhaps our Ugandan friend has adopted an unusual take on the classic psychological debate about whether the glass is half full or half empty. Most people would classify a lady in a mini-skirt as being half-dressed, but in Uganda they are half-naked.
Now I’m not denying that there are plenty of people in this world that should not be allowed to wear mini-skirts. The sight of such people does about as much for the health of others as a wrongly-produced MMR injection which actually contains MRSA, C-difficile and E.coli. In fact, I’d rather be forced to stare at my own scrotum for four days solid. To condemn or legislate against it, however, is disgraceful.
If there is to be legislation prohibiting the presence of mini-skirts, surely there first needs to be an act which ensures people’s eyesight is retained through the criminalisation of builder’s bum, teenage boys walking around with their hand down their pants, and botched cosmetic surgery.
Moreover, if bars want to clean up their act, they should first ban morbidly obese people after 10pm on Friday and Saturday nights. In a crowded venue, it is inevitable that, en route to the toilet, some drunken fatty brushes their sweaty bingo wings all over you. Those lucky enough to escape that fate will, upon reaching the gents, be subjected instead to some drunken idiot swaying like the audience during Land of Hope and Glory at the Last Night of the Proms with the result that their urine ends up on your best shirt and jeans.
The usual rubbish about the conduct being offensive to other people has been spouted. That view carries about as much weight as the excretion that flows from the mouths of the presenters of Psychic TV. Only the people that go to the Australian bar in question can have an opinion on the matter, yet there was no word of discontent from either the females who were given free drinks in this time of bare economic hardship or the males who were watching the women get plastered quicker than a wall on DIY SOS.
That may be somewhat attributable to those who frequent the bar being too sozzled to construct a simple sentence (much like Shane McGowan all day every day), but the crux of the matter is that these people had some cheap fun and that is about as common in this day and age as Kenzie turning down a part in a dreadful reality TV show.
Saturday, 27 September 2008
Sunday, 14 September 2008
As fraud as it's wrong
8 September 2008.
The plight was detailed today of a woman who died aged 83 after spending the last five years of her life forking out £50,000 to fraudsters pretending to have sizeable amounts of cash waiting for her in return for a small “administration” fee. This is a sad story indeed, and highlights a growing and seemingly uncontrollable problem of fraud in the UK.
The request for personal information every time you do anything online or over the telephone means you can barely buy a pint of milk without ubiquitous “corporate partners” being granted paid access to that same data instantaneously. Indeed, the publicising last week of a Lloyds TSB customer discovering that his password had been changed by some call centre skivvy without his knowledge is a prime exponent of the extent to which nothing is personal anymore and that our data is no longer in our own hands.
It is lucky he stayed with Lloyds TSB in the first place so if he wants to have a password which lambasts his bank then that is his prerogative and not up to some untrained peasant calling from a telephone in Bangalore. If I want my secret password which protects all of my most sensitive personal data to be Bankersarewankers or Goshagamarsupialyougreedytwats I should not need the permission of an institution which has proved capable recently only of losing billions of pounds.
But this problem with security breaches and fraud is not helped by the plethora of miscreants thicker than the walls of the steel cages they should be locked up in. These people from the Kerry Katona school of financial management, who would probably consume their own seminal fluid if told it has health benefits, make Orville look like Albert Einstein. Did you know ‘gullible’ has been removed from the dictionary? If you missed yesterday’s blog check back for instructions on how to collect the £87billion I’m giving to you in return for just a 50p postage fee.
If you have now checked back or answered in the positive to the question you will almost certainly ring an 0906 number when something arrives through your letterbox instructing you to do so to claim the £1million waiting for you. If the penny still hasn’t dropped you are more naïve than Max Mosley’s wife.
With that in mind, follow some real advice and not something printed on a shiny flier from an anonymous source and get your husband/wife/father/mother/son/daughter/third cousin twice removed to immediately close your bank account, cancel your credit card, put a blindfold on you, tie you up immovably and never let you even feed yourself again let alone be trusted with money.
A slight twinge of suspicion should resonate upon the receipt of an email which guarantees you larger breasts within two weeks of purchasing the advertised product, particularly when the recipient is male. There is a reason why penis enlargement pills are not available through the conventional channels and only over the internet at a knock-down rate – they are illegal, unapproved and, perhaps most importantly, they don’t bloody work.
Last week a study found spammers target email addresses which commence with certain letters of the alphabet. The tone of the investigation suggested an element of surprise when it unearthed that the most common letter of the alphabet S was targeted the most and letters like X and Q the least. How many Quincys and Xaviers reside in the UK to line the Abu Dhabi investor-sized pockets of these fraudsters Mr Investigator?
It is not the spammers who have the intelligence of my left scrotum. Let’s be honest if we had the skills to hack or be paid to find email addresses to send junk to we would probably all give up our day job. Next time investigate the myriad imbeciles with less going on upstairs than an impotent 93 year old leper to discover what it is that makes these plonkers disclose their complete bank details in response to the email from a random Nigerian offering a newly-discovered £93million inheritance.
What is worrying is how this problem seems to be so concentrated in the UK. It is hardly irrational to assume this vast practice must be continuing globally, but the endless reports which detail the extent of fraud seem to highlight a trait unique to the UK. Of course it is unreasonable to assume developing countries are likely to be targeted because, apart from the lack of computers, telephones and banking sector prevailing in these regions, the inhabitants of these nations are unlikely to be able to afford even the “modest” fee charged by the bogus operators.
But recent research has also suggested fraud victims are likely to reach a peak during the current economic downturn owing to financial desperation. This suggests it is in fact the poorest people that fall foul of financial fraud. Why, therefore, is Britain so culpable of being ripped off when it is richer than the majority of its associates? Is Britain the global gullible hub?
For those less astute with money, or who have been off with the fairies more than George Michael on Hampstead Heath, here are some tips on how to limit the potential for being stung worse than by a queen bee on Prozac:
1. If a form asks you for data, only fill in those boxes which are actually requisite. Just because the form has already asked you for your name, postcode and a contact telephone number does not mean you need to then enter your star sign, bra size, favourite sexual position, Weight Watchers membership number and most erotic fantasy.
2. If someone rings you up claiming to be calling on behalf of your mobile telephone provider tell them to take a hike and hang up the phone quicker than Mike Ashley consumes a pint. Do not stay on the line and tell them how your hubby took you for a Valentine’s Day medieval banquet or how you bought a great sex toy online at the weekend. You will then be barraged with further telephone calls, emails and post from associated companies enquiring whether you would like to purchase the latest multi-functional 27 inch dildo since it has recently become clear to them you have a large penchant for outlandish sex toys.
3. If an email arrives informing you that if you reply with your bank details a bank security breach will be alleviated or $83million will immediately be paid into your account, do not bash out more enthusiastically than a sex-starved man your name, address, telephone number, bank account number and sort code. Instead, consider why someone you’ve never heard of from a country you’ve probably never even heard of is offering you an incomprehensibly large sum of money in the wrong currency for free. Next, go outside, get in your car, hold down the accelerator and drive directly into the nearest lamppost for even opening the email from evg4aml377@xx4r4rgrr.com in the first place.
4. If an email is sent to your inbox with an attachment but no name or subject, do not open it faster than Lindsay Lohan does her legs. Instead, stop and think of all the people in your Outlook address book – and all the people in their contact lists, and so on – who you will be passing on the virus to quicker than an STD around a Glasgow council estate.
The plight was detailed today of a woman who died aged 83 after spending the last five years of her life forking out £50,000 to fraudsters pretending to have sizeable amounts of cash waiting for her in return for a small “administration” fee. This is a sad story indeed, and highlights a growing and seemingly uncontrollable problem of fraud in the UK.
The request for personal information every time you do anything online or over the telephone means you can barely buy a pint of milk without ubiquitous “corporate partners” being granted paid access to that same data instantaneously. Indeed, the publicising last week of a Lloyds TSB customer discovering that his password had been changed by some call centre skivvy without his knowledge is a prime exponent of the extent to which nothing is personal anymore and that our data is no longer in our own hands.
It is lucky he stayed with Lloyds TSB in the first place so if he wants to have a password which lambasts his bank then that is his prerogative and not up to some untrained peasant calling from a telephone in Bangalore. If I want my secret password which protects all of my most sensitive personal data to be Bankersarewankers or Goshagamarsupialyougreedytwats I should not need the permission of an institution which has proved capable recently only of losing billions of pounds.
But this problem with security breaches and fraud is not helped by the plethora of miscreants thicker than the walls of the steel cages they should be locked up in. These people from the Kerry Katona school of financial management, who would probably consume their own seminal fluid if told it has health benefits, make Orville look like Albert Einstein. Did you know ‘gullible’ has been removed from the dictionary? If you missed yesterday’s blog check back for instructions on how to collect the £87billion I’m giving to you in return for just a 50p postage fee.
If you have now checked back or answered in the positive to the question you will almost certainly ring an 0906 number when something arrives through your letterbox instructing you to do so to claim the £1million waiting for you. If the penny still hasn’t dropped you are more naïve than Max Mosley’s wife.
With that in mind, follow some real advice and not something printed on a shiny flier from an anonymous source and get your husband/wife/father/mother/son/daughter/third cousin twice removed to immediately close your bank account, cancel your credit card, put a blindfold on you, tie you up immovably and never let you even feed yourself again let alone be trusted with money.
A slight twinge of suspicion should resonate upon the receipt of an email which guarantees you larger breasts within two weeks of purchasing the advertised product, particularly when the recipient is male. There is a reason why penis enlargement pills are not available through the conventional channels and only over the internet at a knock-down rate – they are illegal, unapproved and, perhaps most importantly, they don’t bloody work.
Last week a study found spammers target email addresses which commence with certain letters of the alphabet. The tone of the investigation suggested an element of surprise when it unearthed that the most common letter of the alphabet S was targeted the most and letters like X and Q the least. How many Quincys and Xaviers reside in the UK to line the Abu Dhabi investor-sized pockets of these fraudsters Mr Investigator?
It is not the spammers who have the intelligence of my left scrotum. Let’s be honest if we had the skills to hack or be paid to find email addresses to send junk to we would probably all give up our day job. Next time investigate the myriad imbeciles with less going on upstairs than an impotent 93 year old leper to discover what it is that makes these plonkers disclose their complete bank details in response to the email from a random Nigerian offering a newly-discovered £93million inheritance.
What is worrying is how this problem seems to be so concentrated in the UK. It is hardly irrational to assume this vast practice must be continuing globally, but the endless reports which detail the extent of fraud seem to highlight a trait unique to the UK. Of course it is unreasonable to assume developing countries are likely to be targeted because, apart from the lack of computers, telephones and banking sector prevailing in these regions, the inhabitants of these nations are unlikely to be able to afford even the “modest” fee charged by the bogus operators.
But recent research has also suggested fraud victims are likely to reach a peak during the current economic downturn owing to financial desperation. This suggests it is in fact the poorest people that fall foul of financial fraud. Why, therefore, is Britain so culpable of being ripped off when it is richer than the majority of its associates? Is Britain the global gullible hub?
For those less astute with money, or who have been off with the fairies more than George Michael on Hampstead Heath, here are some tips on how to limit the potential for being stung worse than by a queen bee on Prozac:
1. If a form asks you for data, only fill in those boxes which are actually requisite. Just because the form has already asked you for your name, postcode and a contact telephone number does not mean you need to then enter your star sign, bra size, favourite sexual position, Weight Watchers membership number and most erotic fantasy.
2. If someone rings you up claiming to be calling on behalf of your mobile telephone provider tell them to take a hike and hang up the phone quicker than Mike Ashley consumes a pint. Do not stay on the line and tell them how your hubby took you for a Valentine’s Day medieval banquet or how you bought a great sex toy online at the weekend. You will then be barraged with further telephone calls, emails and post from associated companies enquiring whether you would like to purchase the latest multi-functional 27 inch dildo since it has recently become clear to them you have a large penchant for outlandish sex toys.
3. If an email arrives informing you that if you reply with your bank details a bank security breach will be alleviated or $83million will immediately be paid into your account, do not bash out more enthusiastically than a sex-starved man your name, address, telephone number, bank account number and sort code. Instead, consider why someone you’ve never heard of from a country you’ve probably never even heard of is offering you an incomprehensibly large sum of money in the wrong currency for free. Next, go outside, get in your car, hold down the accelerator and drive directly into the nearest lamppost for even opening the email from evg4aml377@xx4r4rgrr.com in the first place.
4. If an email is sent to your inbox with an attachment but no name or subject, do not open it faster than Lindsay Lohan does her legs. Instead, stop and think of all the people in your Outlook address book – and all the people in their contact lists, and so on – who you will be passing on the virus to quicker than an STD around a Glasgow council estate.
Saturday, 6 September 2008
Waste - what a load of rubbish
5 September 2008.
A US team has said that global sea levels are unlikely to rise by more than 2m by 2100. Perhaps this will stop the endless whinging about climate change and the environment.
As those living in East Anglia who will probably be submerged twenty years from now will tell you, people who rebuff the presence of global warming are about as disillusioned as those who deny the holocaust ever took place. But changes in global temperature and effects on our environment have always occurred. There was nothing humans could do to stave off the last ice age a few thousand years ago so why would changing to low energy lightbulbs make a difference now?
Instead of wasting money on all these stupid studies which pointlessly attempt to quantify the extent of the change, use the money to make a difference. Recent reports have identified that the methane produced by grazing cattle is contributing a vast proportion of greenhouse gas methane, leading to calls for cattle to be moved indoors or for “greener” farming methods.
These animals have been grazing for longer than a round of applause at a Nazi convention but no-one’s house was falling off a cliff owing to erosion from rising sea levels before. Yet the insinuation is that cattle with uncontrollable flatulence are the root of all evil. Instead of detailing the human effects it is a case of documenting any excuse which deflects the blame away from humans and, in particular, those producing the studies in their energy-guzzling hot tubs. French female armpits and political hot air must generate more greenhouse gases than poorly fed cattle. And I’m sure most people could point you in the direction of someone they have recently come in to contact with who produces more wind than Hurricane Gustav.
Britain has always been a stalling nation, however. Just look at the construction industry, where equivalent developments are finished everywhere else in the world by the time Usain Bolt’s run 100m, while British builders are so busy wolf-whistling the project ends up more overdue than Cliff Richard’s retirement. And elsewhere you get twice the quality for half the price.
Much like pregnancy seems to be the only instigator of a change in approach to promiscuity amongst teenagers, only war seems to stimulate a knee-jerk reaction in this country. With rising sea levels that scenario could well eventuate as a growing population has to battle over an ever-decreasing amount of land.
Of course, being Britain we wait for that eventuality to arise rather than staving it off in advance (the cure rather than prevention approach once again – see 2 September entry) as we arrogantly assume our tiny island’s military is more amply equipped than Jordan to overcome any attack – except now other countries have had decades to develop nuclear weapons while we disarm ours.
Meanwhile, Gordon Brown is now telling us that there is to be no winter fuel payment to help the suffering masses pay their rocketing bills because he doesn’t believe in short-term gimmicks, and that to ensure environmental sustainability a long-term approach to energy consumption is needed. What were the one year stamp duty holiday and the temporary 10% tax band u-turn? Indeed, the need for the latter was created by a gimmick of Tamagotchi or Pog proportions in the form of an imposition of a cut in the basic rate of income tax by 2% at his last budget just oh so conveniently before the general election which saw his elevation to Number 10.
Instead of offering help for the most environmentally friendly individuals, Gordon Brown has purely penalised the polluting, for instance through tax hikes for the most polluting vehicles, under the guise of helping the environment. These taxes are a bigger rip-off than Amy Winehouse’s hairdresser.
The reality is all these green taxes are due to the fall in Treasury revenue because of companies posting vast losses, unemployment, falling house prices, no-one being able to move house, and spending falling because of a reduction in disposable income as inflation rises.
Corporation tax, income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax, stamp duty and VAT taken by the exchequer have all plummeted as a result, all directly correlated with the scuppering of our economy over the duration of the Labour administration.
Those of you now bemoaning tuition fees can all give yourself a pat on the back for enthusiastically voting this party into power eleven years ago (student loans and tuition fees were in their pre-1997 manifesto so for the endless batch of idiots who voted for Tony Blair because he was better looking than John Major or because you listened to the media and Labour spin doctors publishing their propaganda rather than looking at what might actually happen that affects you when a particular party gains political power you’ve only got yourselves to blame).
If he wanted to help the environment he would have considered better ways than to tax those using it left, right and centre:
1. Lewis Hamilton and friends should lead the way in F1. Ferrari have the money to pioneer new environmentally friendly cars, we don’t. If those with the money bothered to invest it in something worthwhile then those with smaller pockets can copy the new technology and roll it out universally. Indeed, the technology is there already to some degree but there is no temptation to adopt it for car manufacturers because it will hit their purse strings. An outright ban on petrol-powered vehicles by 2011 would certainly shake things up more violently than a tsunami in Indonesia, and ensure some changes ensue.
2. TV shows like Big Brother where notable challenges this series included forcing the contestants to eat virtually their bodyweight in brussel sprouts, spaghetti and a baguette need to set a better example. The participants never had a chance of completing it, therefore the task was merely a way of generating waste in return for some low-brow viewing for sadism lovers. What impetus do we have to use less and recycle more if our efforts are being undermined more blatantly than Kevin Keegan upon the appointment of Dennis Wise as Director of Football right in front of our eyes?
3. Convert the gym equipment used by our imprisoned degenerates into a generator for renewable electricity. At the very least it would generate enough energy such that the prison becomes self-sustaining so the taxpayer does not fund its power. If efficient enough, the criminals could generate enough to sell to energy companies, increasing supply, enabling cost reductions amongst the rest of us and reducing the UK’s carbon footprint. The criminals are then actually giving back to society, something unheard of at present (see 2 September entry).
4. Invest the money generated by these “green” taxes in green projects rather than in purchasing further military fleet. At the very least the revenue could be spent on improving the rail network or providing free bicycles where relevant so we would finally be left with a viable alternative to cars. Indeed, the very least the politicians responsible could do is stop hypocritically getting driven around in Jaguars themselves. Take the Olympics, for example, where the Government pondered how it could celebrate Britain’s success in Beijing. Of all the options available it opted for polluting open-topped bus tours.
At least David Cameron got on his bike so to speak – until it got stolen by a juvenile delinquent at the local supermarket. Instead of spending millions redeveloping St Pancras, relay track that was ripped apart a few decades ago more ruthlessly than African women’s genitalia and extend existing lines so that real coverage is available. People in places with no rail links are hardly asking for glamorous stations or 37 trains an hour – anything would be a start, and could also ultimately negate the need for buses if effectively managed.
A US team has said that global sea levels are unlikely to rise by more than 2m by 2100. Perhaps this will stop the endless whinging about climate change and the environment.
As those living in East Anglia who will probably be submerged twenty years from now will tell you, people who rebuff the presence of global warming are about as disillusioned as those who deny the holocaust ever took place. But changes in global temperature and effects on our environment have always occurred. There was nothing humans could do to stave off the last ice age a few thousand years ago so why would changing to low energy lightbulbs make a difference now?
Instead of wasting money on all these stupid studies which pointlessly attempt to quantify the extent of the change, use the money to make a difference. Recent reports have identified that the methane produced by grazing cattle is contributing a vast proportion of greenhouse gas methane, leading to calls for cattle to be moved indoors or for “greener” farming methods.
These animals have been grazing for longer than a round of applause at a Nazi convention but no-one’s house was falling off a cliff owing to erosion from rising sea levels before. Yet the insinuation is that cattle with uncontrollable flatulence are the root of all evil. Instead of detailing the human effects it is a case of documenting any excuse which deflects the blame away from humans and, in particular, those producing the studies in their energy-guzzling hot tubs. French female armpits and political hot air must generate more greenhouse gases than poorly fed cattle. And I’m sure most people could point you in the direction of someone they have recently come in to contact with who produces more wind than Hurricane Gustav.
Britain has always been a stalling nation, however. Just look at the construction industry, where equivalent developments are finished everywhere else in the world by the time Usain Bolt’s run 100m, while British builders are so busy wolf-whistling the project ends up more overdue than Cliff Richard’s retirement. And elsewhere you get twice the quality for half the price.
Much like pregnancy seems to be the only instigator of a change in approach to promiscuity amongst teenagers, only war seems to stimulate a knee-jerk reaction in this country. With rising sea levels that scenario could well eventuate as a growing population has to battle over an ever-decreasing amount of land.
Of course, being Britain we wait for that eventuality to arise rather than staving it off in advance (the cure rather than prevention approach once again – see 2 September entry) as we arrogantly assume our tiny island’s military is more amply equipped than Jordan to overcome any attack – except now other countries have had decades to develop nuclear weapons while we disarm ours.
Meanwhile, Gordon Brown is now telling us that there is to be no winter fuel payment to help the suffering masses pay their rocketing bills because he doesn’t believe in short-term gimmicks, and that to ensure environmental sustainability a long-term approach to energy consumption is needed. What were the one year stamp duty holiday and the temporary 10% tax band u-turn? Indeed, the need for the latter was created by a gimmick of Tamagotchi or Pog proportions in the form of an imposition of a cut in the basic rate of income tax by 2% at his last budget just oh so conveniently before the general election which saw his elevation to Number 10.
Instead of offering help for the most environmentally friendly individuals, Gordon Brown has purely penalised the polluting, for instance through tax hikes for the most polluting vehicles, under the guise of helping the environment. These taxes are a bigger rip-off than Amy Winehouse’s hairdresser.
The reality is all these green taxes are due to the fall in Treasury revenue because of companies posting vast losses, unemployment, falling house prices, no-one being able to move house, and spending falling because of a reduction in disposable income as inflation rises.
Corporation tax, income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax, stamp duty and VAT taken by the exchequer have all plummeted as a result, all directly correlated with the scuppering of our economy over the duration of the Labour administration.
Those of you now bemoaning tuition fees can all give yourself a pat on the back for enthusiastically voting this party into power eleven years ago (student loans and tuition fees were in their pre-1997 manifesto so for the endless batch of idiots who voted for Tony Blair because he was better looking than John Major or because you listened to the media and Labour spin doctors publishing their propaganda rather than looking at what might actually happen that affects you when a particular party gains political power you’ve only got yourselves to blame).
If he wanted to help the environment he would have considered better ways than to tax those using it left, right and centre:
1. Lewis Hamilton and friends should lead the way in F1. Ferrari have the money to pioneer new environmentally friendly cars, we don’t. If those with the money bothered to invest it in something worthwhile then those with smaller pockets can copy the new technology and roll it out universally. Indeed, the technology is there already to some degree but there is no temptation to adopt it for car manufacturers because it will hit their purse strings. An outright ban on petrol-powered vehicles by 2011 would certainly shake things up more violently than a tsunami in Indonesia, and ensure some changes ensue.
2. TV shows like Big Brother where notable challenges this series included forcing the contestants to eat virtually their bodyweight in brussel sprouts, spaghetti and a baguette need to set a better example. The participants never had a chance of completing it, therefore the task was merely a way of generating waste in return for some low-brow viewing for sadism lovers. What impetus do we have to use less and recycle more if our efforts are being undermined more blatantly than Kevin Keegan upon the appointment of Dennis Wise as Director of Football right in front of our eyes?
3. Convert the gym equipment used by our imprisoned degenerates into a generator for renewable electricity. At the very least it would generate enough energy such that the prison becomes self-sustaining so the taxpayer does not fund its power. If efficient enough, the criminals could generate enough to sell to energy companies, increasing supply, enabling cost reductions amongst the rest of us and reducing the UK’s carbon footprint. The criminals are then actually giving back to society, something unheard of at present (see 2 September entry).
4. Invest the money generated by these “green” taxes in green projects rather than in purchasing further military fleet. At the very least the revenue could be spent on improving the rail network or providing free bicycles where relevant so we would finally be left with a viable alternative to cars. Indeed, the very least the politicians responsible could do is stop hypocritically getting driven around in Jaguars themselves. Take the Olympics, for example, where the Government pondered how it could celebrate Britain’s success in Beijing. Of all the options available it opted for polluting open-topped bus tours.
At least David Cameron got on his bike so to speak – until it got stolen by a juvenile delinquent at the local supermarket. Instead of spending millions redeveloping St Pancras, relay track that was ripped apart a few decades ago more ruthlessly than African women’s genitalia and extend existing lines so that real coverage is available. People in places with no rail links are hardly asking for glamorous stations or 37 trains an hour – anything would be a start, and could also ultimately negate the need for buses if effectively managed.
Equal shites
4 September 2008.
A report has found women are still struggling for equality in the workplace. The latest in an endless line of surveys shows a fall in the number of females reaching the top of their profession. What a surprise it is to see that this survey came from the eternal irritant that is the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Dissecting the bigger picture, firstly the state pension age for women is lower than for men so at any one time there cannot possibly be the same number of women at the top as men. If this commission wants equality, enforce an equal pension age. Indeed, since women live an average of a year or two longer than men, the state pension age could arguably be higher for females. Of course trying to push that legislation through would be about as successful as Kevin Federline’s music career.
Next, since when were men and women supposed to be equally good at all jobs? There are undoubtedly some jobs women are far superior at and any struggle to reach the top of these professions should be greeted with more concern than a hurricane approaching New Orleans. But for those where men are clearly likely to perform better there should be no scrutiny as to why women are not present in the top echelons here.
Furthermore, statistics like these are ravaged with over-simplicity. There are always exceptions to the rule, such that some unusual women will excel at disciplines they are not expected to. Attempts to group humans with infinite differences in intelligence, emotion and physique into just two categories is as futile as demanding Alistair Darling trims his eyebrows.
Moreover, it is often the creative areas where women excel. These disciplines, however, tend to be devoid of male-created bureaucratic hierarchical structures which have the benefit of clear career ladder progression opportunities.
Although there has been extensive investment in fertility, and recently a “man” gave birth, either we stop having children and rely on more immigration to prevent the population floundering or we continue to let women take time off work to bring up their offspring.
And unless we magically develop a way to let men breastfeed then the mother has to be the one who nurtures the child through the early months too. Endless studies have shown the benefits of consumption of breast milk rather than alternatives. But hey if you want your kids to grow up as misfits, back the EHRC.
Once the initial months have elapsed there can be flexibility. I bet I could find a million of men who would quite readily stay at home in front of the telly with one eye on the children, and let the wife be the breadwinner. Somehow I can’t see that being promoted by the ECHR, however, because that doesn’t ensure that all women are in all the top jobs earning all the money as our “equality” friends would like.
What the commission has the cheek to discuss is the discrimination going on which is halting women’s progress. Since when was half the front line in Afghanistan filled with female soldiers? When will half of all dustmen (amazing how that is one profession where you do not have to say dustperson yet you do chairperson – wonder why that is) collecting my refuse each week be women? What a surprise it is, then, that the survey focuses on only the top end of the glamour professions such as law and not the jobs more horrific than spending the night with Ann Widdecombe.
When the government stops its policy of positive discrimination towards women in the public sector, and when it introduces legislation granting equal paternity and maternity leave, and when we remove the process of women sleeping their way up the ladder ahead of more qualified male counterparts, then maybe we can start to consider listening to the ECHR, a body which as done about as much for human rights as China.
The fact that it is insinuated that women do not make it to the top simply because men in charge do not think they are up to the job is a complete fallacy. Of course there will always be one or two misogynistic idiots who think women are incapable of even getting out of bed in the morning without breaking a nail, but to suggest the majority of males believe women are inferior is wildly inaccurate.
In fact, since allegedly men think about sex every 6 seconds or whatever the latest figure is, if a male manager is given the choice of two equally eligible candidates of which one is male and one is an attractive female, who do you think he is going to choose? Boardrooms in many professions need a balance of skills, qualities which often only women possess.
Perhaps the ECHR will shut up if:
1. Working from home is more readily available. So many jobs now involve nothing but sitting at a desk in front of a computer screen, all of which can be done at home. Introduce teleworking wherever possible and then you can bring up the children and have a job. This will alleviate the reliance on nurseries and nannies which often leads to attention deficit disorder. Also, heaven forbid in this day and age but you could actually have both parents at home to raise a child.
Watch the fall in gang crime as children no longer have to deal with a lack of father figure at home. Indeed, both parents together raising a child may limit the number of couples getting divorced and their children having to deal with broken homes and the negative consequences that are known to abound from that. Meetings wouldn’t be a problem either, as there cannot be so little flexibility that both parents would have to be in meetings at exactly the same time such that the child is neglected. In any case, the increasing prevalence of conference calls has rendered most meetings needless.
2. More employers introduced nurseries at the workplace. Plenty of offices and warehouses are large enough to warrant a segment being allocated for a nursery. Parents can then pop and see their child on cigarette and lunch breaks, and there is no issue with a child being left if the parent works late.
3. Human resource departments (often littered with women and men with an equal measure of oestrogen floating around inside them) did more to recognise the talents of its workforce. Too often promotion is left to those at the top who are too busy to view the skills of its staff. When someone leaves and a post becomes available, it is often left to traditional mechanisms such as sex or simply who the boss has spent most time with to decide who fills the vacated slot (in more ways than one). If HR allocated more of their time to continually identifying qualities in the existing talent pool then such issues would not arise during staff turnover.
4. Women started more of their own businesses. This concept of a glass ceiling is a common reason for female entrepreneurship but still the number of male-owned start-ups is much higher than female-directed. Women are automatically at the top, therefore, and can employ and promote as many women as they see fit, as well as gearing work around issues such as raising the children. In reality, entrepreneurs are usually risk takers, given the knowledge that the majority of start-ups are doomed to failure. But most women are more risk averse than their male equivalents thus perhaps the ECHR should do something useful and try to overcome this aversion.
A report has found women are still struggling for equality in the workplace. The latest in an endless line of surveys shows a fall in the number of females reaching the top of their profession. What a surprise it is to see that this survey came from the eternal irritant that is the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Dissecting the bigger picture, firstly the state pension age for women is lower than for men so at any one time there cannot possibly be the same number of women at the top as men. If this commission wants equality, enforce an equal pension age. Indeed, since women live an average of a year or two longer than men, the state pension age could arguably be higher for females. Of course trying to push that legislation through would be about as successful as Kevin Federline’s music career.
Next, since when were men and women supposed to be equally good at all jobs? There are undoubtedly some jobs women are far superior at and any struggle to reach the top of these professions should be greeted with more concern than a hurricane approaching New Orleans. But for those where men are clearly likely to perform better there should be no scrutiny as to why women are not present in the top echelons here.
Furthermore, statistics like these are ravaged with over-simplicity. There are always exceptions to the rule, such that some unusual women will excel at disciplines they are not expected to. Attempts to group humans with infinite differences in intelligence, emotion and physique into just two categories is as futile as demanding Alistair Darling trims his eyebrows.
Moreover, it is often the creative areas where women excel. These disciplines, however, tend to be devoid of male-created bureaucratic hierarchical structures which have the benefit of clear career ladder progression opportunities.
Although there has been extensive investment in fertility, and recently a “man” gave birth, either we stop having children and rely on more immigration to prevent the population floundering or we continue to let women take time off work to bring up their offspring.
And unless we magically develop a way to let men breastfeed then the mother has to be the one who nurtures the child through the early months too. Endless studies have shown the benefits of consumption of breast milk rather than alternatives. But hey if you want your kids to grow up as misfits, back the EHRC.
Once the initial months have elapsed there can be flexibility. I bet I could find a million of men who would quite readily stay at home in front of the telly with one eye on the children, and let the wife be the breadwinner. Somehow I can’t see that being promoted by the ECHR, however, because that doesn’t ensure that all women are in all the top jobs earning all the money as our “equality” friends would like.
What the commission has the cheek to discuss is the discrimination going on which is halting women’s progress. Since when was half the front line in Afghanistan filled with female soldiers? When will half of all dustmen (amazing how that is one profession where you do not have to say dustperson yet you do chairperson – wonder why that is) collecting my refuse each week be women? What a surprise it is, then, that the survey focuses on only the top end of the glamour professions such as law and not the jobs more horrific than spending the night with Ann Widdecombe.
When the government stops its policy of positive discrimination towards women in the public sector, and when it introduces legislation granting equal paternity and maternity leave, and when we remove the process of women sleeping their way up the ladder ahead of more qualified male counterparts, then maybe we can start to consider listening to the ECHR, a body which as done about as much for human rights as China.
The fact that it is insinuated that women do not make it to the top simply because men in charge do not think they are up to the job is a complete fallacy. Of course there will always be one or two misogynistic idiots who think women are incapable of even getting out of bed in the morning without breaking a nail, but to suggest the majority of males believe women are inferior is wildly inaccurate.
In fact, since allegedly men think about sex every 6 seconds or whatever the latest figure is, if a male manager is given the choice of two equally eligible candidates of which one is male and one is an attractive female, who do you think he is going to choose? Boardrooms in many professions need a balance of skills, qualities which often only women possess.
Perhaps the ECHR will shut up if:
1. Working from home is more readily available. So many jobs now involve nothing but sitting at a desk in front of a computer screen, all of which can be done at home. Introduce teleworking wherever possible and then you can bring up the children and have a job. This will alleviate the reliance on nurseries and nannies which often leads to attention deficit disorder. Also, heaven forbid in this day and age but you could actually have both parents at home to raise a child.
Watch the fall in gang crime as children no longer have to deal with a lack of father figure at home. Indeed, both parents together raising a child may limit the number of couples getting divorced and their children having to deal with broken homes and the negative consequences that are known to abound from that. Meetings wouldn’t be a problem either, as there cannot be so little flexibility that both parents would have to be in meetings at exactly the same time such that the child is neglected. In any case, the increasing prevalence of conference calls has rendered most meetings needless.
2. More employers introduced nurseries at the workplace. Plenty of offices and warehouses are large enough to warrant a segment being allocated for a nursery. Parents can then pop and see their child on cigarette and lunch breaks, and there is no issue with a child being left if the parent works late.
3. Human resource departments (often littered with women and men with an equal measure of oestrogen floating around inside them) did more to recognise the talents of its workforce. Too often promotion is left to those at the top who are too busy to view the skills of its staff. When someone leaves and a post becomes available, it is often left to traditional mechanisms such as sex or simply who the boss has spent most time with to decide who fills the vacated slot (in more ways than one). If HR allocated more of their time to continually identifying qualities in the existing talent pool then such issues would not arise during staff turnover.
4. Women started more of their own businesses. This concept of a glass ceiling is a common reason for female entrepreneurship but still the number of male-owned start-ups is much higher than female-directed. Women are automatically at the top, therefore, and can employ and promote as many women as they see fit, as well as gearing work around issues such as raising the children. In reality, entrepreneurs are usually risk takers, given the knowledge that the majority of start-ups are doomed to failure. But most women are more risk averse than their male equivalents thus perhaps the ECHR should do something useful and try to overcome this aversion.
Thursday, 4 September 2008
Read all about sh*t
3 September 2008.
Will people finally heed my advice and stop buying newspapers? The fact that the status quo at Newcastle United has been maintained with the board repeating their desire for progress with Kevin Keegan at the helm proves the saga of the last 24 hours is simply not a story to report on.
It has had top billing across all media, however, which will probably now lead to Kevin Keegan’s position becoming untenable. Meanwhile, an eyelid was barely batted at Alan Curbishley’s actual departure for the same reasons blamed on the Messiah’s alleged exodus.
Of course look back almost exactly one year and the treatment given, which is as about as fair as that experienced by Asian police officers, mirrors that exacted upon Martin Jol just a few games into the 2006/7 season. As with Martin Jol, the fans have enjoyed the news of the prospective departure of Kevin Keegan about as much as inserting their faces into a bowl overflowing with Hepatitis C-filled hypodermic needles.
This talking up of rifts in the media almost inevitably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, meaning good people are disposed of quicker than a Staffordshire mansion. As history has shown, any replacement will be employed for around five months and then fired for not living up to the standards of the previously-abused predecessor.
It has almost become a competition between the tabloids as to which can curtail a contract quickest, much like the other contemporary fashionable wrong of something being more positive than 100% – first you could give 100%, then someone stated they had just given 101%, next the figure 110% became commonplace, 120% was bounded around occasionally, next 500% was mentioned, then Louis Walsh affirmed 1,000,000% that an X Factor contestant should continue in the competition, before Cheryl Cole usurped this scornfully with 2,000,000% as if a mere 1,000,000% was pitiful.
The worst consequence of proving a tale to be erroneous is that the newspaper is fined some loose change in a court battle two years later, the publicising of which generates more attention of the negative plight of a notable C-lister and grants free advertising to the newspaper being fined.
Quite frankly I can’t understand the obsession with tabloids: If you enjoy the articles, go buy a fiction novel as you’ll be rewarded with greater imagery, writing and probably more realistic scenarios. If you enjoy the page three nudity why not subscribe to adult TV channels or the internet’s most notable side effect that is porn sites? Or just get a girlfriend. If you like the cartoons then go watch re-runs of Tom & Jerry. Or maybe the tabloids are simply a diluted or conveniently combined version for chavs of these evidently prohibitively expensive premium equivalents.
The only solution to being fed the constant barrage of fallacious rubbish that spuriously flows from the tabloids is to boycott them, or at least to introduce a regulator. These newspapers rely on sales to pay the printing costs and wages of the snakes that hiss this garbage. Switching to broadsheets may have an effect, although a blanket ban would be preferable.
But an attempt to boycott newspapers would be comparable to the futile campaign doing the rounds on certain social networking websites which encourages drivers to avoid only the “big” fuel providers such that these would have no choice but to drop their prices with the rest of the producers then following suit. Whoever constructed that campaign clearly failed to recognise that there are only big fuel providers, and that all fuel, supermarket “own-brand” included, is provided by the few entities that exist in the oligopoly.
In any case, with the price of running a car today do you not think people would have gone without petrol by now if they could? The campaign instigator clearly lives in London or works from home if they believe millions can suddenly deprive themselves of their means to get to work. Next they’ll be telling us to boycott Tesco in order to stave off food price inflation.
The question has to be posited, moreover, as to why there is a need for newspapers at all, bar keeping the homeless warm at night. Think of the benefit to the environment of not printing all that paper. The occasional email from the environmental officer at your company reminding you not to print unless there is a real need is undone more quickly than Calum Best’s flies upon introduction to the latest Zoo cover girl by the millions of newspapers printed each day.
Besides, the internet, radio and television all co-exist to provide us with free news (for those pointing to the television licence, most television can now be viewed on the internet instead), eliminating any need for newspapers. The real reason for pushing the purveyors of more crap than Phat B*stard is the political bias they can instigate in return for favours from political parties.
This proliferation of media has now led to us being fed a binge diet of American “news” too. How does finding out John McCain’s unknown running mate’s seventeen year old daughter’s got a bun in the oven constitute the top story over here? The relentless coverage of the American elections will have been going for over a year come results day (or results month if last time is anything to go by).
Unlike the UK system’s five, elections in the US must be every four years. If we spend a year reporting on something that occurs every four, a quarter of all the UK’s top news items will be to do with the US. Yet despite the recent revelations over cancer and bankruptcy, I bet they know as much about Jade Goody or Kerry Katona are as the BNP do about tolerance and multiculturalism.
Will people finally heed my advice and stop buying newspapers? The fact that the status quo at Newcastle United has been maintained with the board repeating their desire for progress with Kevin Keegan at the helm proves the saga of the last 24 hours is simply not a story to report on.
It has had top billing across all media, however, which will probably now lead to Kevin Keegan’s position becoming untenable. Meanwhile, an eyelid was barely batted at Alan Curbishley’s actual departure for the same reasons blamed on the Messiah’s alleged exodus.
Of course look back almost exactly one year and the treatment given, which is as about as fair as that experienced by Asian police officers, mirrors that exacted upon Martin Jol just a few games into the 2006/7 season. As with Martin Jol, the fans have enjoyed the news of the prospective departure of Kevin Keegan about as much as inserting their faces into a bowl overflowing with Hepatitis C-filled hypodermic needles.
This talking up of rifts in the media almost inevitably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, meaning good people are disposed of quicker than a Staffordshire mansion. As history has shown, any replacement will be employed for around five months and then fired for not living up to the standards of the previously-abused predecessor.
It has almost become a competition between the tabloids as to which can curtail a contract quickest, much like the other contemporary fashionable wrong of something being more positive than 100% – first you could give 100%, then someone stated they had just given 101%, next the figure 110% became commonplace, 120% was bounded around occasionally, next 500% was mentioned, then Louis Walsh affirmed 1,000,000% that an X Factor contestant should continue in the competition, before Cheryl Cole usurped this scornfully with 2,000,000% as if a mere 1,000,000% was pitiful.
The worst consequence of proving a tale to be erroneous is that the newspaper is fined some loose change in a court battle two years later, the publicising of which generates more attention of the negative plight of a notable C-lister and grants free advertising to the newspaper being fined.
Quite frankly I can’t understand the obsession with tabloids: If you enjoy the articles, go buy a fiction novel as you’ll be rewarded with greater imagery, writing and probably more realistic scenarios. If you enjoy the page three nudity why not subscribe to adult TV channels or the internet’s most notable side effect that is porn sites? Or just get a girlfriend. If you like the cartoons then go watch re-runs of Tom & Jerry. Or maybe the tabloids are simply a diluted or conveniently combined version for chavs of these evidently prohibitively expensive premium equivalents.
The only solution to being fed the constant barrage of fallacious rubbish that spuriously flows from the tabloids is to boycott them, or at least to introduce a regulator. These newspapers rely on sales to pay the printing costs and wages of the snakes that hiss this garbage. Switching to broadsheets may have an effect, although a blanket ban would be preferable.
But an attempt to boycott newspapers would be comparable to the futile campaign doing the rounds on certain social networking websites which encourages drivers to avoid only the “big” fuel providers such that these would have no choice but to drop their prices with the rest of the producers then following suit. Whoever constructed that campaign clearly failed to recognise that there are only big fuel providers, and that all fuel, supermarket “own-brand” included, is provided by the few entities that exist in the oligopoly.
In any case, with the price of running a car today do you not think people would have gone without petrol by now if they could? The campaign instigator clearly lives in London or works from home if they believe millions can suddenly deprive themselves of their means to get to work. Next they’ll be telling us to boycott Tesco in order to stave off food price inflation.
The question has to be posited, moreover, as to why there is a need for newspapers at all, bar keeping the homeless warm at night. Think of the benefit to the environment of not printing all that paper. The occasional email from the environmental officer at your company reminding you not to print unless there is a real need is undone more quickly than Calum Best’s flies upon introduction to the latest Zoo cover girl by the millions of newspapers printed each day.
Besides, the internet, radio and television all co-exist to provide us with free news (for those pointing to the television licence, most television can now be viewed on the internet instead), eliminating any need for newspapers. The real reason for pushing the purveyors of more crap than Phat B*stard is the political bias they can instigate in return for favours from political parties.
This proliferation of media has now led to us being fed a binge diet of American “news” too. How does finding out John McCain’s unknown running mate’s seventeen year old daughter’s got a bun in the oven constitute the top story over here? The relentless coverage of the American elections will have been going for over a year come results day (or results month if last time is anything to go by).
Unlike the UK system’s five, elections in the US must be every four years. If we spend a year reporting on something that occurs every four, a quarter of all the UK’s top news items will be to do with the US. Yet despite the recent revelations over cancer and bankruptcy, I bet they know as much about Jade Goody or Kerry Katona are as the BNP do about tolerance and multiculturalism.
Jailhouse cock-up
2 September 2008.
Apparently a charity is bidding to run two prisons due to open in 2010. What kind of country have we become when we allow an organisation to ask for donations so that it can dish out hard-earned law-abiding citizens’ cash to prisoners to help them find accommodation, employment and benefits upon their release (a release which is probably two-thirds sooner than they were jailed for in the first place)?
Nacro, the charity that attempts to reintegrate prisoners back in to society upon their release, must be about as successful as trying to get Jonathan Woodgate, Ledley King and Michael Owen on a football pitch at the same time simply because none of the criminals want to leave their allegedly overcrowded havens. Apart from those guilty only of a miscarriage of justice, these people are about as deserving of help as a man who loses his wife, home and children because he gambles away the life savings betting that Alistair Darling would get a back, sack and crack at the local beauty parlour.
The money donated to Nacro could be spent purchasing water, food and basic healthcare to the millions not able to eat for the next week rather than bailing out reprobates who erroneously claim excessive benefits or resent having to work as a dustman (probably now known as a recycling generation executive these days, sorry for being so un-PC) because no other employer will have them on their departure from jail.
We already have “charitable” causes that waste half of the money raised on bureaucracy, advertising and business-class flights for the workforce. If you’ve ever watched an Oxfam advert asking for £15 a month, that advert is where the £180 a year has gone. The man in the advert that Oxfam professes will be able to feed his family for a lifetime upon the provision of some basic fishing equipment is probably still spending every daylight hour – and possibly burning the midnight oil too – scrabbling around trying to catch fish with his bare hands, only now to see charity employees fly past onboard Emirates Airlines.
It was also suggested recently that, owing to the likes of Gazza heading to rehab, a charity should be established which facilitates a smoother transition for footballers retiring from the sport back to normal life – “normal” presumably translates as a mere five homes, model wife and Swiss bank account.
I could be missing something but I thought they already have a charity, namely the Russian and Arab investors lining their gold-coated pockets with £180,000 per week until they sulk themselves to a transfer and pay rise at an even wealthier oil exporter-owned club. The rest of us have to scrimp to provide for our measly pensions so is it really too much to ask for these prima donnas to consider putting a few bob aside for this transition themselves if it’s so traumatic rather than promulgating a need for external help?
Next you’ll be hearing money from both idiotic charities has gone to Joey Barton, Marlon King, Jermaine Pennant and Lee Hughes. Giving money to these imbeciles would be more painful than a post-excretion wipe involving the surrogacy of sand paper in the absence of toilet roll and as useful as Polo manufacturing the nappies needed to survive the following week.
The very fact that the system of putting murderers, rapists and burglars behind bars is named the penal system infers criminals are being penalised. In reality they are earning money and have access to their own room, video games and endless drugs, such that people wish to break into prisons now rather than escape. Get rid of clostridium difficile in hospitals before you start purchasing Nintendo Wiis for prisoners. How many criminals contribute to their TV licence inside do you think?
There are some simple solutions to the problems with the world’s most expensive judicial system, however. The best option would be to use preventative methods rather than a cure for once – or, to put it in 13 year old council estate adolescent terms, using a condom rather than an abortion) – but here are some ideas on how to tackle key UK criminality issues and negate the need for pointless charities such as Nacro:
1. By all means let Broadmarsh’s inhabitants work to earn money, but that money should not be allowed to ever reach the criminal, instead first reimbursing the taxpayer for that misfit’s cost to the Exchequer in housing, feeding and clothing them for duration of their time in jail. Any outstanding can then be passed on to charities which do something worthwhile.
2. To avoid any shortfall left by 1), create a crime proceeds tax and cut off the problem at source. Although often difficult to establish the full amount extorted, and despite many victims never receiving their cash or belongings back following an attack, establish a tax which requires perhaps 30% of the cash value of all money and assets stolen in the crime the assailant is being prosecuted for to be paid, which can then fund their time inside.
This should be in addition to, rather than instead of full restitution of victims’ assets, and will serve as a better deterrent than simply locking them up for a few weeks, with early parole for “good behaviour” intertwined with sporadic day release so they can imminently re-offend with no real loss to themselves. It is almost a criminals’ pension scheme – you pay up front and receive the benefit while you retire in your new holiday home that is jail.
3. Bring in/back more effective forms of punishment. If you want to see the effect more severe sentences have, look at the desperate appeal to the Home Secretary from the Brit who hacked into US military computers in the hope he might be granted a reprieve from extradition to a nation where he’ll face a real punishment, presumably something akin to having 837kgs of dynamite inserted into his rectum and detonated if Guantanamo Bay torture allegations are anything to go by. If that doesn’t rehabilitate, nothing will.
Aside from the fact that a little dose of the cane in schools rather than production of an ASBO might sort out anti-social behaviour in children, a few cracks of a whip rather than a short prison spell would free up prison cells. Frankly, letting a criminal sit in a cell no bigger than my left toe with no light and nothing but a bag of brussel sprouts for a week seems like it would have the desired effect to me but the human rights activists would probably manage to throw any such advocate in there with them the UK is so overrun with farcical legislation.
Community service projects are useful, but up the hours. This would alleviate further council tax hikes as issues such as the recent story which revealed a council ordered its worker to wash off only the most offensive graffiti on a wall would be a thing of the past since criminals would be washing it off for free until it was all gone.
4. Let victims exact some revenge. Far from helping recovery, the recent proposal to encourage criminals to visit victims at their hospital bedside is barbaric. The opposite action may help, though: Those that regain the testicular fortitude to come face-to-face with their attacker should be allowed to visit the assailant in a special locked room, close the door and do, within reason, whatever they choose to the criminal. If it helps the victim only then does it constitute real justice.
Letting a murderer out on parole after five years to prowl the streets for further victims is about as beneficial as the hospital nurse passing you a mirror to examine the third degree burns gained as a result of arson burning your uninsured flat to the floor which have rendered your face disfigured and genitalia ineffective for the rest of your life.
Apparently a charity is bidding to run two prisons due to open in 2010. What kind of country have we become when we allow an organisation to ask for donations so that it can dish out hard-earned law-abiding citizens’ cash to prisoners to help them find accommodation, employment and benefits upon their release (a release which is probably two-thirds sooner than they were jailed for in the first place)?
Nacro, the charity that attempts to reintegrate prisoners back in to society upon their release, must be about as successful as trying to get Jonathan Woodgate, Ledley King and Michael Owen on a football pitch at the same time simply because none of the criminals want to leave their allegedly overcrowded havens. Apart from those guilty only of a miscarriage of justice, these people are about as deserving of help as a man who loses his wife, home and children because he gambles away the life savings betting that Alistair Darling would get a back, sack and crack at the local beauty parlour.
The money donated to Nacro could be spent purchasing water, food and basic healthcare to the millions not able to eat for the next week rather than bailing out reprobates who erroneously claim excessive benefits or resent having to work as a dustman (probably now known as a recycling generation executive these days, sorry for being so un-PC) because no other employer will have them on their departure from jail.
We already have “charitable” causes that waste half of the money raised on bureaucracy, advertising and business-class flights for the workforce. If you’ve ever watched an Oxfam advert asking for £15 a month, that advert is where the £180 a year has gone. The man in the advert that Oxfam professes will be able to feed his family for a lifetime upon the provision of some basic fishing equipment is probably still spending every daylight hour – and possibly burning the midnight oil too – scrabbling around trying to catch fish with his bare hands, only now to see charity employees fly past onboard Emirates Airlines.
It was also suggested recently that, owing to the likes of Gazza heading to rehab, a charity should be established which facilitates a smoother transition for footballers retiring from the sport back to normal life – “normal” presumably translates as a mere five homes, model wife and Swiss bank account.
I could be missing something but I thought they already have a charity, namely the Russian and Arab investors lining their gold-coated pockets with £180,000 per week until they sulk themselves to a transfer and pay rise at an even wealthier oil exporter-owned club. The rest of us have to scrimp to provide for our measly pensions so is it really too much to ask for these prima donnas to consider putting a few bob aside for this transition themselves if it’s so traumatic rather than promulgating a need for external help?
Next you’ll be hearing money from both idiotic charities has gone to Joey Barton, Marlon King, Jermaine Pennant and Lee Hughes. Giving money to these imbeciles would be more painful than a post-excretion wipe involving the surrogacy of sand paper in the absence of toilet roll and as useful as Polo manufacturing the nappies needed to survive the following week.
The very fact that the system of putting murderers, rapists and burglars behind bars is named the penal system infers criminals are being penalised. In reality they are earning money and have access to their own room, video games and endless drugs, such that people wish to break into prisons now rather than escape. Get rid of clostridium difficile in hospitals before you start purchasing Nintendo Wiis for prisoners. How many criminals contribute to their TV licence inside do you think?
There are some simple solutions to the problems with the world’s most expensive judicial system, however. The best option would be to use preventative methods rather than a cure for once – or, to put it in 13 year old council estate adolescent terms, using a condom rather than an abortion) – but here are some ideas on how to tackle key UK criminality issues and negate the need for pointless charities such as Nacro:
1. By all means let Broadmarsh’s inhabitants work to earn money, but that money should not be allowed to ever reach the criminal, instead first reimbursing the taxpayer for that misfit’s cost to the Exchequer in housing, feeding and clothing them for duration of their time in jail. Any outstanding can then be passed on to charities which do something worthwhile.
2. To avoid any shortfall left by 1), create a crime proceeds tax and cut off the problem at source. Although often difficult to establish the full amount extorted, and despite many victims never receiving their cash or belongings back following an attack, establish a tax which requires perhaps 30% of the cash value of all money and assets stolen in the crime the assailant is being prosecuted for to be paid, which can then fund their time inside.
This should be in addition to, rather than instead of full restitution of victims’ assets, and will serve as a better deterrent than simply locking them up for a few weeks, with early parole for “good behaviour” intertwined with sporadic day release so they can imminently re-offend with no real loss to themselves. It is almost a criminals’ pension scheme – you pay up front and receive the benefit while you retire in your new holiday home that is jail.
3. Bring in/back more effective forms of punishment. If you want to see the effect more severe sentences have, look at the desperate appeal to the Home Secretary from the Brit who hacked into US military computers in the hope he might be granted a reprieve from extradition to a nation where he’ll face a real punishment, presumably something akin to having 837kgs of dynamite inserted into his rectum and detonated if Guantanamo Bay torture allegations are anything to go by. If that doesn’t rehabilitate, nothing will.
Aside from the fact that a little dose of the cane in schools rather than production of an ASBO might sort out anti-social behaviour in children, a few cracks of a whip rather than a short prison spell would free up prison cells. Frankly, letting a criminal sit in a cell no bigger than my left toe with no light and nothing but a bag of brussel sprouts for a week seems like it would have the desired effect to me but the human rights activists would probably manage to throw any such advocate in there with them the UK is so overrun with farcical legislation.
Community service projects are useful, but up the hours. This would alleviate further council tax hikes as issues such as the recent story which revealed a council ordered its worker to wash off only the most offensive graffiti on a wall would be a thing of the past since criminals would be washing it off for free until it was all gone.
4. Let victims exact some revenge. Far from helping recovery, the recent proposal to encourage criminals to visit victims at their hospital bedside is barbaric. The opposite action may help, though: Those that regain the testicular fortitude to come face-to-face with their attacker should be allowed to visit the assailant in a special locked room, close the door and do, within reason, whatever they choose to the criminal. If it helps the victim only then does it constitute real justice.
Letting a murderer out on parole after five years to prowl the streets for further victims is about as beneficial as the hospital nurse passing you a mirror to examine the third degree burns gained as a result of arson burning your uninsured flat to the floor which have rendered your face disfigured and genitalia ineffective for the rest of your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)