Ooh Err

Looking through my stats I find this search:

"pictures of hairy cunts wide open"

I'm now a world famous porn site!

Another reason to not vote conservative.

I was appalled to read this at Conservative Home. And I thought they might, just might be on the side of the little people. No. just like their Statist friends in the Labour Party.

They're going to raise the tax on Cigarettes by 5%. As they put it:

So following earlier Policy Exchange research that indicates that tobacco taxes are the most popular way to raise additional revenue, we suggest that tobacco taxation should be increased by 5% in the next Budget.  This would see the price of a typical pack of cigarettes rise by 23 pence from £6.13 to £6.36 per packet and generate over £400 million for HM Treasury.

Not withstanding that they want a minimum price for Alcohol, what other pleasures in life are they going to tax to the hilt?

Cunts.

H/T to

Friends of Forest

Mrs Thatcher could do it, so why can't Gordon Brown?

 

Mrs T realised that she had to save money by pruning the non-productive sector. So she did so ruthlessly as soon as she became Prime Minister.

One of her first moves on taking office in May was to start cutting Civil Service jobs. The Government machine needed cutting by at least 5 per cent, she insisted, but ideally closer to 20 per cent.

And she certainly was not to be turned by anyone.

Any minister who tried to block her was given short shrift. “This paper is much too sketchy and cannot possibly be included,” she wrote on a draft paper in which Christopher Soames, the Lord President of the Council, suggested that the mass redundancies planned by the Prime Minister were less than prudent. “What are we doing with 566,000 that can’t be done with 500,000?”

I wonder how she would treat the EU nowadays if she had only known what an Edifice of corruption and power it would become. Maybe she would have remembered this affair :

Mrs Thatcher’s forthright, if pragmatic, style was also evident in her dealings with Rhodesia after the April 1979 election, which resulted in a power-sharing arrangement that involved neither of the main nationalist parties. When it was suggested that Lord Harlech, emissary to Rhodesia, should meet the Patriotic Front there, she scribbled: “No! Please do not meet with the ‘Patriotic Front’. I have never done business with terrorists until they become prime ministers.”

But then again she didn't have to satisfy any Union Paymasters and their old style communist ideas

Thankyou to The Times

Just Change the name to prevent failure.

Just by changing your name from Webeurope is not going to get you off the hook so lightly.

You're still in the frame as Easycms

PS Your Website design is still crap and you Mr Karl Winn, are still a cunt.

Bloody Hell.

He must have seen it? Surely?

 

H/T to

Dizzy

Webeurope - fail

When you get crap like this it makes your blood boil.

Karl Winn of Taunton, 60, is the boss of a net design company named Webeurope and he employs 16 people. He was contacted by Forces Recruitment Services who asked if he would consider taking on ex-soldiers. His response was:

Personally, I'd rather recruit ex-drug dealers, convicts and even child molesters rather than consider anybody who has been in the pay of the British Government.'

'Anybody who has been in the pay of such a military force, and by their silence and complicity has condoned such illegal and immoral actions while accepting a monthly bloodstained pay-packet , certainly won't be considered for employment by us.'

'The reality for the families of their victims is that there will never be any justice, and there never will be any closure, for the loss of a son, a husband, a child, or a family member who has fallen victim to British Military personnel who are going beyond 'just doing their job'.

'Please remove us from your email list. Regards, Karl.'

What a nice man.

UPDATE: Solution is to change the name 

Source

In Memory of the 300 who have fallen

 

The death toll since the war started has now passed 300

THE  FINAL INSPECTION

The soldier stood and faced God,  
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.

'Step forward now, you  soldier,
How shall I deal with you ?
Have you always turned the other cheek ?
To My Church have you been true?'

The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
'No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry  guns,
Can't always be a saint.

I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.

But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.

And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.

I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.

If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand.

There was a silence all  around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.

'Step forward  now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens  well..
Walk peacefully on Heaven's  streets,
You've done your time in Hell.'

Author Unknown~

It's the Military, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the Press.

It's the Military, not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech.   
It's the Military, not the politicians that ensures our right to Life, Liberty , and the pursuit of Happiness.

It's the Military, that salutes the flag, that serves beneath it, who's coffins are draped by it.    

A law a day keeps me..... Furious.

 

 

4,300: How Labour has created a new crime every day since 1997

The slew of new offences produced by this government has its comic touches, but also wider implications for civil liberties

Imagine arriving home after a fortnight’s holiday in the sun to find a deluge of mail and your burglar alarm going off. There is no sign of a break-in but an offence has been committed — by you. Under laws introduced by Labour, if you have failed to nominate a keyholder who can switch off your alarm you are guilty of an offence. You could be liable for a fine of £1,000 and could have to appear in front of a magistrate if you fail to pay a fixed penalty on time.

 
This is just one of 4,300 offences created by the Labour government since 1997 — an avalanche of legislation. It equates to an average of 28 offences every month since Labour came to power and it is getting worse. Under Gordon Brown, the Liberal Democrats say, the creation of offences has risen to 33 a month.

 
By contrast, the Conservative governments between 1988 and 1996 produced 494 offences in total. Since 1997 Labour has introduced more than 50 criminal justice bills to parliament — to the dismay of many lawyers, who believe much of it is more for show than real effect.
Richard Garside, director of the centre for crime and justice studies at King’s College London, said: “For the period since the war to around the 1980s you saw one major criminal justice bill each decade, but since 1997 we’ve seen more than 50. There has been an enormous cranking-up of activity in this area.”
Archbold, the barristers’ handbook, describes the government’s approach as a “disgrace”. The book has condensed its typeface to cram in the laws, which its publisher describes as an “explosion of activity”. The preface to the latest edition complains that there is “far too much criminal legislation” and attacks the government’s habit of “legislating by trial and error”.

 

Ed: usually by trial fixed penalty.

Such is the output that the government appears unable to keep track of its own measures. In response to parliamentary questions, various Whitehall departments have said that the cost of compiling a list of all the criminal offences they have created in the past two years would be “disproportionate”.

 
Chris Huhne, home affairs spokesman for the Lib Dems, who has mounted a campaign against the “legislative diarrhoea”, said: “Most crimes that people care about have been illegal for years. Cutting crime should be about catching and reforming criminals, not creating law.”

 
As examples of unnecessary micromanaging laws, Huhne points out that Labour has made it illegal to “disturb a pack of eggs when instructed not to do so by an officer”; and under a law updated in 2007 it is now illegal to “sell or offer for sale a bird of game killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day”.

 
Petty though many of these offences seem, they contribute to a growing sense of government restriction creeping into private life. In some cases they also involve a serious erosion of civil liberties.

How did this happen — and what do opponents suggest?
The Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act of 1998 illustrates Labour’s approach. Even before MPs and civil servants spent hundreds of hours drafting and passing the law, common sense would have told most people that it was not a good idea to set off a nuclear bomb.

 
Under the Explosive Substances Act of 1883 you already faced life imprisonment for causing an explosion with intent to endanger life, attempting to cause an explosion with intent or possessing an explosive substance with intent, or conspiracy to cause an explosion with intent. Under other laws you could be prosecuted for possessing an explosive substance and face 14 years in prison. Failing that, there are laws on murder and genocide.

 
Yet the government decided it had to create a law that states in its first section: “Any person who knowingly causes a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life” (at the same time, incidentally, section two of the act decrees that it is perfectly legal to set off a nuclear bomb “in the course of an armed conflict”.) The government argues that it brought in the law to comply with an international treaty. The Lib Dems, whose justice spokesman David Howarth is an academic expert on law, says the treaty did not require the government to pass a law to meet its obligations.

And those two thousand centrifuges in my shed spinning away won't be noticed

 
More reasonably, the government argues that changes in technology, business practices and lifestyles have had to be addressed by laws. It cites offences that were introduced as a result of the outbreak of “mad cow” disease and the foot and mouth crises. Others have followed advances in computing and telecommunications.
This may be reflected in the fact that the greatest number of offences — 960 — have been created by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, while the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has clocked up 647. No wonder businesses complain of red tape.

 
The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice between them account for 583 offences. “The government is not in the business of making new laws except when it is in the public interest,” the Ministry of Justice said. “Trivialising these laws ignores their significant benefits to the public. There is a range of reasons why such new laws are made; for example, technological advancement has created the need to protect the public through data protection legislation and by giving the police new powers.”

However, it is hard to discern such imperatives in some of the laws Labour has introduced. Specific measures have, for example, been taken to outlaw swimming in the wreck of the Titanic, obstructing work on the Docklands Light Railway in London and impersonating a barrister.

And remember, if you happen to come across an automatic rail weighbridge to which there is affixed a disqualification sticker — don’t use it. That might seem obvious but, just to make sure, Labour made it an offence under the Measuring Instruments Regulations of 2006.

Many of the laws come with serious penalties, including imprisonment. You can potentially be jailed for not having a licence for a church concert, smoking in a public place (Remember Nick Hogan), selling a grey squirrel or shipping unlicensed fish. In all, more than 1,400 offences can result in prison sentences.

 
Some laws can have drastic side-effects as in the recent case of Philip Bowles, a 60-year-old businessman with no previous convictions who was charged with Vat offences. Bowles protested that he was unable to mount a proper defence because his money had been seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and his tax records had been taken by administrators. He was refused legal aid to hire a forensic accountant to examine his confiscated records. He was found guilty of switching a Vat liability between two companies and jailed for 3½ years.
Just before his sentencing a firm of accountants, acting pro bono, produced a financial report that his lawyers say proves his innocence. He is awaiting an appeal hearing at which it can be submitted.

 
Lawyers, burdened with keeping pace with the flood of offences, complain of failings on the government’s part. Kirsty Brimelow, a criminal law barrister, said: “Some sections are never brought in and others have been introduced at one point only to be taken out again later.”

 
Civil rights groups worry that many of the laws represent an unhealthy extension of the state into our private lives. “There has been too much acting in haste and repenting at leisure,” said Isabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty. “Some of these laws are laughable, whereas others have seriously eroded our rights and freedoms. But among the many new offences that have flown onto the statute book in recent years, precious few have made us any safer.”

 
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gave police powers to stop and search anyone inside designated areas without any suspicion of wrongdoing. Yet recently there have been complaints that the law has been used not to catch terrorists but to stop people who have been taking innocent pictures of tourist sites and other buildings, particularly in London.

Oh, and don't you dare raise your camera.

 
Huhne blames much of the deluge on ministers wanting to “mark their footprint in the legislative sand” and manipulate public opinion. Paul Mendelle QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, seems to agree. He has labelled superfluous laws as “glory legislation” and cites as an example the law of selfdefence. “They have simply put in statutory form what was already in the common law,” he said. “It’s purely window dressing.”
Chris Grayling, the Tory spokesman on home affairs, said: “What Labour has been doing is using legislation as a public relations exercise. As a result we have ended up with far too many laws and far too much complexity. What you’ve got to remember is that your new bobby on the beat has to know a lot of these things in order to be able to arrest people appropriately. So what we are expecting our new young police officers to do is to absorb a huge amount of extra information that has little operational merit. All it does is give the government a few good headlines.”

If the morass of laws is enough to make you want to escape for a long contemplative walk with the dog, just pause and check the length of your dog lead before you go. There is a law for that as well. It states: “It is an offence when in charge of a dog on land to which a dog control order applies, not to keep the dog on a lead or on a lead of a maximum length prescribed in the order.”

 
A selection of comical and duplicated offences created by Labour since 1997 ...
• Carrying grain on a ship without a copy of the International Grain Code on board
• Shining a light at an aircraft to dazzle or distract the pilot
• Unauthorised fishing in the Lower Esk River
• Obstructing an authorised person from inspecting apple, pear, peach or nectarine orchards for the purposes of ascertaining whether grubbing up has been carried out
• Failure to attend a hearing by a bus lane contravention adjudicator
• As a merchant shipping officer, falsely claiming a door is closed and locked
• Selling non-native species such as a grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed
• Obstructing workers carrying out repairs to the Docklands light railway
• Keeping a dog on a lead longer than a maximum length in a designated area nUsing an automatic rail-weighbridge which has a disqualification sticker on it
• Not having a licence for a church concert

Do I need a blog license?

In Unison Now......

Here is a remake of Unison's video that is trying to spread fear amongst slaves members in the Public sector.

   

H/T to Constantly Furious

How times have changed.

When I started work:

You could smoke anywhere. (Even in the classroom at college).

Pubs were a haven of peace. You could drink and smoke. Both at the same time. Wow.

Police walked the streets and were pleasant to talk to. (Now the shaven headed, body armoured, thugs are only seen speeding past in cars)

There were no surveillance cameras. Now they are everywhere. (Do you feel safer?)

No speed cameras, taxing you for minor infringments. Where are the traffic cops who gave you a stern ticking off? But allowed you to keep your license and maybe your job.

No compulsory seat belts leglislation. It was accepted that if I wanted to die horribly, that was my choice.

The weather in the UK was bloody awfull. It still is. But now it's down to AGW.

We never locked our doors. Now I've got security locks everywhere.

Children could play outside alone. Not now that there are millions of Paedophiles on the rampage. (or so you would think)(Think of the Cheeeldren).

We could feed the ducks. That's verboten now

Taking photographs was fun. Bloody hell. They lock you up for that now.

Travel was an adventure. Now it is a nightmare. Three hours of security nonsense on the planes. Commuter trains that would make India blush.

Have I left anything out?

Oh yes. Political Correctness.

I can't even have a simple conversation without rehearsing it in my mind, in case it offends anyone within a 100 miles.

Need I go on? No.