Monday, August 21, 2006

NHS closure fears - £1.5 billion Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) deals

The government has announced six private finance initiatives (PFI) worth £1.5 billion to build new NHS facilities. I assume(!) tax payers money will be used to build facilities then to be handed over, I suspect, to private health companies.

Surprise there, eh?

Up to 10 hospitals across England have closed or have had their services slashed. Local trusts are still trying to balance their books, apparently. Then build some new hospitals. Not revamp what already exists. I imagine that they are probably in the wrong locations to benefit private health insurance.

A&E units could also be closed at some hospitals, but it remains unclear if these are from the 10 already mentioned or others.

Andy Burnham (health minister) says state-of-the-art facilities for 100,000s of patients across the country will be provided.

Private patients?

The announcement was made only two months after it emerged that trusts in England ran up deficits of almost £1.3 billion last year. This despite record funding for the health service.

Or allowed to run up deficits?

It was described "ironic" by doctors' leaders that details of closures and cuts emerged on the same day as the government's latest PFI announcement. And separately (Jonathan Fielden, deputy chairman of the BMA's consultants' committee), "there are better and cheaper ways to finance improvements. The future of these hospitals is being mortgaged while private providers make profits from the NHS. We are seeing NHS facilities mothballed and closed, and dedicated staff being made redundant at a time when private companies are profiting from PFI deals and poorly performing independent sector treatment centres."

The NHS will repay the firms that build the hospitals over 25 to 30 years in these PFI deals.

"PFI schemes are expensive, inflexible and are adding to the current financial burdens of many hospital trusts. Time and time again PFI companies milk these projects through overcharging and lucrative refinancing deals. These new hospital schemes could and should be paid for by much cheaper public sector borrowing."

[No. No. No. Make it cost more to the taxpayer and make it more and more unattractive. There will, ultimately, be less and less opposition to getting rid of the NHS.]

All this manipulation is well thought through by this "incompetent" government. Such is the illusion. So much "magic" is underway.

To get state-of-the-art facilities costs an awful lot of money. Who does it cost? The tax payer, of course. Ask yourself this: how long, if ever, will we benefit? The decision is made and construction is approved and started. Before it is completed there will be cost overruns. Remember the Dome? The escalating costs will inevitably call for closing down the NHS. What would become of it? Sell it off at a loss to private business, of course.

The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich (technically insolvent last year) was paying £9 million a year more for its PFI than if it had signed a traditional publicly-financed contract.

Despite the criticism, Mr Burnham stressed that more than £10 billion had been spent on new hospitals - since 1997. A total of 76 schemes had been completed: 58 PFI and 18 publicly funded. With a further 30 under construction. How are these funded? I imagine these are PFI schemes too. Seems they will be more lucrative - eventually.

The spin is that this amount was spent and the implication is that it was 'value spend' not a wasted tax-payers 'donation' to...

Who? How was this money 'spent'? Used up? Where did it go? What did it provide?

Comments are backed by the Confederation of British Industry. This organisation argues that the PFI scheme is the way forward. Well, they have the interests of the construction industry in mind. Rather like the ABI (Association of British Insurers) has the interest of the insurance industry in mind. The businesses, yes. The customers, NO, NO, NO. Just a shop window to help 'sell' insurance to 'the people'.

If this happens, is it tantamount to fraud? Just asking.

But consider the private householder situation. Any debts run up are held against you for life. All this crap about declaring yourself bankcrupt. In the very short term debts may appear to 'disappear' though see what sort of problems you encounter in the future when trying to raise money. The very wealthy perform all sorts of tricks to save money. Unless they get everything done for 'free', it costs a large fortune to save a smaller one.

Or at least that is the illusion.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

International Paralympic Committee discriminates

The IPC has decided to not allow people with learning disabilities (S14 classification) to compete in the Beijing Paralympic Games 2008. Following this ban the many young people who have dedicated their lives to swimming, and have trained so hard, continue to train in the hope that they will be allowed to compete at this highest of levels.

Hopes and dreams are shattered by this. And to learn the news by looking on the IPC website is despicable. Many have already represented Great Britain. It is outrageous that such discrimination can happen against these people. In this respect a learning disability is no different to a physical disability.

All that swimmers, or any athlete, wants to do is compete against each other in the same way as able-bodied (or able-minded) people do. This simple (!) action can only shatter dreams and aspirations. And take the heart out of these athletes. The decision affects all athletes with an S14 classification: all are to be excluded from the Paralympic Games. Discriminated against.

It seems that the IPC has a disability itself. In basic common sense and sensitivity. Hardly able-minded. No doubt there are financial drivers behind this. The Paralympic Games are for all disabilities. It does not involve selectivity. It is an absolute disgrace.

Was there anyone to represent the views of the athletes before this decision was taken? Before the IPC made this final decision? The only people to suffer, and suffer greatly, are the athletes themselves and their families.

Banks get worrying powers

Banks and building societies will be able to withdraw credit and debit cards from people who have been cautioned for, or convicted of, accessing images of child abuse.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

However, this will not be enough to prevent the issuing bank making judgement. All through unproven allegation.

My problem is this action to alleged activity. It can so easily be enhanced to net any alleged and unproven individual for any unproven 'crime'.

But: under new powers of the Data Protection Act (effective July 26, 2006) police can pass on information about alleged paedophiles to that person's card issuer.

Of course, any convicted paedophile should be... and I'm certainly NOT arguing in their favour, but yours and mine: any person not convicted is deemed innocent until proven guilty or so I thought.

This is the worrying part: the implication that any alleged offence, which means not proven, can be cited. Banks are free to cancel or suspend the cards and accounts used to commit the alleged offence.

A distinction between cancel and suspend is critical. The former is unacceptable, the latter is reasonable if restoration of service is made upon an innocent verdict. After trial.

If found guilty, then cancel. OK. It is no longer alleged.

If the 'authorities' don't like you, they can screw up your life completely.

The data on an individual can't be shared among banking groups, so a bank will have no idea what other cards an alleged offender may own. The new powers do not empower them to pass on details to other banks.

So, it seems, an alleged offender can be punished by the issuing bank, but any such alleged crime cannot be communicated. Presumably because it has not been proven.

This is all endorsed by parliament:

The Department for Constitutional Affairs: "...was a vital way to help disrupt and curtail paedophiles activity on the internet". This department is busy rewriting the constitution unofficially. Or so it seems.

The very thin end of a wedge? More State control? Read the entry below this one.

Very carefully.

This is confused or I am.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Concerning secret societies

Quote from Manly P. Hall in The Secret Teachings of all Ages (1901)

"When the mob governs, man is ruled by ignorance; when the Church governs he is ruled by superstition; and when the State governs he is ruled by fear."

And this was written in 1901.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Class A drugs: alcohol and nicotine

A truly bizarre situation this one, but not particularly surprising. As class A drugs, heroine, cocaine, ecstasy and magic mushrooms carry the largest legal penalties. Alcohol is in the top five of the most harmful drugs, alongside heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and street methadone. Ecstasy and LSD, both class A drugs come well below both tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol.

An MP's comment? "We've made our recommendations to the government and we're very hopeful that they will act."

Is he serious? This government act? Why would it do that? It's now got most of the nation hooked on alcohol and tobacco. These class A drugs, not officially classified as such, of course, have their users paying enormous amounts in tax. Where does it all go? Prove it. Has anyone ever seen the accounts? Do you really believe the word of that Scotsman G. Brown? The Chancellor of the Exchequer. And we're constantly told (who by because I don't know? The message comes via newspapers!) is the best one we've had for years and years and...

Yes, that same one who always fucks up and "can't do his sums". It's all bollocks, of course, and he could actually walk into the premiership. No vote. No election. There he is. Just move next door from number 11 to number 10. Walk in. Officially through the front door, but there's certainly an internal connection between these two mansions. The one we're not supposed to know about.

It actually stinks of allowing people to use class A drugs by paying a backdoor surcharge (tax) to make their use exempt from legal action.

Why do you imagine Prescott is still where he is? Blair on his hols having a great time when there's so much death and destruction directly accountable to him. Deputy PM. He's running the country for fucks sake, but then we see Prescott go in to number 10 by the front door, but we don't see G. Brown entering by the 'secret' internal connection. Who knows: number 10 may only be a front anyway. With this government's paranoia for secrecy. The location of the Post Office tower used to be a state secret. Certainly at some time in the (not so distant) past. You could be locked up in the Tower of London, or something just as quaint for telling anyone, even if you were standing in front of it! That was then, but not now. Probably something nastier. A state secret about your location, perhaps.

Who's in charge? It's dangerous either way.


I still find it distressing when I see handicapped people being pushed in wheelchairs, and the wonderful people who care and entertain them. I think I always will, but that is good as this type of thing then remains at the top of consciousness (compassion?). To live life like this. That one precious life we all have.

I find it impossible to understand those who waste their life through their own choice. But that's their choice and I don't have to understand it, sad though it is. For some it is simple greed. The actions people will take. The risks people will take. The risks worth taking. Reasoned choice. Stupidity? Who knows? Sometimes the question is "Who cares?"


Asthma patients receiving treatment: 5.2 million people (1.1m children + 4.1m adults). Deaths: 1,381 in 2004. Those suffering severe symptoms: 2.6m. No effective existing medication: 500,000 serious attacks.

1381/5200000 = 0.027%

500,000/2600000 = 19.2%

Something not right there. A way of manufacturing and delivering the newly identified family of immune proteins, lambda-interferons, must be developed before they can be tested as a therapy. Enter Synairgen, a biotechnology company. Grants forthcoming? Work already done? Well, start asking yourself questions. Fascinating how news like this always breaks when there is a 'cure' just around the corner.

Problems at Heathrow

Last week's foiled airline bomb plot. That alleged 'terror threat' has been just that. Who says? The government? Police? Home Office? Certainly, caution is advised, but note that upon instruction from the CEO at Heathrow, and one assumes that this is his sole idea with no instruction from above, the only people to be affected are the public. Another example of creating fear with only alleged justification.

Of course, it's peak season too. 'Inconvenience' to the greatest number. But that's just coincidence, of course. Terrorists like to cause inconvenience. But no: terrorists can cause more carnage the busier the venue. Making an escape is more difficult though. Suicide bombers don't want to make an escape, they're on their journey to paradise. The aim of a terrorist, it seems, is not to cause terror, just inconvenience. The suggestion of terror is more important. These stupid suicide bombers are very easily manipulated by their 'masters'. But, they seem to be getting smarter. Or there has been a change of 'master', perhaps. Or these 'masters' are taking charge. Smokescreens are everywhere. Keep watching the skies. It's where you are. It's so close, it's claustrophobic.

A suicide bombers' cell doesn't know who exists in other cells. How do the alleged bombers know who their masters are? Where their orders come from? They can't. It could be from MI7 or something and they'd have no idea.

Nor would you or I. Just a thought.

The ensuing chaos and backlash from operator's against this BAA (British Airport Authority) 'instruction' was predictable enough to argue that this is precisely the effect desired. Pissed off passengers - who cares? Pissed off airline carriers - who cares? Where else can they operate from? Fear factor rockets. Perfect. The real terrorists? Look deeper.

BAA's CEO, Tony Douglas, was a 'star' executive of the Kenwood food mixer company and describes himself, apparently, as an "aeroplane anorak". Promoted from managing director to CEO of Heathrow on July 13, 2006 - about four weeks ago (15.08.06). Over the 8 years since being appointed to BAA in 1998, he is delivering the fifth terminal (£4.2 billion) on time and to budget. Good mates with Gordon Brown too, apparently.

Another 'employee' is Stephen Nelson. Recent history is a sales and marketing man from Sainsbury's.

When in charge of 'captured' employees who have to do as they are told or lose their job, it is easier to get your way. This doesn't work when you are faced with a public who fail to respond to orders in a 'happy and contented way’. Doffing their hat: "Yes, sir. No sir. Three fucking bags full, çur." They are not employees. People like Douglas can't tell the difference. It's bullying. It fails.

So, it shows that earlier experience has little to do with later life at Heathrow. Tells a story though. Bring in a 'fixer' to get Heathrow expansion effected, then piss off everybody by throwing your weight around (as top dog, of course) and use the experience of sales and marketing people to sell your new business to a captured audience. They know that airlines and passengers have no choice but to use Heathrow. I am sure that if choice was available, everybody would go elsewhere.

People like Douglas and Nelson will imagine that 'clients' come to Heathrow because they want to. It's because they have to. It's like paying taxes or having Gordon Brown as prime minister 'elect'. There is no choice. Those 'in power', whoever they really are, will always get their way as nobody knows who they are. It's easy to ridicule by saying that they don't exist and it's all conspiracy theory, but remember shadows are created by something. The anti-conspiracy theory advocates have a great time when everybody listens to them and ignores any warning that is ‘made’ unacceptable. It's how misdirection and illusion works. Head buried in the sand. What isn't heard, doesn't happen. Everyone's honest and wants the best for everyone. Remember George Orwell? Was he a conspiracy theorist?

And why do people respond, lapping up like good dogs all the crap dished out. Believing everything on TV or reported in newspapers. Bad news excites people. Bad news sells. Bad news persuades people. It makes it all the easier to control the masses. These communication industries are controlled by their 'masters'. Editors are never truly free to edit.

What happened to ID cards? It will all return. Of that, have no fear! ID cards will make everything fine. Everybody will be safe - at cost. And who benefits? Always ask yourself that question. "Who benefits?" Not who allegedly will be safer. Who makes the money and benefits. You don't imagine it will be you or I, do you? Wait and see, but be mindful of the tide coming in. It turned some years ago. If you wait too long: (a) you could (being generous) or (b) will (being more realistic) drown.

'Critical' and 'severe' threats

The terrorist threat in middle England has been downgraded from 'critical' to 'severe'. What does that demonstrate? Nothing at all really. But it sounds like something has been done. Not enough to be sure though. Reasonable? It could imply cautious optimism. The cell 'mastermind' and his 'soldiers' are allegedly in custody. Very quick to make these alleged arrests. The term 'severe' doesn't actually come close to explaining that definition. I am just being generous. It is a Monday (14.08.06).

The security services at the Home Office do tell the public an awful lot of, I would say, confidential and highly classified information. That in itself is very revealing, I would say.

See the 'official' government website:

This carries the details of the five levels of threat: low, moderate, substantial, severe and critical.

Critical level: an attack is "expected imminently".
Severe level: an attack is "highly likely".

This threat level is, however, described as "not an exact science". So use with caution and believe what you will. This is the Home Office.

The US has published this threat level information (Department of Homeland Security) since 2002.

It seems that now is a good time to raise the levels of fear.

Acquisition of knowledge

Talking to friends and acquaintances rarely collects the special information or knowledge that is required. However, reading books written by those armed with such information (with verification of expertise) provides what is necessary to move forward.

It's like having a conversation with someone who can tell you what you need or want to know.

Healthily ill

In an age where medical advances and medicines are more potent, why is it that ever more people are being classified as unhealthy or in a state of disease? By lowering arbitrary threshholds for defining 'ill-health', more people can so be classified. Just lower a value for 'good health' to below the norm and instantly create a huge population of 'sick' people.

No wonder public health insurance is overwhelmed. Many people are probably quite healthy, but they have been redefined as patients in need of treatment. Notably, many newly created diseases are healthily in society today for which there is a pill close behind.

Drug companies are at the same time highly profitable.

Healthy patients

Fewer pharmaceutical companies and an ever growing global population combine to provide a fertile marketplace for creating 'unhealthy customers'. Lower the barrier to define ill people who are otherwise healthy. Promote fear in these people by convincing them they are ill. This is dishonest and totally reprehensible for an 'ethical' business. People 'trust' these companies when, in fact, they have no reason to.

9/11 and truth?

Nearly 5 years on from 9/11, and with all that Bush has 'achieved' in external affairs, it is amazing that with the sophistication of surveillance (spy satellites, planes etc), nothing has come of finding Osama Bin Laden. It's a real possibility that it's all a lie just to create fear and more importantly create the illusion of fear. Nobody is safe anywhere. We can all be seen in close-up on the ground from a great height. Or so the story goes. Except Osama Bin Laden and colleagues, of course.

How can a group, big or small, of humans remain undetected allegedly in a remote and mountainous region of Afghanistan and remain alive? For 5 years. What is the food source? Clothing? The things we all need to stay alive.

Is this all a lie created to justify events? The 9/11 attack itself, before and after. Is Bin Laden just a myth? A US actor dressed up wearing a beard. I have no idea what this individual looked like in life if ever he was a real person. Create a lie that predates an earlier lie. The story is false right back to the beginning. Surprising how easy it is to trick people. Like the classic 'sleeper' brought out years later when the time is right. Planners plan. It's what they do. Eventualities and conditions that may come about a long time ahead. Well into the future.

A "just in case" scenario. The specific details can be created nearer the time to create the ideal justification story, the plausible scenario, but somebody has always been in the dark and very shadowy background ready to play the rôle. In this case 'Osama Bin Laden'. Was the entire history of this individual fabricated, even down to childhood?

The planeload of Bin Ladens allegedly flown out of the US back to Saudi Arabia two days after 9/11. For their own protection? Do you believe that? A lead into the hunt for Bin Laden would start here and they were all escorted out of the country as quickly as possible! Allegedly. Was the plane empty and piloted by military personell. Quite likely because of the "security" position. Just carrying away the myth?

If this group of people ever did exist then they are conveniently no longer available for questioning. If you don't ask questions you cannot get difficult answers that need answering. The truth gets buried even deeper.

Bin Laden still can't be found. Has anyone ever really seriously been looking for a ghost?

The 'Americans' have done this sort of thing before. The means to an end: Apollo. About $60 billion then. Over 40 years ago. Wars do cost money to finance and it had to be raised somehow. But don’t tell anyone, especially those who are expected to pay for it all.

The 'fact' machine has been busy again.

Think money. Think oil. Think control. Think.

Vanity of size

Modern theme: create boy racers. Testosterone and the male menopause. Reject the idea that getting old as part of the natural ageing process and make getting old into a disease. Having enabled people to live to a greater age. More chance of getting ill. Amazing.

People are so gullible that to play on vanity nearly always works. Say goodbye to wrinkles, get bigger tits. That's like a bloke wanting a bigger dick! God, isn't it pathetic. What's that going to do? Really do. The prick is made by an attitude not an appendage. How big are your...fingers? Feet? Nobody cares.

But, vanity is soooo profitable.

Baby on Board

"Baby on Board": so what? What difference does it make? The irritating point is the presumption that people normally drive recklessly unless informed that a baby is on board. People rarely alter their attitude when armed with such information. I don't.

My driving technique doesn't change. I don't get better or worse. I have a consistent attitude. Whether it's excellent, good or downright poor, it doesn't change depending on circumstances.

Those drivers with a real rubbish attitude are also consistent.

Consistently bad

They often have "attitude" and generally don't care about anything or anybody. Usually, but not always, not very bright. Just nasty.

Signs like the "Baby on Board" don't make any difference.

Just like the pathetic types that drive into disabled places at supermarkets or any communal place with these specially reserved places. Disabled people (with the appropriate valid documentation, of course) can't all escape totally here: some are just inconsiderate, stupid or blind as the absolute right to park anywhere seems to translate to parking dangerously or being an obstruction. Or creating blind-spot hazards at junctions

A real pain

Those making the signs make the money since the sign itself and the information it conveys are a total irrelevance.

Personalised number plates

Does the availability of old numbers mean that the original car no longer exists? Was it a write-off? What was the history of the car number acquired? Was anybody unfortunately killed?

Take possession of this death number.


The terror and the patsy

Blair on his hols yet (11.08.06)? Middle East crisis getting worse by the hour. Hundreds killed. Massacred. Terror alert in UK & US causing major issues. If Blair can go on his hols then it strongly suggests he knows it's not serious as it's government sponsored.

Turn up the heat on the fear element just like Hitler and the Nazis in 1933. Blair might say "I'm not needed, Prescott can handle it." Wonderful admission at last. Ineffective in 'peacetime', let alone major crisis. Hopelessly inept, but it's more sinister than that.

Plan and help create the nightmare then walk away. Don't forget: Reid is Scottish. Just like Blair. And Prescott is a perfect patsy. All goes totally pear-shaped, and then some, and see who's left in charge?

Plan is working well, so far.

Anyone in? Anyone listening?

Saudi Arabian oil

The public support for War on Terror (war is terror) was at its greatest after attack on the Twin Towers, 9/11 (2001). The ensuing invasion in Europe would not be conceivable or acceptable, not that it was or is, without this prior 'outrage'.

Complicity was strongly suggested by (allegedly) escorting the Bin Laden family/relatives out of America to Saudi Arabia by plane 2 days afterwards when every other US non-military aircraft had been grounded or risked being shot down. Control of American airspace absolute. Nothing can move.

Look to Pearl Harbour (1941). Deliberately allowed to happen? Bring the Americans into WWII. Documentary evidence exists to suggest that President Franklin D. Roosevelt secretly held ambitions to involve America in the war, but public opinion was against him (running at 88%). In his re-election campaign he is recorded as stating: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars".

Or Hitler burning the Reichstag (German Republic's parliament) on 27.02.1933. Hitler blamed Communists as plotting against the state. It is accepted by historians that Hitler was behind this. Hitler introduced an emergency decree suspending normal civilian rights and liberties and gave the government enormous authority to impose order.

Such 'protection'. Sound familiar? In America: 03.10.2001. Congress approved Bush's PATRIOT Act. This bill worked along similar lines: reduce civil liberties of Americans and allow detention without trial of anyone deemed a 'security threat' by the government.

Invade Europe: Afghanistan, Iraq (10% world oil supplies). Next: Saudi Arabia (25% oil)?


America has about 2-3% of world oil supplies and uses the most.

"Terror" in Britain

The 'terror alert' at Manchester airport (10.08.06): who's really behind it? Is this disguised government action? Hiding behind the smokescreen of the Middle East disaster?

Classic misdirection tactic.

Take the heat off while the UK government prepares...what? Blair on his hols. Prescott in charge.

That may be a good thing in a bizarre way. Maybe anarchy will be better to allow the shit to rise up.

What can be seen can be beaten.

Bargain basement

The selling technique of 3 for 2 suggests a bargain - if you want three of something. It may work like this: sell each 'reduced' item at the true price so sell three items at once. If a single item is sold it goes for a higher price.

Example: 3 for 2 @ 99p each. Buy 2 for £1.98 (and get 3) suggests the third item is free. Each works out at 66p instead of 99p. A 33.3% saving and a real bargain. Not really when you consider that if the true selling price were 66p, then buying just 1 or 2 units will cost you 50% more at 99p each.

Other outlets sell a single item at the higher price and are so disadvantaged. They may not realise this and are as unaware as consumers.

Similarly, get 2 for the price of 1. The true cost of buying each unit costs 50% less than the declared selling price. Then the item is sold singularly, but with 33% more volume.

Example: 2 for 1 @ £1.40. Do the math: each has a true price of 70p. Add 33% more content (it's how fruit and such is sold) and the cost reaches 93p, but sells for £1.40. This is still 47p profit on top of the 93p and is 47/93 = 50%.

It could simply be taking a lower profit margin, but I doubt this would be a long-term strategy. Shareholders or corporate profits would suffer. It must maximise return on sale.

Fat is undeniably NOT beautiful

Overweight people can exist in denial by convincing themselves that 'fat is beautiful'. Nevertheless, physically carrying around a large excess of weight is dangerous to the entire cardiovascular system. The heart is a fixed size and must work harder than it is capable of sustaining. Blood volume is not increased for a larger volume of body to go around.

Something must yield. All areas will not get sufficient blood or some areas will not get any if critical locations are to perform life-sustaining functionality.

Fat is dead weight and has no function in today's meaning. If there was a deficiency of food rather than sufficiency in the very societies that exhibit the problem then carrying this food source around may make logical sense. But in these societies no case can be made. Unless through illness exercise is prohibited or not possible, then a failure to exercise will be harmful. Combine with this smoking and drinking to excess and the outlook is very gloomy for the 'patient' and the pharmaceutical industry's dream come true.

Sick people means money, even if the 'illness' is easily remedied. Make people ill by changing behaviours. Making acceptable, or even normal, behaviour that is detrimental to health.

Go see your doctor in health and get a check up. Become a patient within 30 minutes or so. Come away unhealthy.

The increase of worth and value

Wealth is created by massaging and manipulating the 'value' of what is already possessed. Property just appreciates in value by doing nothing. What actually causes 'value', not worth, to go up? Why does the 'value' of a painting go up? Human appreciation doesn't go up in the value stakes.

This attempts to equate the spiritual with the physical concept.

If an item costs more, then the 'value' has been conditioned into people to be higher. An item isn't worth anymore. It doesn't make sense. Illogical. A painting produced 200 years ago is now just an old painting. The intrinsic value doesn't change, but the perceived value increases. Why? Because someone has said so.

Wake up to what's going on here.

Is oil scarce? So we are told. By whom? The oil companies and governments. The two sources that should be ignored. The alleged scarcity creates demand and people are prepared to pay a higher premium. The entire world has been developed using a resource that can become 'scarce on demand'.

In the last few years, the greed rate factor has become exponential. It has become the new way of making money.

Commercial exploitation of life

If life is discovered on another planet or elsewhere, can that lifeform be copyrighted?

I couldn't prove or verify where it may have been 'discovered'.

Who could?

Think: Apollo.

But I am sure someone will try to make money out of it.

Lowering the threshold

Another way of describing 'lowers cholesterol' is that a food does not contribute to what you already have. If no additional cholesterol is consumed surplus will naturally be used up gradually.

Remember that this chemical is critical to good health. Without it we would die. The recommended level is set to a low figure and makes millions of healthy people into patients who possibly 'need' cholesterol lowering drugs (statins).

Blair and the American Trident system

Here is a possible reason for Blair's attitude towards Bush.

The British nuclear deterrent and whether to replace the Trident nuclear force. The British Trident strategic nuclear system consists of Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines (twice the size of the Polaris subs they replaced), Trident D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and the nuclear warheads for the missiles.

The Vanguard subs will probably come to the end of their operational life between 2020-2025. The SLBMs can be replaced from an American stockpile. The strategic nuclear deterrent is dependent on American support, even though Britain builds its own nuclear warheads. Trident is an American missile system and the UK 'leases' its missiles from the American stock. The US also supplies highly enriched uranium to fuel the submarines. Various other services and products are also supplied: the storage, assembly and servicing of the missiles; the facilities for the preparation of the Trident missiles; refurbishment during each major refit.

The British nuclear deterrent is hardly an independent one.

Bush (in 2004) renewed the Mutual Defence Agreement which ensures American support to maintain 'a credible deterrent' to 2014.

What did Blair give in return in this mutual agreement?

Without Britain's nuclear weapons (as a political weapon) there might be no permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council as it would certainly be challenged and so lose great-power status, or whatever it might still have.

Arguments summarized from an article by Frank Barnaby in Focus, September 2006.

'Sympathetic' newspapers

Press reports leaked to 'sympathetic' newspapers is designed to create the feeling of hopelessness. That nothing can be done.

Today (05.08.06) runs the front page story (Daily E*****s, again) "HIGHJACKERS TO GET OUR BENEFITS". Maybe. But it's typical of this newspapers coverage. It sells, but it may also be more sinister. To instill this feeling of hopelessness so that anything becomes 'acceptable' as the norm.

The British, or at least the English, are being softened up and conditioned by Blair's essentially Scottish cabinet.

I don't touch this rag anymore.

Big ego, small...

A small man (physically or mentally) behind the driving wheel of a BIG powerful car provides the self-delusional image of being equally big and powerful. The car has been designed to provide for itself in terms of the required power to operate and function correctly.

An A380 being 'flown' by a man or a supertanker under the control of a few humans. These vehicles too are huge and built to be controlled. The physical size of the 'operator's' brain makes no difference.

That is the preserve of the ego.

Bliar wants you!

Remember the poster of Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchener? The one that points a finger at the viewer with the caption "BRITONS. Kitchener WANTS YOU. Join Your Country's Army! God Save the King".

A recent picture of Bliar has captured a pose that perfectly fits this poster profile, whether that was Bliar's intention or not, I don't know. I choose to think it was. God save Bliar because no one else will. Or can. Or would even want to? But then, I can only speak for myself.

GBH with intent...

Thugs who beat a pensioner and threw him onto a railway line moments before a train arrived were sentenced to six years at Swindon Crown Court. I trust this was the sentence handed out to each as they were presumably equally guilty, though the report failed to mention this important fact.

Another example of inadequate reporting.

Alexander Graham (40) and Raymond Lawrence (24), after drinking eight pints each, headbutted and kicked Ray Beatty (71), a retired BBC editor.

Of what? Weak or strong beer, lager, cider, vodka... Tea, coffee?

The report actually read:

Alexander Graham (40) and Raymond Lawrence (24), headbutted and kicked Ray Beatty (71), a retired BBC editor, after drinking eight pints each.

[This very poor English suggests that Mr Beatty drank eight pints of ..?, even though it states "each". If I were a teacher of the English language I'd give an English student 4/10 as a score for this. A foreign student more as they could very easily make an error like this.]

He suffered head injuries and fractures. The two thugs (!!) followed Mr Beatty to the opposite platform as he tried to escape and were convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent.

Intent to what? Is that not attempted murder? Intent to kill? But no doubt cannot be proved. Physically throwing Mr Beatty in front of a train that didn't arrive for 'moments' no doubt gave him a reasonable chance to escape, even though he'd been headbutted and kicked and so, presumably, was barely conscious. Or unconscious?

With intent..?

Insurance exploitation

Advertisement placed by UK company Ltd.

Points on your licence?

With 6000 speed cameras (that all? Obviously not enough) 'spying' on British drivers (sort of paranoia there), and the government ready to unleash (!) new technology on the unsuspecting (!) motorist, ...

Over the next 12 months it is estimated that a staggering two million of us...

Clearly, Ltd expect to do a lot of speeding then. And get caught speeding. Shame. Nothing like law breakers, is there? And those that bellyache all the time. And refuse to change their ways. Like staying within speed limits. Bit much to ask, really.

...with the inevitable increase in short, mid, long term driving bans many peoples' livelihoods will be put at risk... shit, that’s terrible. How about people’s lives being put at risk by these arsehole speeders.

Nothing about people doing that to themselves. Nobody asks these good people to go tooooo fast. But it's fashionable to push the blame somewhere else.

Deny self-responsibility.

Good news though!!! Ltd is here.

It's an insurance scheme.

Wow! Never saw that one coming!

Why do people fall for all this crap. This company is simply exploiting, skimming, acting like a parasite rather like the 'ambulance chasers' in America..

And on and on it goes. Really dull and boring stuff, but ideal for all the saddos who will get 'caught' for speeding. Isn't it depressing to discover that if there is little chance of being 'caught' (no police presence) then everyone is happy to break the law. If police were about perhaps people would be more careful?

No self-control. No self-respect.

Mind you, if they were to get burgled then the law would be selectively used.

Profitable for editor and not for newspaper

It was reported in The Times (29.07.06) that Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian, received £175,000 bonus on top of his £329,000 salary after a year in which the newspaper and its sister Sunday title, The Observer, lost £49.9 million.

Well, its only about 1% (salary and bonus) of the losses. Not much really.

Bad reporting

Three men have been sentenced to seven years detention for a drunken attack that left a 62-year-old man permanently brain damaged. Arran McArthur (20), Dwayne Arnold (23) and Stephen Stubbs (18) had admitted assaulting Anthony Rhodes on January 14, 2006 as he drove home.

What this report does not say is whether the 7 years is the total between them or 7 years each. The total between all three I expect. Crap reporting. Or deliberately hiding/disguising the true story.

Presumably, these three f***s stopped the car first. Maybe they stood out in the road and Mr Rhodes did the decent thing and didn't run them down. F***s like that should have been run down at birth.

Perhaps my attitude is too tough?

But, it was only an assault caused through drink. It does make everything OK.

Doesn't it?

Israel and the Holocaust

Israel has always complained about the Holocaust of WWII. Up to now I've agreed with that. Perhaps now they will just keep quiet about it?

The people who suffered during WWII are sadly no more. The Jewish nation had a lot to bear.

Today, though, the shame brought upon Israel for murdering all those innocent children. Never again will I listen to any stories when more recent events show the hypocrisy of the stance.

Imagine this: Blair crying as the bombs and rockets fall. The empathy with the victims - all of them. Like the Iraqi folk who were blown into millions of pieces.

Makes me think of pyramids and the all seeing eye.

Vested interests in warmongering

Ever thought that Blair and Bush have a vested interest in keeping wars going? Wars need weapons, don't they? And who supplies them? Blair's government, of course.

And the British people get the blame.

Blair and the laser-guided bombs

President G.W. Bush and Tony I'd-like-to-be-a-president-too Blair yesterday (28.07.06) agreed to back a new UN resolution sending a multinational force to Lebanon, as criticism grew of their failure to call for an immediate cease fire in the region.

Bush apologised for America's use of Glasgow's Prestwick Airport to ferry laser-guided bombs to Israel without following proper procedures.

"The President said sorry there was a problem. It was a gracious thing to do," Blair's official spokesman said.

Except he's just saying what he has been told to say. Platitudes so Blair can stay up Bush's backside where he doesn't see any daylight. These precision laser-guided 5 tonne bombs are a back order from a year ago (pretty quick off the mark there). Makes me wonder whether the Americans stopped off at Prestwick to pick up the late order. British built? Not just a refuelling stop. And, of course, using Blair's homeland of Scotland to do it. Hardly neutral ground and Blair fucks us all. Again.

Blair is about to go on his hols (03.08.06). Stop the war chaps. For a couple of weeks at least. Hope the bastard has a rotten time on his holiday (he won’t, of course) reading about the British (and American) soldiers who will die over the course of his holiday.

And all of the innocent Lebanese children who will die as a result of his 'dealings' with the Devil and his mates.

Fucking bastard.

A deceitful advantage

If a magician's trick is understood the magic is lost. To avoid spoiling the trick it is best to not know how it is done.

But then we are actually allowing ourselves to be tricked. And we know it. In this situation you have a choice.

When you are deceived and lied to the difference is that you do not have a choice.

The unfair advantage is stolen.

Drink problems

Alcohol offenders: drivers have their licence revoked. It is not always successful, but more often than not.

Drink offenders: to be given an abstinence order.

Supposed to be supervised!

If drunk or intoxicated then lock them up for a while. A month of forced abstinence will be pure Hell for an alcoholic.

Judges under pressure

A great idea: doing away with lay juries in complex cases that require specialist knowledge (that they don't have anyway) and replace with an expert panel.

Rocket science stuff.

Isn't that a good idea: but not for the judges. They might get tested on real technical points.

It's always easier to run rings around the ignorant who have a lack of knowledge. The unsophisticated! But an expert panel who actually know a thing or two and probably understand fine detail rather well.

Points of law can always be thrown in though.

Bunker buster bombs

Another shit situation:

"British Government should not allow the export of 'bunker buster bombs' if they are likely to be used aggressively against another country...".

Why else buy such arms? Or manufacture them. To let the kids play with?

If the British government can stop the export, then Britain makes them. Logical?

What another load of hypocritical fucking bollocks.


It seems transparently clear that the government (this government likes transparancy) wants to close down the NHS and open privatisation contracts. Sell off the lucrative bits and leave the lossy parts to public funding.

Make it unattractive to UK taxpayers to support it so an easy and uncontested continued winding down can be expected. The facilities will just change ownership.

As taxpayers we own this facility. But the government will try to sell it as though it owns it. Not you or I.

Sacking doctors and nurses? This makes it very clear. Avoiding future redundancy payments. How else can you reconcile 'getting rid' of key staff. But, keep the managers who know not a thing about health care. They can be sold on to private administration. Managers never did and still don’t know anything about real health management. Though they are the most important, key players.

It seems doctors and nurses don't help a hospital service, but managers do.

Don't forget that redundancy issue, though.


Right or wrong?

Right? Wrong?

New teachings of "secure values and beliefs".

What is a "secure value"?

Can I state that "I believe" mugging, theft etc is right and you are not allowed to argue!

If it's what I truly believe, then how can you possibly argue with me since there's no right or wrong. I am guided by my conscience.

I don't give a toss what you think.

I feel that what I do is OK.

It's the ethic of the terminally selfish.

Gas prices rocket

Gas prices up 91%!

Crude profiteering. It's out of control. The few shareholders could well be perpetrating a massive fraud. And all underwritten by government. A conspiracy. Watch the declared profits at year end. It will be obscene.

Water will be next as though there has never before been a shortage. Never before been a heatwave? Profits didn't go up then. Why now?

It does suggest thieving on a grand scale.

Stopping crime

How do you stop crime in any country?

Kill every living soul, of course.

Human Rights

Blair and Human Rights. Can't you see through this one? Champion of Human Rights. Without Blair (and Bush) I doubt we'd need them. But it does serve to mist over the whole issue of being 'decent'. Blair being decent? Please chunder quietly, will you?

Gets tiring, doesn't it?

What about those Human Rights of innocent people unfortunate to have been born in a 'war zone'. What about that bastard Mugabe?

Remember that handshake where Prince Charles was ambushed by Mugabe in Rome? Well, I wonder… I think freemasonry. Don't know why really.

What about the Human Rights of much of black Africa? Why can't Blair have the standard car crash? Another fucking hypocrite. Britain supports certain actions.

Britain will be targeted as a result of all this. And the real guilty ones wring their hands together moaning about such a violent world that we all live in. Much in the same way as innocent Iraqi children are all found guilty of murderous outrage.

So will we.

Bush can't "take innocent human life"

Bush cannot support the "taking of innocent human life".

In respect of stem cell research.

Doubt if he knows what a stem cell can do. This from a man who quite happily murders 1000s and 1000s of Iraqi men, women and children who are all assumed guilty of some undefined outrage.

How can a child be guilty?

Hypocrite to the nth degree. Fucking tosser. Fucking bastard.

But then again, kill the children and they can't take revenge.

The end of nuclear power - hopefully.

UK energy review backs new nuclear power stations.

The UK government's Energy Review swept aside objections from environmentalists and anti-nuclear campaigners by proposing a new generation of nuclear power stations. A new generation suggests a new and improved version. Safer, perhaps.

"A new generation of nuclear power stations could make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions (there we are again: repeating that mantra) and reducing our reliance on imported energy," UK Energy Secretary Alistair Darling told the House of Commons. "But it would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the costs of decommissioning and their full share of long term waste management costs."

Long-term waste management cannot be done whatever the costs.

The private sector investing money sounds good when it implies no public funds. What isn’t mentioned is that profits also go to the private sector. And the public will pay. The really odd thing though is that this private sector is mostly human (I think) and they will suffer the consequences of nuclear waste, the same as the rest of us. Funny really how money makes people more blind than they already are.

This also conveniently dodges the issue of the environmentally poisonous: NUCLEAR WASTE. Remember that poisonous little phrase? We will pay for it through the cost of buying energy. And it will be much, much more expensive than at the moment.

Justifiction (sic): "it was the only way forward".

Facing backwards and seeing only behind, while going forwards.

The government's review sets out its strategy for supplying energy while also tackling climate change until 2020. It also recommends financial measures that would increase the extent to which renewable energy technologies feed into the power grid. It will, for example, make wind and tidal power cheaper for electricity companies to use through subsidies. Sounds good, but it only represents a few % of the total. Will that be increased?

The UK is the world's fourth largest economy trailing after the US, Japan and Germany, and is re-examining the sources that feed its electricity grid because demand over the next decade is projected to exceed generation capacity.

And who's responsible for that then?

The illusion is that the shareholders are people like you and me and it's all our fault for wanting too much return on any investment. In reality, it is only a few BIG shareholders. Probably figures in tens and not the illusory millions.

Think banks and they're not British.

This so-called "energy gap" will emerge as old and inefficient coal and nuclear power stations are retired under measures the European Union is taking to cut carbon dioxide emissions in compliance with the Kyoto protocol. The US doesn't give a toss about Kyoto and never did. Without reinvestment, this gap will add up to about one-fifth (20%) of the nation's requirements by 2015, according to the Carbon Trust, a UK organisation that helps companies cut their emissions.

Be careful: sounds like out with the old generation and in with the next safer, cleaner (and cheaper?!!) new generation.

The Energy Review opens the way for new nuclear power stations to replace those to be retired. This will ensure that nuclear energy continues to provide at least 20% of the UK's electricity, which will otherwise drop to 6%, Darling warned.

Do you believe this? France generates 80% of its energy by nuclear means. That’s still very unsafe whatever you may believe. Nuclear is nuclear and it’s very, very dangerous. Production in the present and the waste to be dealt with in the future. Imagine, financial problems make this processing not viable for a private company. Once it’s been created it has to be ‘dealt with’. Who pays? Guess.

Speeding up the construction of the new nuclear power stations will include what may be highly controversial: "streamlining" of the planning process to prevent local objectors delaying construction. In other words, plans to steamroller over objections even if they are well-founded. Moving so fast that any court action would be circumvented too. Government can act fast when it’s expedient and drag it’s feet too: when it’s expedient.

It's so predictable, it's pathetic.

"We'll be acting to ensure that energy companies, whether seeking to build gas storage facilities (these don't produce, they STORE), wind farms or any other kind of large energy installation, are not faced with costly uncertainties and delay," Darling added.

"Local concerns must be taken into consideration but the right balance has to be struck with the national need for our vital energy infrastructure."


That little word ‘but’ is a very powerful little word. It can mean that whatever I just said can be safely disregarded.

Alternatives will be completely blocked. Opinions suppressed. The review also makes a commitment to lowering the cost of using renewable energy sources for electricity companies. This will mean subsidising less widely used renewable technologies. Sounds good, but they won't be there. They'll have been blocked. UK electricity companies have an obligation to acquire 10% of their power from renewable sources by 2010.

Does ‘obligation’ mean mandatory by law or just “it would be nice”’.

Above was made mention of 2015. They mainly opt for the cheapest option: onshore wind turbines. They'll be ridiculed as wind is not predictable, but nuclear power is.

Do you get the hypocrisy again? Nuclear power. A nuclear power. You can trust us. We're British. The country that invaded Iraq illegally at the behest of Dubya (W), allegedly. An excuse to meddle in nuclear fuels. Sources of nuclear warfare. Like the depleted (or maybe not so depleted) uranium shells. The new method of conducting nuclear war without the nuclear bombs. Nuclear shells instead. The outcome is much the same as in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Just no tell-tale mushroom clouds.

The Carbon Trust last week urged the government to provide subsidies for the less successful and more expensive renewable technologies like offshore wind, tidal and solar power (these will fail then by definition). With new investment, Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust says renewables could feasibly supply up to 13% of the UK's electricity by 2015 and 19% by 2020. This is close to the government's target of 20% renewables by 2020.

Answer that one Blair. And no spin. I have a spin detector and it sits next to my shit detector.

Good argument though, Tom. But, I'm afraid it will be ignored. It has to fail. There will be some shit to be spun about. Borrow my detectors?

Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace in the UK, said: "This renewable push should be seen in the context of what it is: just a way of delivering new nuclear build." Parr also questions whether the investment community will be willing to pay to build, manage and handle waste from the nuclear power stations. He cites a report from Standard & Poor's, the credit ratings agency, which earlier in 2006 warned investors that cost overruns are "highly probable" on new nuclear power station projects.

I would say guaranteed.

"The headlines today might be about new nuclear build, but the devil will be in the detail," Parr adds. "There is a huge level of risk for anyone putting up the money for a nuclear power station and there is a distinct possibility the investment the government is seeking won't be there."

Of course, it won't be there. We all know it will fail before it gets started. Even before they start building.

But, no doubt, the government on our behalf, as the taxpayers, will underwrite any cost differential. When it all goes sour, the investors will get bailed out. Win-Win scenario for the good-old investors. While you and I get fucked. Yet, again. It’s how money is “made”.

Other environmental groups reacted negatively to the review. "The idea that we are facing an enormous energy gap which only nuclear power can fill has been a classic piece of spin," said Keith Allott, head of climate change at the World Wildlife Fund. "Nuclear is a costly red herring and it will be the taxpayers who end up covering the costs of an uneconomic industry and future generations who deal with its legacy of radioactive waste."

Read that again:

"Nuclear is a costly red herring and it will be the taxpayers who end up covering the costs of an uneconomic industry and future generations who deal with its legacy of radioactive waste."

Kevin Anderson, director of the energy programme at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK, said the review focuses disproportionately large-scale electricity generation. "There is no real action proposed to realise the substantial potential of alternative means of generating low-carbon power, such as micro-generation of electricity at the community-level," he said.

NB. Blair and Darling visited the wind farm at Kentish Flats (just off Whitstable) last week It is a windfarm at sea owned by a Swedish company and produces enough energy to power 100,000 homes. It is the largest off-shore wind farm in operation with some 30 turbines. Blair talks about protecting the environment. That, after backing the nuclear proposal. Hypocrisy? To the nth degree. And then some.

This dogma about feeding into the grid. No consideration to local enterprises like at Kentish Flats. It is an amazing site.

I believe the nuclear path has ensured UK Ltd can legally stockpile nuclear sources for the nuclear weapons industry. If warmongering is not enough. No, but it's like greed. Enough is never enough. You must make money to make more money.

It’s all illusion anyway.

Reduced energy consumption

By switching off street lights from midnight until dawn, Essex County Council claims that it will reduce energy consumption by up to one third, so reducing carbon emissions.

So goes the spin.

What is unlikely to happen is the reduced energy consumption will lead to reduced Council Tax payers' bills.

This God called 'carbon emission' is a catch all phrase to exploit the situation and so 'spin' some money.


It is difficult to imagine that the Israeli aggression against the Hezbollah and Lebanon is simply for a pawn or two. A couple of soldiers of little status. I can't accept that even Israel is that supportive.

Clearly, this is the justification (if it were ever needed) to launch such murderous action.


Smoke inhaled from a house fire is lethal. It is involuntary.

Smoking a cigarette is by 'choice' (except passive smoking, of course) and is absolutely voluntary.

Both kill.

And cigarette smoking knocks off about 8 years of life on average.


Guy Fawkes, where are you?

There must be a government department whose task it is to devise new 'stealth' measures. It's all become so transparent and they don't seem to care anymore. Make as much money as possible before being finally rumbled (people are still waking up and it's increasing in rate) and ...?

Guy Fawkes... where are you?

Smart meters

Installation charges for smart electricity meters (about £200 payable by householders) has been suggested. Something like £8 billion overall?

Get that: £8 billion.

Of course, only those who own their own homes will pay. And nobody else. Especially those on benefits.

Who profits?

The foreign owned utility companies and the companies who manufacture such meters.

Later retirement. Earlier death

Apparently, 16% of older employees are willing to work on to a later retirement age. So devastated have retirement finances been manipulated, the prospects of a very difficult retirement have 'persuaded' people to become compliant and accept a reduced retirement period before a 'natural' death.

The upside for government by this manipulation is far fewer years of paying the old-age-pension. If old-age-pensioner status is ever attained.

Remember this: how long before fat is taxed. Otherwise it is another essentially waste product.

Like humans.

Prescott - a puff of smoke

Prescott looks more like the smokescreen every day. Now that the nuclear 'debate' has been steamrollered through, Prescott can now very conveniently be lost in the wilderness.

He will probably dissolve into the House of Lords very quietly, followed by that hypocrite Blair. And I bet Lord Blair and Lord Prescott (please don't laugh. And get up off the floor, will you) won't ever talk to each other again.

Different (self-)perceived class, you see.

'Greed' will be the death of us all

Government 'greed' thinking: who will profit from a nuclear base? Certainly the construction industry will. And who owns that? Big business. Big money.

The 'mug' consumer who was never been consulted, and never will be concerning this dreadful move, will pay a tax for an attempted clean up (the last lot hasn't been cleared up yet). This can never be done.

Think nuclear power. Classic misdirection. While the magician performs his trick you are looking elsewhere. But, magicians are clever people. Government 'controllers' are a bit more transparent whatever they like to think of themselves.

Takes the pressure off restrictions using fossil fuels. The inevitable argument is that zero emission of CO2 means more fossil fuels (oil) can be used as the quota is under utilised. The quotas won’t change. This promotes greater revenue from oil taxation and it will run out even faster.

The illusion is of somethimng positive being done for the environment, but actually it's all making it worse and also making a shedload of money for... someone.

An environmentally very UNFRIENDLY newspaper

The argument put forward by a mouthpiece in The Daily E*****s (Leo McKinstry) about the nuclear power issue conveniently ducks the obvious very major downside:


But the DE describes it all as environmentally FRIENDLY.

Environmentally clean nuclear power!! Clean?

Based only on the CO2 zero emissions this totally ignores the radioactive waste issue. Environmentally poisonous.

It is clear about the political leanings of this rag.

By the way I no longer buy or scan this rag. Like Lloyds TSB, Life, Scottish Widows: into the darkest depths with it all. Where the shit belongs.

Incidentally, this is where they'd like to 'bury' all our old nuclear waste wrapped up in concrete. Several hundred feet under ground.

And that's before we get busy and 'create' any more.

Absolute disgrace and at the same time attempting to besmirch Green Peace and anyone who dares to oppose such madness and corrupt thinking. A pathetic attempt at mind control.

As a waste product, there will be a tax on it eventually. The tax payer will pay to clear up the mess he had no part in 'pushing' through. Profits are siphoned off to everybody, EXCEPT the tax payer.

Except nuclear waste can NEVER BE 'cleared up'.

Got it yet? Have you woken up yet?

This mouthpiece for the Daily E*****s has, in the past, been praised for talking sense. Now, do you see how misdirection works? Lure the readers into following opinion, becoming stuck in the thinking pattern and lead into accepting what is said. Then bowl the really 'important' political googly. Acceptance that the way forward is 'nuclear' and it's environmentally friendly by not producing CO2. What a load of dangerous, very dangerous, bollocks. Crap of the worst kind. Verbal diarrhoea. Poisonous.

Not a word about the most serious issue: radioactive waste.

Even that issue of existing waste that can't even now be dealt with. Considering burying in concrete several hundred feet underground. Rendered harmless? Of course not. Out of sight, out of mind. That's all that can be done. It's still there. Still highly toxic. Still very, very dangerous.

Imagine terrorists (real or imagined) and this store of waste. Hundreds, thousands of tonnes of it. Difficult to get at perhaps, but it's there. Not conceivable to get at? That does not make it impossible to obtain. An explosion would make a great deal of atmospheric toxic pollution that could never be 'treated'. It would be in the air for 1000s of years.

It actually creates a greater problem. The challenge to 'terrorists', whoever they may be, to blow it up. Policing this burial site? Like AREA 51? I doubt it. It will all be left unguarded. Probably. A clear and easy target. What a fantastic challenge. Like the destruction of the A380 superjumbo. What a trophy!

My advice: don't go near this plane. It's doomed by definition. For what it is and stands for. Boeing. American? Who cares? But what a challenge! What a target!!

This paper (DE: still with me?) has done it before. Working on peoples' emotions with sensitive issues like the death of Princess Diana. Still won't go away, and it shouldn't. But it's being used nonetheless. I can make a case to allege disgraceful exploitation.

An interpretation is that the ongoing saga is being used to play another googly: championing the attack on speed cameras and that they turn drivers into criminals. Another load of bollocks. Total. If people speed, that's their choice. Those stupid people buy these 4x4 'tanks' live in the delusion that it makes them safer. To protect themselves from the problem of ‘dangerous roads’. They are a large part of the problem, for fuck's sake! Roads aren’t dangerous, but some of the people who use them are. They'd be among the first to complain if juggernauts and other lorries were commonplace in the local high street, but so hypocritical that they drive their fucking SUVs in the same places. They criminalise themselves. Tough shit. Break the law, whether that law is right or wrong, get caught (good) and expect the consequences. Most people actually think (I suspect) that speeders and SUV drivers in towns and any built up area are total arseholes. All part of today's selfish brigade: I'm OK Jack, fuck you.

Get real people. And take responsibility for your own inadequacies. Like a major lack of self control.

I would describe this Daily E*****s 'rag' as a government organ. The 'unofficial' mouthpiece. Dispensing required 'opinion' to inform people of correct thinking.

Cars aren't fast, but people drive them fast and the motor industry sells the average car with the potential to go very fast - too fast for any British roads. A greater density of ever more powerful cars, and these fucking SUV 'tanks' (what is a sports utility vehicle for fuck's sake?), makes the roads an evermore lethal place to be. The irresponsible motor industry just has no interest in safety. Provision of safety features? Window dressing to entice the mugs. And they can charge higher selling prices. It's all about money.

How easy it is to persuade stupid people that they really need an expensive-to-buy and expensive-to-run 'tank' to float around in. And the breathtaking arrogance of these fucks: parking where they like (special disabled peoples' places in public facilities, out-of-town shopping complexes, supermarkets) because they perceive themselves so important. Impotent more like. Totally ineffective as people. Useless. One of the definitions for arsehole: where all the shit comes from.

Isn't there supposed to be a permanent shortage of oil? Maybe, but it is an irreplaceable resource. When it's gone, it's gone. Never to come back. Certainly for the next few million years. It will be the extinct human race (today around 7 billions and still counting) who will be the future oil. The Earth will recover. It can wait.

Zidane is just misunderstood

So, Zidane has been made man of the tournament in the World Cup even after that disgraceful violent assault whether justified or not. In front of millions of viewers around the world and in front of his own president (Chirac). Shames the French nation.

But then... the message clearly is that general conduct earlier was fine and so excuses the final act.

Everything is all right then. All is forgiven.

Oh, yes. And it's football.

Tony's Human Rights tested

How long will it be before a possible murderer (before the trial is concluded) asserts a contravention of Human Rights by simply being accused of murder. That in itself is such a violation.

The paradox: when convicted, such a violation cannot occur. The situation no longer exists. It can only happen before a conviction. But the conviction can never be made as a verdict can't be returned.

This makes accusation with respect to any crime against people such a violation.

Thanks Tony. You've done your wife proud.

But absolutely nobody else.

Tony Blair should be known as Jack Blair.

And he's OK.

In case you really care.

History update

In 1955 anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer wrote that "the English are certainly among the most peaceful, gentle, courteous and orderly populations that the world has ever seen."

Not now in 2006.


The true English still would be. It's just we are no longer the true English.

Dangerous Cameron

Pillock Cameron. Revealed himself as a dangerous smoothie.

Be nice to hoodies because they need to identify with being loved.


For heaven's sake 'Call me Dave'. Try the more honest: "they need to prevent being identified".

Selling England by the Pound

Britain's energy industry is increasingly at the mercy of foreign gas suppliers. Perhaps this has something to do with selling off British assets to foreign owned companies.

Remember Genesis: Selling England by the Pound?

Energy prices are no longer controllable (?), but Council Tax hikes are within government control.

Don't control anything that's advantageous to government. Leave well alone (under tight control) anything that will be disadvantageous to government. Anything that might benefit the tax payers of UK Ltd.

When will this country be referred to as UQ? When did the King die and the Queen take 'control'? 1953?

Reduce these taxes or confirm that the long-term aim is to bankrupt the British or at least the English people. Remember that Blair has Scottish ancestry.

Ever noticed that Blair's background only goes as far back as his privileged university days and not before?

Odd that, isn't it?

Capitalism is admired

The future is capitalism. Make as much money as possible and that's it. That's how the current younger generation is being instructed. It's good to f**k everybody else as long as you don't get f**ked yourself.

Or so it seems.

Construction contracts

Where do the construction contracts go? Where else, but the US, of course: Bechtel, Fluor and CH2M Hill. British Nuclear Fuels recently disposed of nuclear reactor specialist Westinghouse to Toshiba of Japan. Inept or calculated sale? Perfect timing in view of 'proposed' building. It was only made public very recently. This demonstrates that forward knowledge was known.

Did I mention a fait accompli? Shame on me.

Sell the expertise and then buy back the know how in order to build. So, who buys (British tax payer) and who provides? Design of this scenario is quite clear.

Prescott may well be a “buffoon”, but he makes a great smokescreen. A diversion. Nobody notices that they are being fucked! Incidentally, the term “buffoon” suggests a person who amuses others by ridiculous behaviour. Well, maybe. I try to imagine all that he was allegedly up to while doing his very, very, very... important job, but can't stop laughing.

Actually, I think it is all a bit more serious than that. This “buffoon” will be in charge of the UK when Blair goes away on his 'well earned' hols, which he will do. Without fail. Firstly though, create chaos. Then clear off. That’s what he does.

Let’s see.

Nuclear power

The push for nuclear power has gone ahead to "unveiling plans" this week (09.07.06). This means a fait accompli. What someone wants (Blair and 'friends') they will get and let's fuck 'em all chaps.

The provision of nuclear power simply defers the decision of what to do in 20 years from now. By then the oil supply will be an even bigger problem, if there is any. But, make a huge profit now and, anyway, who cares about the future?

Maybe there is more oil than we are told. Governments don't lie, do they? No, surely not. Why would they lie to me..?

If there was a glut enough for 1000 years, then it might get difficult to justify high prices.

However, start a war and create instability. That usually works. True figures can be massaged to tell a depressing story to 'soften up' the consumer.

Who do you trust?

Spiralling property prices

If property prices continue to escalate, the mortgage term will doubtless increase to make repayments manageable, but increase interest revenue skywards.

The Build Societies and Banks still cannot lose.

Imagine coupling that with longer working life (shorter retirement life) to enable repaying the mortgage well into your 60's or 70's.

Censorship of blogs?

Weblogs will be regulated soon in an attempt to prevent blogs revealing important news that would otherwise not be reported in the conventional way. This demonstrates the leanings of newspapers and their owners. Blogs are an essential part of reporting life nowadays. It makes subjects that are difficult and unpopular for governments to answer much more difficult to bury.

The number of blogs is huge by comparison to the number of worldwide newspaper publications. They will never, ever be silenced. Look at the situation in China. Containment of knowledge is almost impossible there even if the authors risk severe punishments. Locked up for years and years for exposing the alleged unpalatable (to the Chinese government) truth.

A cash cow called "Terrorism"

Remarkable how terrorism has become a cash cow. The amount of money made by various organisations and governments with the rider of "terrorism". It also neatly diverts any reasonable, but difficult, questions.

The answer always includes “terrorism” and is supposed to silence every questioner.

Disabled Parking

Disabled parking: double yellow lines are usually painted to avoid obstructions. To allow parking anywhere that there are double yellow lines is stupid. A obstruction endorsed as legal. This allows disabled drivers to behave irresponsibly.

The legal entitlement to park near to the intended destination rather than having to walk a long way is reasonable, but must not to be abused.

Emissions of greenhouse gases

Emissions continue to focus on CO2, CO2, CO2 and more CO2 and still ignore methane. This is a deliberate diversion tactic. Greenhouse gases involve CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. The calculation works by governments adding together estimated emissions from individual sources. This estimate has always been accepted by atmosphere scientists (why?), but never independently audited.

Who sponsors these scientists? Methane appears to be the major concern. Convincing evidence now exists to point the finger at the UK (92% more than declared) and France (47%).