Google analytics

Saturday 31 March 2012

Threat levels


The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person

A final thought -“ Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC."

Friday 30 March 2012

The latest

First we had Anthropogenic Global Warming to make us feel guilty about our lifestyle. Next was Global climate change and Global weirding.

Bearing in mind these all had a cost to be born by us in higher tax and bills, (Carbon taxes) and were designed to change our behaviour.

Well it seems that those alarmist headings aren’t having the desired effect on us proles, so they are changing the narrative again.

More and more I see is the word “Sustainability” cropping up with monotonous regularity from the usual crooks, who are trying to send us back to an agrarian society, whilst relieving us of our money in the process.


Sustainable development is about making sure that people throughout the world can satisfy their basic needs now, while making sure that future generations can also look forward to the same quality of life.


Sustainability - changing how we live

Borough Market, Southwark

Yes, we really can all make a difference. And if we want governments and businesses around the world to act, we need to get our own houses in order first - and our cars, shops and workplaces too. Besides, the sooner we move towards less wasteful, healthier lifestyles, the better for everyone.

Just  do a google search for “sustainable” and you’ll see what I mean. Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon..

There’s even a site called the sustainable restaurant association. I doubt whether I shall visit one of those places.

I’m pissed off with hearing that bloody word. It purports to make us feel that we don’t care about anyone else in our thrust to better our lives. Of course some would say “You’re condemning the third world to a life of poverty”. I would reply by saying that I’ve seen shithole countries, first hand, that are awash with riches which are used by the ruling class to subjugate their populace to a life of misery.

Sustainable. Bollocks to the idea.

and if someone dares to mention “renewables”…………..  

Nice one.

Some enterprising publican.

beer shortgage

Thursday 29 March 2012

Always choose a memorable password!

We are all adults, and hope we all have a good sense of humour. 

This was just too funny to not share.


A lady helps her man install a new computer. Once it is completed, she tells him to select a password, a word that he'll always remember.

As the computer asks him to enter it, he looks at his wife and with a macho gesture and a wink in his eye, he selects a word but he is annoyed with her reaction, when he selects: penis.

As he hits "enter", to validate the selection, his wife collapses with laughter and rolls on the floor in hysteria ..


The computer had replied:


Tuesday 27 March 2012

Apparently it’s……..


World whisky day!!!!!!!

I’ll drink to that.

Doctors and drinking

wine glass

I have just been reading an article in The Telegraph about a proposal from manadarins in the Home Office to pay Doctors to quiz patients about their alcohol consumption.

After reading the article, and thinking for myself that it was a stupid idea. my eye drifted down to the comments section. I changed my mind when I read one of the comments.


Today 08:18 AM

Come to an arrangement with your GP; admit to being a dipso if he'll share the proceeds of his bonus.  If he cuts up rough, threaten to go on the wagon.

Made me smile.

Monday 26 March 2012

Think of the Cheeldren

I received an Email yesterday from a nanny fussbucket site that is blaming smokers for killing the newborn. Now I quite like receiving E mails, but when I receive drivel like that then I feel the need to reply.

In the Email the sender implied that smokers were mass killers of our youth. In it she attempts to state ten truths. Here they are:

  1. Smelly baby – Probably the least important reason but still applicable; babies are known for smelling so clean and fresh. The smell of cigarettes is potent, and clings to anything and everything it touches. You really don’t want your baby to smell like an ashtray do you?
  2. Fussy babies – It has been shown that infants do not do well in a smoke filled environment, and some studies have even correlated second hand smoke to a higher incidence of crankiness in babies. The smoke can irritate their lungs and eyes and make them uncomfortable.
  3. Asthma – Studies confirm that children raised around smokers have a higher incidence of asthma than those raised in environments with cleaner air. Also, children who are exposed to secondhand smoke may have more frequent and more severe asthma attacks.
  4. Poisons – Do you really want your baby breathing in all of those poisons? The fact is that secondhand smoke is full of irritants and chemicals that are harmful to the lungs. These chemicals include formaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, and vinyl chloride among others. Since babies have such small and delicate lungs that are still in the process of developing they are more vulnerable to the ill effects of these poisons.
  5. Cancer – Research shows that second hand smoke can be just as harmful as smoking. In some cases, people who never smoked but were around smokers came down with cancer while the smoker remained relatively healthy. Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen containing a plethora of carcinogenic chemicals; chemicals your baby does not need to be breathing.
  6. Lung damage – Recent studies reveal that babies who are subjected to secondhand smoke incur damage to their developing lungs which are quite possibly permanent damages. Their lung function decreases which can make them more susceptible to respiratory problems
  7. Ear infections – The adverse effects aren’t limited to the lungs; in fact inhalation of secondhand smoke can cause fluid buildup in the ears resulting in ear infections.
  8. Bronchitis – This is another respiratory issue that is seen more frequently in babies exposed to secondhand smoke.
  9. Pneumonia – Babies breathing in smoke are more likely to come down with pneumonia than those in a clean air environment.
  10. SIDS – One of the most frightening reasons to keep baby out of a smoke filled environment is that infants exposed to secondhand smoke are up to four times more likely to die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

My reply:

1. Never smelt a dirty nappy?

2. Really. I'd just love to have that study to peruse. If you blow smoke in my eyes I would be cranky.

3. This one takes the biscuit. Smoking prevalence has fallen whilst Asthma levels have increased. The cause now being considered is excessive cleanliness in the infant's formative months.

4. It's the dose that's important. Next you'll be purporting that the wiff of SHS will kill instantly.

5. So you don't think that pushing your baby within feet of a car exhaust  is unsafe? You've actually stated that smokers are less likely to get cancer. Strange reasoning.

6. I'd like you to back up that comment with a link to that study. I can't find one that gives empirical evidence that your assertion is correct.

7.That little gem has never been proved.

8.Anyone can catch Bronchitis. I had repeated Bronchitis when I was young. My parents didn't smoke.

9.State your source for that assertion.

10. No-one yet knows what causes SID. The rate in the UK is static at about 300 per year. You set the cause of investigative science back to the days of necromancy. 

If you are going to write uninformed drivel like this and post it on my blog, then at least research the facts. If you wish, I can supply links that will give you the facts. I don't deal in populist hearsay.

So you think our Government runs the country.

Well think again. Why do you think “Call Me Dave” has done all those U turns? It’s our masters in the EU who are really calling the shots.

H/T to Grandad

Sunday 25 March 2012

A modern fairy tale




Reported in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle U.K. recently:

Be sure and cancel your credit cards before you die!

And so easy to see happening - customer service, being what it is today!

A lady died this past September, and the bank billed her in October and November for their annual service charges on her credit card, and then in December added late fees and interest on the monthly charge.

The balance that had been £0.00, now is somewhere around £60.00.

A family member placed a call to the **** Bank:

Family Member: 'I am calling to tell you that my grandma died in  September.'

Bank: 'But the account was never closed and so the late fees and charges still apply.'

Family Member: 'Maybe, you should turn it over to your collections  section.'

Bank: Since it is two months over due, it already has been.'

Family Member: So, what will they do when they find out she is dead?'

Bank: 'Either report her account to the Frauds Department or report her to The Credit bureau, maybe both!'

Family Member: 'Do you think God will be mad at her?'

Bank: 'Excuse me?'

Family Member: 'Did you just get what I was telling you . . The part  about her being dead?'

Bank: 'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.'

Supervisor gets on the phone:

Family Member: 'I'm calling to tell you, she died in September.'

Bank: 'But the account was never closed and the late fees and charges still apply.'

Family Member: 'You mean you want to collect from her estate?'

Bank: (Stammer) 'Are you her solicitor?'

Family Member: 'No, I'm her grandson'

Bank: 'Could you fax us a  death certificate?'

Family Member: 'Sure.' ( fax number is given )

After they get the fax:

Bank: 'Our system just isn't set up for death. I don't know what more I  can do to help.'

Family Member: 'Well, if you figure it out, great! If not, you could just keep billing her.  I don't think she will care.'

Bank: 'Well, the late fees and charges will still apply.'

Family Member: Would you like her new billing address?'

Bank: 'That would help.'

Family Member: ' Plot 1049.' Heaton Cemetary, Heaton Road , Newcastle upon Tyne

Bank: 'But, that's a cemetery!'

Family Member: 'Well, what the f***   do you do, with dead people on your planet?'

Saturday 24 March 2012

He’s got talent

Now I don’t watch much on the telebox but my god, he’s  got an outstanding voice. And he’s only seventeen. Mrs FE dragged me in to listen. I’m glad I did.

Bloody hell

A budding Pavarotti in the making.

Beware the killer clocks.


You’re going to die on Monday or Tuesday. If you thought smoking, drinking, obesity, salt, sugar, cars, shipwrecks, asteroids falling on you, were bad. Then think again.

Experts say the move is linked with a ten per cent leap in the risk of having a heart attack come Monday or Tuesday morning.

And what is this grave threat you ask?

I tell you. Don’t FFS put your clocks forward tonight.

“The Monday and Tuesday after moving the clocks ahead one hour in March is associated with a ten percent increase in the risk of having a heart attack," he confirms. "The opposite is true when falling back in October. This risk decreases by about ten percent."

Although clocks move back on a Sunday morning – this year on 25 March – the rate of heart attacks doesn’t peak then because most people have a lie-in and it “doesn’t require an abrupt schedule change”.

But on Monday and Tuesday, when people tend rise earlier to go to work, heart attack risk peaks.

It would seem that you can get funding for anything today.

Friday 23 March 2012

It’s nice to be ahead

Of my local rag.

turbine on fire

It seems that they’ve only now cottoned on to the fact that the praised wind turbines Bird Mincers, are failing off the coast of Kent.

WIND turbines whirring off the Whitstable coast are getting wobbly and need welding work, operator Vattenfall has admitted.

The news was leaked after a closed-doors meeting between the Kentish Flats operator and Whitstable Harbour Board.

I wrote about this a year ago.

It’s a good thing that it’s not costing the taxpayer though.

Workers will need to ship 180 large steel brackets from the harbour out to the turbines to shore them up – with six of the metre-tall steel plates being welded to the base of each machine.

But the company insists there is no risk to man nor beast – and added that the Vestas-made turbines are being repaired for free as they are still in their warranty period.

And this is not the first failure. Oh Noes.

The gearboxes on all the turbines were replaced in 2008 after a design fault was discovered.

The question is.will they live up to expectations.

The £105 million wind farm, which went online in September 2005, is designed to operate for 20 years.

That’s two major faults in the first third of their operating life. What could happen in the next third? Scour?

Thursday 22 March 2012

Health Information

Do you have feelings of inadequacy?
Do you suffer from shyness?
Do you sometimes wish you were more assertive?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, ask your doctor or pharmacist about Cabernet Sauvignon.

Cabernet Sauvignon is the safe, natural way to feel better and more confident about yourself and your actions. It can help ease you out of your shyness and let you tell the world that you're ready and willing to do just about anything.

You will notice the benefits of Cabernet Sauvignon almost immediately and, with a regimen of regular doses, you can overcome any obstacles that prevent you from living the life you want to live.
Shyness and awkwardness will be a thing of the past and you will discover many talents you never knew you had. Stop hiding and start living.

Cabernet Sauvignon may not be right for everyone. Women who are pregnant or nursing should not use it. However, women who wouldn't mind nursing or becoming pregnant are encouraged to try it.

Side effects may include:
Dizziness, nausea, vomiting, incarceration, loss of motor control, loss of clothing, loss of money, loss of virginity, delusions of grandeur, table dancing, headache, dehydration, dry mouth, and a desire to sing Karaoke and play all-night rounds of Strip Poker, Truth Or Dare, and Naked Twister.

* The consumption of Cabernet Sauvignon may make you think you are whispering when you are not.

* The consumption of Cabernet Sauvignon may cause you to tell your
friends over and over again that you love them.

* The consumption of Cabernet Sauvignon may cause you to think you can sing.

* The consumption of Cabernet Sauvignon may create the illusion that
you are tougher, smarter, faster and better looking than most people.

Please feel free to share this important information with as many
people as you feel may benefit!

Now just imagine what you could achieve with a good Shiraz ..............

H/T to Theo

Wednesday 21 March 2012


A public service broadcast courtesy of TFE.

oh shit








If you require help for the digital switchover…………..

Tuesday 20 March 2012

Unpaid law enforcement

This bar owner in Kansas apart from bemoaning the potential loss of her livelyhood, argues that she shouldn’t have to be an unpaid law enforcer.

The Kansas smoking ban has been signed into law by Governor Mark Parkinson but small business owners aren't quitting. Sheila Martin, owner of the Top Hat tavern in Hutchinson, Kansas, speaks out about the harm a smoking ban is causing and who's behind the ban.

If it wasn’t for the American accent, this could be the UK.

Monday 19 March 2012

I think I’m now officially a troll

I went over to Desmogblog on Friday (I couldn’t resist the challenge. It’s like being hooked on heroin) and posted a comment on their latest self congratulatory drivel about so-called ethical oil.

Now I really shouldn’t do it, but I couldn’t help posting the following in their comments section. Now I didn’t write this, It’s just copied The link is at the bottom of this post. (I wish I had done a construction that blows apart the green energy principles so well), but I felt that this was something that they should read, and hopefully ponder. Mind you to the mind-set of those who inhabit desmogblog, I should be condemned to the ninth circle of hell. I expect a foam flecked, incoherent reply shortly.

My skin is thick.

Here is my comment:

Does Green thinking need a red light?

Green thinking - more harm than good?

When the climate took a turn for the worse during the so-called Younger Dryas period some 12,000 years ago, our ancestors didn’t don a hair shirt and hope for the best. They innovated. A sharp return to ice age like conditions helped precipitate the development of agriculture in the Levant, a hugely successful innovation that soon diffused to other settled regions. So if contemporary climate change is to be taken as seriously as many Greens urge, our response should also be innovation driven. Why then does much of our current Green thinking focus on environmentally and socially regressive ideas?

While the development of agriculture during the Neolithic revolution was to change the world for the better, the real awakening from millennia of Malthusian stagnation was the industrial revolution. Whether through the far-reaching ideas of the Scottish enlightenment or the innovations of James Watt, it was realised that the future could be radically different from the past.

For example, in the late 19th century the growing use of steam power enabled energy and labour costs to decouple for the first time in human history. Energy became cheap while prosperity soared, not through crass consumerism, but through badly needed economic growth that provided an escape from agrarian poverty. It is the surplus from that innovation driven growth that now enables the provision of public services such as health and education. Nurses nurse and teachers teach only because someone else is providing their Joules, Calories and other material needs.

While innovation has undeniably delivered immense improvements in the human condition, innovation is also the principal route through which human needs can gradually be decoupled from the environment. Starting in the Elizabethan era, coal from the ground slowly began to replace wood from the land as the primary source of energy, a transition that only peaked in the early 20th century. In the late 19th century oil from the ground replaced oil from whales as the primary source of energy for domestic lighting. Coal eventually helped depleted woodland to re-grow, while the oil industry arguably saved the whale.

These slow historical energy transitions were away from diffuse energy sources such as wood and towards fuels of greater energy density, such as coal and much later oil and methane (gas). As noted by Jesse Ausubel at The Rockefeller University, each new fuel contains less carbon and more energy per unit weight, leading to a centuries long decarbonisation of energy production. The latest large-scale energy innovation, nuclear, is of course essentially carbon free. We should remember that these energy transitions did not take place because of concern for the environment, but because lower carbon fuels are more energy dense and so are simply better.

Overall, carbon emissions have of course been growing, a sign that global energy use has risen sharply since the industrial revolution. Growing energy use has been both liberating and civilising. We have used this growth to replace carbohydrate fuelled human labour with hydrocarbon-fuelled machines. But for carbon emissions to peak and then decline, we will need to accelerate our long historical journey towards fuels of greater energy density. Our energy mix therefore needs to transition away from coal, and ultimately oil, and towards methane, uranium and later thorium.

The alternative path offered by mainstream Green thinking is the ‘renewables revolution’. But what's being offered is not a revolution, it is a regression to a past of diffuse energy with arguably greater environmental impact. For a movement concerned with efficient resource use, it is remarkable that Greens ignore energy density and the fact that, per unit of energy produced, diffuse and intermittent renewable energy therefore requires vastly more steel, concrete and land than compact gas turbines or nuclear reactors.

And while Greens rightly abhor corporate greed, they seem content to see the pockets of consumers dipped by corporate energy interests to pay for cripplingly expensive offshore wind, or see a regressive transfer of wealth through feed-in tariffs from the energy poor to suburban property owners with the capital to pay for domestic solar energy. Viewed in this light, it’s hard to argue that inefficient and expensive renewable energy is somehow more ethical than compact and efficient thermal energy.

Such is the influence of mainstream Green thinking however that it is now doing real harm. In Germany, Die Grünen manoeuvred Angela Merkel into a nuclear shutdown that will close the single largest source of carbon-free energy in Europe’s largest economy. In France, the Greens have the Socialists over a barrel in the run up to spring elections, extracting a promise to close nuclear plants and ramp up renewables in exchange for votes. The prospect of Greens forcing the closure of yet more carbon-free nuclear plants is truly absurd.

Similar damage also risks being done through blind opposition to shale gas. Through innovations in drilling technology methane can now be extracted from deep shale bedrock. Shale gas production has grown sharply in the US, with this new energy innovation set to diffuse to other regions including the UK. Arguments that renewable energy is required anyway since hydrocarbons are running out look increasingly suspect.

Wonderfully, methane can be burned in compact, ultra-efficient combined cycle gas turbines producing electrical energy with less than half the carbon emissions of coal. The use of methane and nuclear as a replacement for coal, and even eventually oil, follows the long historical trend of decarbonisation through increasing energy density. But horrified at the prospect of many decades worth of low cost, relatively clean energy, Greens have called for an immediate ban on shale gas and insist on a future based almost entirely on diffuse and inefficient renewable energy.

In addition to ignoring energy density, Green thinking often confuses energy efficiency with demand reduction. For example, the replacement of whale oil lamps with kerosene, and their subsequent replacement with electric filaments and now solid-state lighting has delivered huge gains in energy efficiency. These gains enabled a mass democratisation of the use of artificial lighting as costs plummeted and so utilisation soared.

Efficiency is therefore a natural consequence of innovation and leads to a socially progressive growth in consumption of an energy service until demand is saturated, only after which can energy consumption fall. However, while ultra-efficient lighting may take a modest slice out of developed nations energy use, it will be more than compensated for by a badly needed growth in the utilisation of artificial lighting in developing nations as efficiency grows and costs fall.

In contrast, demand reduction is a socially regressive tool, an artificial increase in the price of energy to suppress consumption, the burden of which falls on the energy poor. It is often hard to avoid the conclusion that Greens advocate expensive renewable energy specifically to ensure demand reduction and a future of energy austerity.

The real lack of innovation in Green thinking though can best be seen in arguments against nuclear energy.  For example, a long-standing grumble is that it leaves future generations with a stock of nuclear waste to deal with. Nuclear energy does indeed present an intergenerational transfer, but it’s an overwhelmingly positive one. By constructing compact, nuclear plants with a design life of 60 years we can leave future generations the ability to generate abundant clean, reliable low cost energy towards the end of the century. This compares to renewables which typically have a design life of only 25 years. Growth of nuclear output can accumulate, while renewables will saturate as we begin to re-build existing capacity in less than a generation.

But while Greens only see nuclear waste, innovators see spent fuel, still with copious quantities of energy that needs to be released in so-called fast spectrum reactors rather than buried. Further ahead, thorium offers the prospect of clean energy production into the distant future. Whether nuclear or methane, there is no shortage of clean, high-grade energy to deliver a future of shared prosperity, but only if we have the will and ambition to exploit it. We will need this energy to liberate the poor in the developing world, power rapidly growing global cities and efficiently recycle strategic materials in ways undreamt of at present.

In contrast, Green claims that renewable energy creates more jobs per unit of energy produced than nuclear energy are again regressive. The entire point of economic development is productivity, doing more with less. So if we can generate clean, reliable energy from compact nuclear plants, requiring fewer people than renewables then labour is freed to doing something more useful, such as creating real prosperity and providing public services. Using such regressive Green economics we could in principle create plentiful employment by banning the use of tractors on farms, which is one vision of the future of agriculture in re-localised Green economies.

On agriculture, Green opposition to innovation in GM technology is also telling. While that opposition is often seen as precautionary, the precautionary principle cuts both ways. Mainstream Green thinking now runs the real risk of holding back innovation that can both improve crop resilience in the developing world and deliver increased food production without annexing more land from nature.

Again, Greens insist that innovation is actively suppressed. And if the contention is agri-business corporate antics, why have Greens ripped up field trials of publically funded research that could provide GM technology to the poor patent-free? Let’s also remember that it was through the development of agriculture, and entirely artificial means of organising nature, that our ancestors innovated their way out of climate change in the Younger Dryas period and prospered, rather than merely prevailed.

The greatest danger to humanity is not climate change, nuclear energy or the other calamites that form the cataclysmic imagery of mainstream Green thinking. It is a paralysis of inaction due to risk aversion, coupled with a wider technological pessimism that has robbed us of a coherent vision of a better future. For all these criticisms, Green thinking does of course have a key role in providing the essential checks and balances of a pluralistic society. But its deeper hues ultimately risk being marginalised as conservative, limit-setting views which are increasingly both socially, and environmentally regressive.

First published Caledonian Mercury 22 February 2012

Trolling- an artform.


The lazy buggers over there don’t work on weekends so it lasted till today. Of course now it has been deleted. At least it might have made some of those not so fanatical to the green “cause”, to at least have a think about what they’re worshipping. I really won’t go there again. Honest.

*fingers crossed behind back*

Sunday 18 March 2012

That Russion election

Just amusing myself on a Sunday evening.

Saturday 17 March 2012

Out of the mouths of babes


A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales.

The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small.

The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible.

The little girl said, 'When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah'.

The teacher asked, 'What if Jonah went to hell?'

The little girl replied, 'Then you ask him'.


A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work.

As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was.

The girl replied, 'I'm drawing God.'

The teacher paused and said, 'But no one knows what God looks like.'

Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, 'They will in a minute.


A Sunday school teacher was discussing the Ten Commandments with her five and six year olds.
After explaining the commandment to 'honour' thy Father and thy Mother, she asked, 'Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat our brothers and sisters?'

From the back, one little boy (the oldest of a family) answered, 'Thou shall not kill.'


One day a little girl was sitting and watching her mother do the dishes at the kitchen sink. She suddenly noticed that her mother had several strands of white hair sticking out in contrast on her brunette head.
She looked at her mother and inquisitively asked, 'Why are some of your hairs white, Mum?'

Her mother replied, 'Well, every time that you do something wrong and make me cry or unhappy, one of my hairs turns white.'

The little girl thought about this revelation for a while and then said, 'Mummy, how come ALL of grandma's hairs are white?'


The children had all been photographed, and the teacher was trying to persuade them each to buy a copy of the group picture.
'Just think how nice it will be to look at it when you are all grown up and say, 'There's Jennifer, she's a lawyer,' or 'That's Michael, He's a doctor.'

A small voice at the back of the room rang out, 'And there's the teacher, she's dead.'


A teacher was giving a lesson on the circulation of the blood. Trying to make the matter clearer, she said, 'Now, class, if I stood on my head, the blood, as you know, would run into it, and I would turn red in the face.'

'Yes,' the class said.

'Then why is it that while I am standing upright in the ordinary position the blood doesn't run into my feet?'

A little fellow shouted,
'Cause your feet ain't empty.'


The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray:
'Take only ONE . God is watching.'

Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies.
A child had written a note, 'Take all you want. God is watching the apples..'

Friday 16 March 2012


There has been an early day motion put forth in the house of commons, (I refuse to capitalise that pit of snakes), to stop the beer duty escalator being continued in this budget. Their reasoning is that this would slow down the demise of our Pubs and Clubs.

Now most of us have realised that the rapid decline of the pubs has been directly linked to the smoking ban introduced in June 2007. (I rarely use a pub now as I refuse to have to venture out into the British weather to partake of a perfectly legal habit.

It would seem that out of the 97 signatories, (Why do we need 650 members of parliament, if so few can be bothered to turn up?), 47 voted for the smoking ban. Have they no shame. (Then again I suppose being MPs they are above the rest of us. Or just thick as two short planks to realise what the smoking ban did).

I give you the list of the hypocrites, Maybe one of these is your MP? Why not drop him a note exposing his hypocrisy.

Mine’s not on the list as the lazy bugger only ever submits quite banal questions, as far as I can see, to  justify his existence (He voted strongly for the smoking ban). He can’t use the excuse that he is busy with his constituents, I have lived in his ward for 45 years and he has never knocked on my door. Needless to say, Sir John Stanley, I’ve stopped voting for you. 

Anyhoo here’s the list:

Peter Bottomley (Con), James Clappison (Con), David Anderson (Lab), Adrian Bailey (Lab), Kevin Barron (Lab), Clive Betts (Lab), Tom Brake (LD), Annette Brooke (LD), Lorely Burt (LD), Menzies Campbell (LD), Martin Caton (Lab), Tom Clarke (Lab), Rosie Cooper (Lab), Jim Dobbin (Lab), Frank Doran (Lab), Jim Dowd (Lab), Louise Ellman (Lab), Paul Flynn (Lab), Don Foster (LD), Mike Gapes (Lab), Andrew George (LD), Mike Hancock (LD), Stephen Hepburn (Lab), David Heyes (Lab), Jimmy Hood (Lab), Martin Horwood (LD), George Howarth (Lab), Gerald Kaufman (Lab), John Leech (LD), Tony Lloyd (Lab), Steve McCabe (Lab), John McDonnell (Lab), Alan Meale (Lab), Austin Mitchell (Lab), John Pugh (LD), Linda Riordan (Lab), John Robertson (Lab), Dan Rogerson (LD), Bob Russell (LD), Dennis Skinner (Lab), Gerry Sutcliffe (Lab), Mark Tami (Lab), Joan Walley (Lab), Robert Walter (Con), Hywel Williams (PC), Mark Williams (LD), Mike Wood (Lab)

Go on give them hell. Ask the awkward question.

Meanwhile I’m going to pour myself a large duty free whisky and settle back in my armchair and saviour a large cigar, knowing for the moment that I can.

Spend, Spend, Spend

Can I have one of those?

Bloody government needs to downsize to a Ford Fiesta.

Thursday 15 March 2012

Don’t breathe, it’ll make you fat.

It would seem that you can blame any old thing on CO2.

Could CO2 emissions be making us fat?

The startling theory has been put forward by a Danish researchers, who say that the increase in obese people in Denmark is roughly equivalent to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Researcher Lars-Georg Hersoug studied the weight of both fat and thin people over 22 years, and first strated(sic) looking for explanations after noticing even the thin people were putting on the pounds.

This really scraping the barrel. But then again if you want your funding to continue, then latch onto the climate change gravy train.

'But the study showed that thin people also get fatter, and this happened over the whole of the 22-year period of the study.'

When he looked around for other factors, he saw how the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere had also increased in correlation to the weight gain.

Oi. Correlation is by no means the answer. You should be looking for causation. The first is just just guess work, the second is fact. I suspect the reason we are all getting fatter is 1. We are all able to buy food cheaper than 22 years ago & 2. The rise in fast food outlets, where anyone can snack at any time. (You can send me a cheque to research this to: TFE, TFE Towers, Somewhere in the UK.)

Testing his hypothesis, a pilot study at university placed six men in special climate rooms, where some of them were exposed to increased amounts of CO2.

Seven hours later, the men were allowed to eat as much as they liked, and the men with more exposure to CO2 ate six per cent more food than the control group.

FFS. Six men. That really is a huge sample. Might it not be that some have different metabolic rates than others, or they hadn’t had as much to eat than the others the day before.

Junk science at it’s best.

I love a happy ending.



Wednesday 14 March 2012

Tuesday 13 March 2012

Only in America

Now I wasn’t going to post anything tonight. However I was sent this. It’s an article that’s a few years old, but in my mind, shows that if responsible people (I’m trained on hand guns, SA80, GPMG, 20mm cannon, and Mk48 mini gun. Oh and partial training of the Phalanx CIWS) were allowed to carry guns, we could possibly have less street crime.


To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me In Downtown  Savannah   night before last.

Date: 2010-05-27, 1 :43 a.m. E.S.T.

I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn't expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 ...45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head ... isn't it?!

I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again.

After I called your mother or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, -- on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!

I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]

I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb ... after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.

Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what 's going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target.

The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).

In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you, but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you've chosen to pursue in life. Remember, next time you might not be so lucky. Have a good day!

Thoughtfully yours,


If muggers didn’t know whether someone was armed or not, and the law was changed to actually support the defendant, we would have two outcomes. Less muggings and more cemeteries.

Just a thought.

Don’t forget Guns are just nice assembled metal structures. It’s people who kill people.

High paid job?

This is not a job that I could do. It gives me the shivers to just view it.

Don’t look down I tell you.

Monday 12 March 2012

Marriage Dave?


I see “call me Dave” is trying to be all things to all men (and Women, before you shout me down for being sexist), by trying to get more supporters from the gay community.

The coalition is to push ahead with plans for gay marriage following the personal intervention of David Cameron.

Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone will today unveil plans to legislate to bring in gay marriage before 2015.

The Equalities Minister will also announce that Britain should be a ‘world leader for gay rights’.

Actually, “Call me Dave”, if you follow the rulings of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you might find yourself in a bit of a bind when it comes to international law. If you look below you’ll see it that it clearly states Men and Women. Nowhere does it state that marriage is sanctioned between same sex couples. 

Article 16.

  • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  • (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  • (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.




1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.



1. either member of a married pair in relation to the other; one's husband or wife.

Now I was married in church many years ago. I’m not at all religious now but I respect those that have their beliefs The present political thinking is to allow churches to opt out for now. But how long will it be before the gay activists push for a change in the law to allow same sex couples to marry in Church. Mission creep and all that.

That’ll be the day when we should pressurise government that it must extend across all faiths. Imagine any government telling the Islamic community that they are obliged in law, to allow same sex marriages. 

Just saying…………….


It’s a mad world

So you’d love a wind turbine to be sited near you as it will supply all that green energy that’s been promised. Here’s what you are signing up to.


“Con with the wind”


Sunday 11 March 2012

Sunday fun

Some people shouldn’t be allowed to breed.

Saturday 10 March 2012

Perks of reaching 50 or being over 60 and heading towards 70 or beyond!


1. Kidnappers are not very interested in you.

2. In a hostage situation, you are likely to be released first.

3. No one expects you to run  -- anywhere.

4. People call at 9 PM (or 9  AM) and ask, 'Did I wake you?

5. People no longer view you as a hypochondriac.

6. There is nothing left to learn the hard way.

7. Things you buy now won't wear out.

8. You can eat supper at 4 PM.

9. You can live without sex but not your glasses.

10. You get into heated arguments about pension plans.

11. You no longer think of speed limits  as a challenge.*

12. You quit trying to hold your stomach in no matter who walks into the room.

13. You sing along with elevator music.

14. Your eyes won't get much worse.

15.Your investment in health insurance is finally beginning to pay off.

16. Your joints are more  accurate meteorologists than the national weather service.

17. Your secrets are safe with your friends because they can't remember them either.

18. Your supply of brain cells is finally down to a manageable size.

19. You can't remember who sent you this list.

And you notice these are all in big print for your convenience.

* Actually I do.


question mark

A young Law student, having failed his Law exam, goes up to his crusty old professor, who is renowned for his razor-sharp legal mind.

Student: "Sir, do you really understand everything about this subject?"

Professor: "Actually, I probably do. Otherwise I wouldn't be a professor, would I?"

Student: "OK. So I’d like to ask you a question. If you can give me the correct answer, I will accept my marks as they are. If you can't give me the correct answer, however, you'll have to give me an "A".

Professor: "Hmmmm, alright. So what’s the question?"

Student: "What is legal but not logical, logical but not legal, and neither logical nor legal? "

The professor wracks his famous brain, but just can't crack the answer. Finally he gives up and changes the student's failing mark into an "A" as agreed, and the student goes away, very pleased.

The professor continues to wrack his brain over the question all afternoon, but still can’t get the answer. So finally he calls in a group of his brightest students and tells them he has a really, really tough question to answer: "What is legal but not logical, logical but not legal, and neither logical nor legal? "

To the professor's surprise (and embarrassment) ,all the students immediately raise their hands.

"All right" says the professor, and asks his favourite student to answer.

"It's quite easy, sir" says the student. "You see, you are 75 years old and married to a 30 year old woman, which is legal, but not logical. Your wife has a 22 year old lover, which is logical, but not legal. And your wife's lover failed his exam but you've just given him an "A", which is neither legal nor logical !"  

Friday 9 March 2012


This is a film that is hoped to be made espousing the benefits of Shale gas which the green groups are desperately trying to prevent from happening.

In fact because Fracking is conducted at very deep levels, it should be no cause for concern as the technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since it’s inception.

Here’s a simple clip of the process.

If we were to embrace this technology in the UK we would most certainly see, in the medium term, a reduction in our household energy bills. There would be no need to pay expensive and ludicrous green energy tariffs to subsidise wind turbines bird mincers and photo voltaic panels.

Explained here.

Does Green thinking need a red light?

We few who are drowned out by the Big Green taxpayer funded lobby groups such as the WWF and the IPCC need to publicise that there is more to saving the planet than windfarms and useless PV panels. Cheap energy has the ability to lift millions out of poverty ridden lifestyles.

That’s why this film needs to be made. Maybe it’s just a pinprick. But if you do nothing, (And I’m no way condemning you) then we are destined for a poorer world, where millions more will die. I’m also being selfish here in the fact that my gas bill in the last year has risen by 18%, partly due to the imposed green taxes levied on my bills. That would be fine, except I’m a pensioner that has seen his savings eroded by low interest rates and the effect of quantative  easing of the currency.

Go on. Chuck a couple of quid into this project


Since I turned off the new word verification system to make it less burdensome for you lovely people out there to comment, I inadvertently caused a problem.

My blog is set up to send comments to my gmail  account. Unfortunately along with the newly acquired dose of spam it also relegated regular commenters to the spam folder as well.

So for now I’m going to turn back on the word verification and hope that it solves the problem.


You really shouldn't have published that book Mr Orwell. The wankers in government are using it as a blueprint now.

We really are slipping into a total surveillance state. North Korea must be smiling.

Thursday 8 March 2012

International women’s day revisited

And if you like fluffy kittens watch to the end.

When’s International men’s day then?

You’re guilty even though you maybe innocent.

Ollie Cromwell, a blogger that has been trying to expose the somewhat dubious machinations of Bexley Council could use a little help. His blog has been a bit sweary at times but he is being attacked by the state apparatus for daring to question the politburo on Bexley council.  In his words:

I started this blog post a few days ago, and subsequently changed my mind about publishing it, for the simple reason that if I continued to write it I’d lose my temper and do something silly. Adorning the top of this post you will see two images. Look VERY closely at them for they are documented proof that freedom of speech and expression in this country is not only dead, it’s decomposing and leaving a stinking, rotting stench behind. A stench which I fear is spreading, rather fucking quickly. Let alone the lack of any sort of legitimate justice.

The original post was only going to be about the proposed restraining order that the CPS were applying for. Alas! Life she isn’t that simple, or nice really, she likes throwing more than one rotting c**t flap at you in one go. I’ll get to that bit in a minute, I just want to comment on the proposed restraining order. It’s not going to be a lengthy analysis, just important points that I want to make.

Now I don’t say here that this is the whole story, but having followed his blog for some time, I feel inclined to believe his side of the story.

If nothing else, just go over and read his story.

For background reading on Bexley councils antics go over to Malcolm’s blog for some measured background information.  



women and cats

Wednesday 7 March 2012



To the good folks out there who read this blog in the wilderness of the rankings. I have three little rating boxes below any post. These are labelled (Fuck I’ve forgotten what they say. Hang on a minute I’ll be right back) Good, Fair, and Utter shite. My question is: I know I write Utter shite, why can’t you recognise it? Stop being so polite.

Then again maybe you feel sorry for a poor pensioner struggling to pay for his whisky and baccy bills whilst huddling around an open fire, whilst his once a week tin bath, warms slowly. (I made the open fire and tin bath up just to see if you have a sympathetic bone in your body. The whisky and baccy bit is more important ).

I must admit I tend to forget to look at the little boxy things (sorry to all those that have ticked them), as I use google reader to keep up with all the blogs that I read. This means that I rarely look at my actual Blog posts as you see them. In that case just label them all as “Utter Shite” just to teach me a lesson.

Your comments, on the other hand, are magically sent to me via the wonders of Email (Whatever that is?) and I do read these wondrous comments everyday. Often I will comment back, Sometimes not. (It’s a whisky thing I suspect). The purpose of this missive is to say thankyou for just reading this blog.


Hands Off

Bugger off nanny

Tuesday 6 March 2012

Bird Mincers fall over

dead turbine

Ever wonder about which bits of a wind turbine fails the most? Well here you are.


What surprised me was that as these are onshore, why should the towers fail? I would have put bearings, gearboxes, and blades first. How can a tower built on land fail? It’s not as we have massive earthquakes every year. I expect it of offshore turbines due to poor grouting and scour of the sea bed around the towers, but not onshore. I wouldn’t want one of those on my doorstep.

And we’re paying a green Tariff for these poorly constructed blots on the landscape. Sheesh.

The graph comes from a source that is from a wind turbine company which I’d rather not mention here. If so my source of information may dry up.

And now for the News

Monday 5 March 2012

Second Smoke kills……..


Or not if this study is correct.

1. 80 epidemiological studies of lung cancer among lifelong nonsmokers have been published.

2. The overall evidence shows no statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer in relation to ETS exposure from parents in childhood, or in social situations, or to nonspousal ETS exposure at home.

3. The overall evidence shows that lung cancer risk among nonsmoking women is significantly associated with having a husband who smokes (with a similar association seen in nonsmoking men in relation to smoking by the wife, though based on far less data).
There is also evidence of a dose-response relationship,1 with risk higher if the husband smokes more cigarettes per day or for a longer period of time. However, there are a number of reasons why this association and dose-response relationship cannot be interpreted as indicating a causal effect of ETS exposure including:

the association is weak and is not statistically significant in the great majority of studies: over 80% show no statistically significant association between smoking by the husband and the development of lung cancer;

It goes on with a lot more elucidation, ending with this final bullet point before the data part.

Taken as a whole, the epidemiology does not support the claim that ETS causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

I’m sure the nanny state and the Fascists over at ASH don’t want you to know this. So I’m telling you instead.

Happy Birthday to me.

At least I’ve still remembered. Shows I’m not senile yet.

Saturday 3 March 2012

Have you ever wondered……

Who’s watching you on line

Track the trackers. If you use Firefox you might like to try their add on called Collusion.

Collusion is an experimental add-on for Firefox and allows you to see all the third parties that are tracking your movements across the Web. It will show, in real time, how that data creates a spider-web of interaction between companies and other trackers.

It really is quite startling to see, in a cloud type format, who has linked to you with a cookie.

Bonus Features of the Chevy Volt

Tongue in cheek article

Friday 2 March 2012

Toe to Toe with a sandal wearer

I couldn’t resist replying to asmugblog AGWer who decided to berate me for querying his belief. His rebuttal.
My house is powered by wind.  No rolling blackouts.. even in the cold winters of the northerly tar sands.
As an engineer, you will of course be able to provide an exact source for your statements.  Citation please?   (Didn't think so.  You guys never have anything.)
Also, as you know, the numbers will lead the way.  Right?  You're an engineer, so you don't go by hunches or use advertising to make decisions, right?
The numbers have always and consistently pointed to the injection of CO2 in our atmosphere as the leading cause of global warming.  There are no other numbers adding up to that.
On the plus side, at least we're at peak oil.  And 'yes', I will blame you.
Here's Hansen's ground breaking paper;
I replied:
So your house is powered purely by wind. In the UK we are now being inundated with onshore and offshore wind farms supposedly supplying 7% of our electricity needs. It was interesting to see in January when we had a very cold spell caused by a high pressure system how effective that wind power was. Bearing in mind that wind turbines rarely achieve more than than 30% of their rated output at best (Load factor), (Look it up yourself) The total amount of wind generated from figures published by DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) was a staggering 0.9%.
Since we have been forced to have green energy, my energy bill has increased by 18% in the last year. yes you did read that right 18%.
Not only such a pathetic figure of supply, but the British Taxpayer was also obligated to pay the wind turbine owners for the non supply of energy. We also had to feed back electricity to the non turning turbines in order to lubricate the gearboxes.
You might also like to see the stats for turbine failures. Our offshore wind turbines which were predicted to have a life of twenty years, are failing after eight. mainly due to poorly thought out monopile grout and scouring of the sea bed.
So you might think again about wind power.
And peak oil. Sorry, cheap oil yes, peak oil no.
I really should stop this trolling shouldn't I?


A reply:

It's funny how deniers so often add 1 + 1 and get 3. Let's not look at facts eh TFE? Like......errr, I dont know.....say the fact that our houses are now filled with more energy sucking appliances than ever?! That we leave on standy, or leave the heating/cooling on all day or night? Noooo, it couldn't be that, it's the big green monster....that, with your engineering degree and trained logic is the only explanation.
My reply:

Exscuse me for daring to argue. I have added no new equipment into my house. It's the green tariff that has put up my bills. I did state that it was a rise of One year. The green imposed charge is stated on my bill.
As for:
"Here are experts in the industry explaining that it is the costs of upgrading the transmission and distribution networks that are costing us more in power prices."
Of course it is. When you have intermittent energy supplies from green sources such as wind turbines then the control of such sources need very expensive forms of energy regulation. if you have one turbine with a generation frequency of 40 hz and another generating at 60 hz (wind speed dependant), then you will have to spend money to adjust the frequency of supply.
Please look up the practicalities.
And as for:
The only place that believes the "drill baby drill" philosphophy will lower petrol/gas prices is on denier and conservative blogs. Elsewhere in fact world and reality, the story is different

You obviously didn't bother to read the link. Do keep up.

I've been accused of not linking. I have now, An element of curtesy would be to at least read them before replying with a knee jerk reaction.

Charity begins at home.


fat woman

I just had a call from a Charity asking me to donate some of my clothes to the starving people throughout the world.
I told them to **** off. Anybody who fits into my clothes isn't starving.