Save me from pontificating MPs

MPs have called for a drastic reform of the pub industry to stop locals closing at an "alarming" rate.

In a strongly-worded report, the Business Select Committee criticised the large pub companies which run most of the country's pubs, so-called pubcos, saying self-regulation had failed.

The committee said that after being given a number of chances to change the way it runs the business, pubcos should now be subjected to statutory regulation.

That statutory regulation you want to bring in? Look at the last one you brought in. The smoking ban. Have you not thought that, that in itself, has done the most damage to the hospitality industry?

Maybe you haven’t read this you muppets.

Almost three years after the introduction of smoking bans in the three countries, Scotland had
lost 7.1% of its pub estate (467 pubs), Wales 7.3% (274), and England 7.6% (4,148). Scotland,
which introduced a smoking ban a year earlier lost a further 4% of its pub estate in the fourth
year after the ban, mirroring a similar decline in Ireland (11%) which banned smoking in pubs in
2004.
Total pub losses in England, Scotland and Wales since the introduction of smoking bans in all
three countries are in excess of 5,500.
According to CR Consulting’s report, which was commissioned by the Save Our Pubs & Clubs
campaign, “While there is significant variation in the trajectories of pub closures before the ban,
there is an almost total correlation between the three countries after the ban.
“This indicates that they are affected by a strong common factor ‐ the smoking ban. The
correlation is in fact so close that the trend line for the three countries is identical.”

I would suggest that you MPs and your so called select committees butt out and do what you do best. The only problem is the only thing I think you have any expertise in, is fiddling your expenses and being professional liars.

I used to go to a local pub every Sunday before the smoking ban and had to fight my way to the bar. Now I rarely go once every three months. last Sunday I went. There were only five others in the pub, one of which was the barman. The other three were with me.

Just get out into the real world outside the Westminster bubble and speak to real people. Get away from your sycophants, and your lackeys in the MSM (a certain Nick Robinson from the BBC springs to mind) if you want to find out why pubs and clubs are closing at an alarming rate.

God give me strength. I truly hate the cunts. My MP hasn’t the decency to even acknowledge my correspondence. Yes you, John Stanley, you waste of space.

Guy Fawkes had the right idea. Roll on November the fifth. (or should that be filth)

Australia. You've got six days to stop this nonsense

 Labor plants poison pills in carbon tax

IT was Mark Dreyfus QC, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, who let the cat out of the bag.
Once the carbon change legislation is in place, he said, repeal would amount to an acquisition of property by the commonwealth, as holders of emissions permits would be deprived of a valuable asset. As a result, the commonwealth would be liable, under s.51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, to pay compensation, potentially in the billions of dollars. A future government would therefore find repeal prohibitively costly.
That consequence is anything but unintended. The clean energy legislation, released this week, specifically provides that “a carbon unit (its generic term for a right to emit) is personal property”.
This, the government says, is needed to give certainty to long-term trades. But that claim makes little sense, for even without such protections there are flourishing markets for fishing quotas and other tradeable entitlements.

 2GB Media Player - Professor Henry Ergas on the carbon tax

If I was an Australian, I'd be very afraid. 

H/T to Jo Nova

Energy bills

I’ve just found a Blog called The People's Democratic Republic of South Lanarkshire and I came across this post.

It gives an insight into how much more we’re paying for our energy due to the Government’s Green Iniatives.
The paragraphs below are from my energy supplier, Scottish Power.

Social Initiatives

In 2009, the Government introduced a new Community Energy Savings Programme (CESP).
This scheme obliges energy suppliers and electricity generators to pay for energy efficiency measures to be installed in low income areas to permanently reduce vulnerable customers’ fuel bills and reduce carbon emissions. It is estimated that this 3 year programme will cost the energy industry £350m. In addition, between 1st April 2011 and 31st March 2015 energy suppliers in Great Britain are obligated to spend a total of £1.14 billion assisting vulnerable and fuel poor customers through the Warm Home Discount Scheme. The cost of meeting both of these obligations is included in your energy prices.

Why am I obliged to pay to assist “vulnerable and fuel poor customers”?  That certainly was not stated in the Contract I signed.

Renewable Energy

Under the Renewables Obligation all major energy suppliers in Great Britain are required to obtain a certain percentage of the electricity that they sell to customers from renewable sources. Like other energy companies, we include the cost of meeting this obligation in your electricity price.

That’s your obligation, not mine. I don’t see why I should pay for it.

Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)

CERT is the main government policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions by improving the energy efficiency of households in Great Britain.
It obliges all of the big energy suppliers to deliver energy efficiency measures like loft and cavity wall insulation to homes across Great Britain. Many of these measures are discounted and in some cases are provided free of charge and it is estimated that delivering this policy will cost the energy industry £5.5 billion in the period between 2008 and 2012. Like other energy companies we include an allowance for the cost of meeting this objective in your energy prices.

My house already has loft insulation and I have no cavities in my walls. So why do I have to take on this extra cost? Again this was never stated in my contract.
So the little missive below is about to be sent

Scottish Power

name and address 
Date 

Dear Sir/Madam: 
Reference:  account number 

I contact you in relation to the ‘Government obligations’ charge applied to my electricity bill. 

It is my understanding that your company use this money to fund the renewable energy conditions placed on you
by the UK Government. This legally binding contract between the UK Government and the energy companies
should not infringe my legal rights in any way, without my express written permission being sought. 

I have checked my records and I’m unable to find any correspondence from your company requesting my
express permission, either written or orally, to apply this charge to my electricity bill. Taking this into
consideration, I advise you of the following: 

i. I am of the opinion that the 6% charge placed on my electricity bill by Scottish Power is in violation of
Regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (as amended). It is my
intention to recover all monies paid to your company for the ‘government obligations’ charge from and including
January 1st 2002.
ii. I advise you that I exercise my legal rights under the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (as amended). I am sure you are aware that the provisions of this
regulation provide that an unfair term shall not be binding upon the consumer. 

 I therefore expect a complete refund in respect of these charges that you have levied without my permission.

I look forward to your earliest response. 

Yours sincerely 

The Filthy Engineer

Now I’m off to U-switch

Sorry abot the Formatting. 

I’m going to get a letter.

Energy giants have been ordered to write to millions of customers to tell them how to cut their bills.

As the cost of gas and electricity soars, energy minister Greg Barker is demanding that utility chiefs send the letters, emails or texts before winter explaining how customers could move to a cheaper tariff.

He said: "Energy companies should be in no doubt as to our determination to see this through and get a better deal for millions of ripped off customers.

Well Greg me old mate, here’s how it is. I’m already on the lowest Tariff and it’s fucking huge. And here’s who caused it to be in part, so big. One of your cabinet colleagues no less. Huhne the Green Buffoon.

Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has said that some families shop around more for a "£25 toaster" than they do for energy bills of more than £1,000. Experts say many households could cut their bills by about £200.

I think that quite a bit of my increase this year is due to the Government’s green obsession with wind turbines Bird Mincers and solar panels. You honestly don’t think that the energy companies are not going to pass on their green costs to the consumer, do you? If so you are a bigger fool than I thought you were. Remember those feed in Tariffs?

I seriously wonder about the sanity of our ministers. How can making our energy so expensive be good for our economy?. If I have to spend more on energy I’ve less money to spend  on goods and therefore deny businesses of my cash.

Oh and don’t even think of trying to coerce me into having a so called “Smart Meter”. I’m smart enough to read my own meters, thank you very much.

Buffhuhnes

Trimming the Fat.

It would seem that some councils and NHS trusts are now deciding that their obesity programmes are too expensive to carry on with.

A weight-loss programme that has helped thousands of obese children is being scrapped by some cash-strapped trusts.

There is too much state interference in how we live as it is.

Of course we have the howls of anguish coming from those anxious to keep their jobs at any cost.

Rachael McGrath, from Mend, warned that evidence-based obesity programmes are vital in preventing children developing chronic diseases such as diabetes. She said: "Being overweight in childhood is one of the biggest risks to a child's current and future health.

Children who are above a healthy weight are much more likely to become obese adults and are at a greater risk of developing chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and some types of cancer. With obesity already costing the NHS £4.2 billion each year, it's critical to continue investing in child obesity services."

Here’s some of their Funding partners.

• Big Lottery Fund

• Department of Health (West Midlands)

• Department of Work and Pensions

• National Skills Academy

• National Sports Foundation

• Sport England

• Welsh Assembly Government

Unfortunately I can’t find anywhere on their site that shows their accounts.

In my opinion there is enough material out in the wild about how we can live healthier without a need for these parasites. It should be the parents taking responsibility for their Children. Not abrogating their responsibility to outsiders.

Now if the councils could also get rid of their “Smoking Cessation Officers”, “Outreach Co-coordinators” (Whatever they are?), & “Alcohol Awareness Partners, we could all live in a happier, and more responsible world where we make our own decisions about our life style.

Serious Blogging. Grrrrrrrrh

I’ve just been trying to write one of my occasional serious posts. I wish I could be like other Bloggers that rattle out an erudite post in the twinkling of an eye, or so it seems. I find I need to hit the whisky bottle to succeed. however the inspiration level doesn’t kick in till half the bottle has gone. By that time the screen is blurred and my fingers start typing in Aramaic.

Answers on a postcard to:

Drunk Blogger

1, slumped over desk

Failedville

OHS HIT

Or by caustic remarks in the comments.

Beer Study!!

This will get you worried!! Even I can conduct scientific studies using the same as methodology as Alcohol concern.

 

Beer contains female hormones.

Last month, Wits University and RAU scientists released the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer.

Men should take a concerned look at their beer consumption.

The theory is that beer contains female hormones (hops contain Phytoestrogens) and that by drinking enough beer, men turn into women.

To test the theory, 100 men drank 8 pints of beer each within a 1 hour period.

 

 

It was then observed that 100% of the test subjects :

 

1) Argued over nothing.
2) Refused to apologise when obviously wrong.
3) Gained weight.
4) Talked excessively without making sense.
5) Became overly emotional
6) Couldn't drive.
7) Failed to think rationally.
8) Had to sit down while urinating.

No further testing was considered necessary.

Do I get a Nobel Prize for this?

The New world order.

Who said this and when?

It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.
The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

 

 

 

 

 

The Club of Rome in 1972.

Men Are Just Happier People

NICKNAMES

· If Laura, Kate and Sarah go out for lunch, they will call each other Laura, Kate and Sarah.

· If Mike, Dave and John go out, they will affectionately refer to each other as Fat Boy, Dickhead and Shit for Brains.

EATING OUT

· When the bill arrives, Mike, Dave and John will each throw in £20, even though it's only for £32.50.  None of them will have anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.

· When the girls get their bill, out come the pocket calculators.

MONEY

· A man will pay £2 for a £1 item he needs.

· A woman will pay £1 for a £2 item that she doesn't need but it's on sale.

BATHROOMS

· A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel.

· The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337.  A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.

ARGUMENTS

· A woman has the last word in any argument.

· Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

FUTURE

· A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.

· A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

SUCCESS

· A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend.

· A successful woman is one who can find such a man.

MARRIAGE

· A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.

· A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change, but she does.

DRESSING UP

· A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the bin, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.

· A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.

NATURAL

· Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.

· Women somehow deteriorate during the night.

OFFSPRING

· Ah, children.  A woman knows all about her children.  She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favourite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.

· A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

A married man should forget his mistakes.  There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!

A SHORT LOVE STORY

A man and a woman who had never  met  before,
But who were both married to other people,
found themselves assigned to the same sleeping
room on a trans-continental  train.

 

Though initially embarrassed and uneasy over
sharing a room, they were both very  tired  and
fell asleep quickly, he in the upper berth
and she in the lower.

At 1:00 AM, the man leaned  down and gently woke
the woman saying, "Ma'am, I'm  sorry to bother you,
but would you be willing to reach into the closet
to get me a  second  blanket?  I'm awfully cold."

"I have a better idea," she replied "Just for tonight,
let's pretend  that we're married."
"Wow! That's a great idea!", he exclaimed.

"'Good", she replied "Get  your own f….ing  blanket."
After a moment of  silence, he  farted.

The   End

H/T to David