Gutless

On the 18th of May the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill passed through the commons.

The Bill will remove Parliament from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and create a new exemption for MPs' communications with public authorities. It has been explained as a measure that would protect the privacy of MPs' constituents.

In a letter to MPs, the Campaign for Freedom of Information has said that it believes that the bill is unnecessary for this purpose.

Correspondence sent by an MP to a public authority, on behalf of a constituent, is already exempt under the FOI Act's existing exemptions. Moreover, the Campaign says this does not explain why it is proposed to remove Parliament itself (which does not hold MPs' correspondence) from the FOI Act's scope.

On the 18th there was an opportunity, via filibuster, to talk the bill down and to wreck it. Unfortunately, aside from those MP's with the guts to at least openly support the bill, there were those MP's who were gutless and chose to hide their true views from the voters by not voting in the third motion.

These gutless MPs voted for the closure motion, but then didn't vote in the Third Reading. Just 16 minutes later.

This means that they supported the Bill, as they did not join in the attempt to filibuster. However, they were gutless and chose not to put on record that they supported it in the Third Reading division itself.

Here are the names of the gutless MPs:

-Christopher Chope, Christchurch (Con)
-Jonathan Djanogly, Huntingdon (Con)
-Stephen Hammond, Wimbledon (Con)
-Nick Hurd, Ruislip - Northwood (Con)
-Eleanor Laing, Epping Forest (Con)
-Shailesh Vara, North West Cambridgeshire (Con)

-Edward Balls, Normanton (Lab, minister)
-Ian Cawsey, Brigg & Goole (Lab, minister)
-Paul Clark, Gillingham (Lab (PPS))
-Vernon Coaker, Gedling (Lab, minister)
-Barry Gardiner, Brent North (Lab, minister)
-Roger Godsiff, Birmingham, Sparkbrook & Small Heath (Lab)
-Mike O'Brien, North Warwickshire (Lab, minister)
-Bridget Prentice, Lewisham East (Lab, minister)
-Joan Ruddock, Lewisham, Deptford (Lab)
-Barry Sheerman, Huddersfield (Lab)
-Jacqui Smith, Redditch (Lab, minister)
-Gerry Sutcliffe, Bradford South (Lab, minister)

Feel free to write to them, and tell them what you think of their gutless behaviour.

Those who stand for public office should have the courage of their convictions, even if they are wrong, to state them publicly.

The gutless ones above should be removed from office without delay.

Scroll down the menu bar on the right and look for the blue box "Fax Your MP", you can use this to write to them.

Nanny's Con Trick

You know how Nanny is telling us to ensure that our refuse is sorted into paper, plastic etc etc; so that it can be recycled?

You know how Nanny's chums in her much "respected" and "useful" local councils are spying on us, to make sure that we sort our rubbish properly?

You know that we are to be taxed according to what we throw away?

You know that Nanny's local councils fine people who do not sort their rubbish properly?

Yes?

All of the above so that Nanny can claim that she is environmentally friendly etc?

You know that don't you?

Yes?

Guess what?

It's a farking con trick!

Nanny isn't recycling much of the stuff at all.

Paper, bottles and plastic that we have spent time and trouble sorting for recycling is in fact being dumped in land fill sites.

Why is this?

Recycling companies have told the Times that the rubbish that they receive from our "respected" and "efficient" local councils is so contaminated, or badly sorted, that it has to be rejected or dumped.

Why are councils not sorting the waste properly?

I will tell you:

1 They are cutting corners in order to meet Nanny's targets for recycling up to 40% of their residents' waste by 2010.

2 They don't give a fark about the environment

3 They are useless

4 They want to maximise the profit from the council tax that they charge us (allegedly to dispose of our rubbish in an environmental manner), so that they can spend it on their underfunded pension schemes, excess salaries and other useless schemes.

So, when Nanny comes round to spy on your rubbish and tries to fine you for not sorting it properly, tell her to fark off!

It is time that the citizens of this country dealt with Nanny once and for all, and stood up to the interfering deceitful old witch.

The World's Costliest Airline

Off topic...sorry!

Those of you who use BA, and are a tad fed up with them, may find this to be of interest.

The World's Costliest Airline.

Utter Bollocks!

Nanny seems to be really losing the plot at the moment, maybe it's because Bliary is about to retire and there is a certain lightheadedness in the bunker at number 10.

Anyhoo, Nanny has decided yet again to come up with another ludicrous "initiative" wrt educashun.

This time she has decided that the centuries old practice of children sticking their paws in the air, when answering a question, needs to be abolished.

For why?

Seemingly it doesn't give the children who are quiet the chance to answer!

Dear God what utter bollocks!

Life in the adult world is tough, no one is going to blow your trumpet for you; you have to blow your own trumpet, and make your own success.

Nanny, by not imparting this lesson early on to the future adults of this country is doing them a major disservice and stunting their intellectual and personality development.

Hey, that's what she does though isn't it?

Anyhoo, Nanny has become concerned about "invisible children", who often try to avoid drawing attention to themselves in lessons.

Their work is neat and they are generally well behaved, but they need a different approach from teachers to help them make progress, Nanny's report found.

Nanny's chum Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, said:

"We need to make sure that no-one is left behind at any point

from the most gifted and talented children at the top

of the class, to the quiet child who is well-practised

at hiding from the teacher's gaze at the back of the class."

As an aside, I was always rather reticent at school to stick my paw in the air; but look at me now!...

Oh s**t...maybe Nanny has a point then?

Anyhoo, I digress, Nanny has recommended a range of strategies which teachers could use in the classroom to help these children.

The methods included choosing which child to question in class, instead of inviting all the pupils to put up their hands if they know the answer....wouldn't that humiliate the poor kid if he/she didn't know the answer?

Children could also be given 30 seconds "thinking time" before being asked to answer, or told to discuss, questions in pairs before answering.

Nanny doesn't get it, it's the competitive edge that pushes the children to maximise their performance push their boundaries.

Holding the class back to keep up with the slowest will do neither the brightest nor the slowest any good whatsoever.

Hey, what the fark, let's ban teaching altogether and let pupils "discover" educashun by themselves!

Gordon Is A Moron

Gordon is a moron....please hum that whilst reading the linked article.

Prat of The Week

Methinks that it is time for my infamous Prat of The Week award.

This week the award goes to Nanny's Public Health Minister, Caroline Flint, who has been putting the boot into booze.

Flintstone and Nanny have decreed, based on no evidence whatsoever, that pregnant women should not drink anything at all.

Why?

Nanny thinks that some people are just too thick to stick to the guidelines for moderate drinking.

Nanny doesn't quite get it, you cannot legislate against thickness.

Anyhoo, as if that were not enough, Nanny and Flintstone have decided that all booze should come with a health warning by the end of 2008.

Labels will include:

• The drink's unit content and the recommended Government safe drinking guidelines



• UK Health Departments recommend men do not regularly exceed 3-4 units daily and women 2-3 units daily



• Website - www.drinkaware.co.uk - detailing sensible drinking messages from the charity Drinkaware



• For beer, wine and spirits, unit information will be given per glass and per bottle

Flintstone has missed a couple of facts here; those who drink sensibly don't need to be told how much to drink, whilst those who drink stupidly don't care and will deliberately ignore the advice.

Flintstone went on to say:

"I would like to pay tribute to the drinks industry

for their commitment to promoting a responsible drinking culture."

Could someone please pass the sickbag?

What planet does this woman live on?

The drinks industry does their best to get the youth of this country bladdered, by heavy duty marketing of sweet (girly drinks) loaded with spirits, at knock down prices.

As if the labelling idea were not naive enough, Flintstone actually praises the drinks industry!

Clearly well deserving of the Prat of The Week award.

Whilst we are on the subject, those of you looking for the best bang for your buck should probably go for a Bucky (a beverage made by the good monks of Buckfast Abbey); which a good chum of mine and his colleagues worked out (by entering data about all types of booze into a spreadsheet) provides the best value bang for you buck, when taking into account alcohol by volume, price etc.

Nanny is onto a real loser here, as drinking is part of our culture; viz our language contains countless words/phrases that describe being drunk:

-bladdered
-pissed
-off your face
-inebriated
-an elegant sufficiency
-shit faced
-rat arsed
-squiffy etc

Can you think of any more?