The European Women's Lobby (EWL) have begun a campaign to eradicate prostitution from Europe.They seem to think they have the moral right to judge people who work in the worlds oldest profession, and they seem to think they know best.
Their webpage, which is http://www.womenlobby.org/spip.php?rubrique187&lang=en, has two videos in which they put across their argument.
Here is their first video:
This video is full of gross exaggerations and false portrayals. At the end of the video the voice says "Prostitution is a form of violence and oppression." This is a blanket generalisation, the sort you might hear from a person who is entirely uninformed and who is full of bias and prejudice, and who probably believes such things because of a lack of education and understanding. Perhaps also because of religious indoctrination.
Women who choose to do that job, willingly. Who set out their own rules and who manage to cope, and those who also enjoy it are not oppressed. Of course there is a risk of violence in that job but there are indeed many who have been fortunate enough to not experience such a thing. To label this as "violence and oppression" and to simplify it as they have done in that video shows ignorance.
This is the second video:
This video isn't quite as bad, however what it does do is portray all prostitutes as "a piece of meat in the window" and it does portray many of them being reliant on drugs when that is not especially true or accurate.
Of course they have to have someone from the flip side of the coin, and indeed they do. At the .34 second mark in the video above they have have a man identified simply as "sex entrepreneur in the Netherlands." The clip of him is short and is simply of him saying how he hopes to expand to five hundred clubs and brothels. Of course there is no guarantee that he provided an explanation as to why he is in that business and why he thinks it is OK, but I think it's safe to assume that even if he had they would not have included it. I think it's safe to assume that they edited that clip in especially to show him and people like him as callous and uncaring with a lack of morals. In a negative light.
At the 1:14 mark the words "It's so glamorous" appear followed by a clip of a specially arranged parking lot for prostitutes to service their clients. Each parking space is separated by walls of corrugated iron. Of course this must be the only way prostitutes service their clients right? Right?
I think it's quite clear what the objectives of this campaign are. It is first and foremost a campaign to tackle prostitution in Europe but it is also, it seems, a campaign to tar all those who work in that industry and who hire people from that industry, and they have done so in a cavalier way.
Quite distasteful I believe.
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Monday, 19 September 2011
Trial or Error?
Whilst watching the YouTube channel "The Young Turks" whose segments I often watch, I came across a video of theirs in which they discuss a conversation between Michael Moore and Elisabeth Hasselbank on a show called "The View."
Now most of you might know who Michael Moore is but you might not know who Elisabeth Hasslebank is or what "The View" is.
Elisabeth Hasslebank is a TV personality over in the US and general television presenter. She more often than not represents Conservative views and has been outspoken more often than not.
"The View" is the USA's version of "Loose Women" except in the former they have proper debates and conversations with some fairly serious people as opposed to "Loose Women" which is mostly celebrities and celebrity chatter with a bit of debate on the side.
Now that's out of the way, to the video itself.
The video is a debate on the TV show on which Michael Moore was a guest. They were discussing the death of Osama Bin Laden. As you are about to see, Michael Moore believes he should have been taken back to the USA and put on trial:
Now in this Moore compares such a trial to that of the Nazi's indicating it would have been the right and moral thing to do. He also claims that "we are no longer at war" (and by "we" he means the USA). This is obviously not true.
The reason the comparison to the Nazi's and the Nuremberg trials doesn't fit is because that was the aftermath of a world war. The Germans had accepted defeat and the general consensus was that it was right and proper to try those who were responsible for war crimes. There was no real division over the decision to send those people to the Hague to face trial, and there certainly wasn't any objections least of all for religious reasons.
Had Osama Bin Laden gone to trial in New York it might well have caused a certain amount of religious tension and division and could have caused civil unrest in certain parts of the world. Furthermore, had he been captured alive and sent to New York to face trial it could have triggered a spree of kidnappings or murders of Americans in retaliations or in an effort by the supporters of Bin Laden to free him. Any dignitary or person in a position of power both in the USA and abroad (especially in countries where the population is considerably or mostly Muslim) could have been in danger of being taken and held to ransom.
Another person on the panel makes a the valid point that Bin Laden was killed instead of captured alive because the USA did not want to make Bin Laden a Martyr to which Moore replied that putting the Nazi's on trial didn't make them martyrs. However the Nazi's weren't religious fanatics. They were fanatics but not driven by an insane religious brainwashing.
In conclusion, if a democracy puts a person like Bin Laden on trial nine times out of ten, just because they didn't do it once out of those ten times that doesn't make that country any less democratic. Furthermore, I think said countries are allowed to make exceptions, especially in a case like Bin Laden, because Bin Laden and all that surrounded him and 9/11 is no ordinary case.
I believe it was right to kill him, so that all nations effected by 9/11 and the familes can perhaps move on, if indeed that is possible.
Now most of you might know who Michael Moore is but you might not know who Elisabeth Hasslebank is or what "The View" is.
Elisabeth Hasslebank is a TV personality over in the US and general television presenter. She more often than not represents Conservative views and has been outspoken more often than not.
"The View" is the USA's version of "Loose Women" except in the former they have proper debates and conversations with some fairly serious people as opposed to "Loose Women" which is mostly celebrities and celebrity chatter with a bit of debate on the side.
Now that's out of the way, to the video itself.
The video is a debate on the TV show on which Michael Moore was a guest. They were discussing the death of Osama Bin Laden. As you are about to see, Michael Moore believes he should have been taken back to the USA and put on trial:
Now in this Moore compares such a trial to that of the Nazi's indicating it would have been the right and moral thing to do. He also claims that "we are no longer at war" (and by "we" he means the USA). This is obviously not true.
The reason the comparison to the Nazi's and the Nuremberg trials doesn't fit is because that was the aftermath of a world war. The Germans had accepted defeat and the general consensus was that it was right and proper to try those who were responsible for war crimes. There was no real division over the decision to send those people to the Hague to face trial, and there certainly wasn't any objections least of all for religious reasons.
Had Osama Bin Laden gone to trial in New York it might well have caused a certain amount of religious tension and division and could have caused civil unrest in certain parts of the world. Furthermore, had he been captured alive and sent to New York to face trial it could have triggered a spree of kidnappings or murders of Americans in retaliations or in an effort by the supporters of Bin Laden to free him. Any dignitary or person in a position of power both in the USA and abroad (especially in countries where the population is considerably or mostly Muslim) could have been in danger of being taken and held to ransom.
Another person on the panel makes a the valid point that Bin Laden was killed instead of captured alive because the USA did not want to make Bin Laden a Martyr to which Moore replied that putting the Nazi's on trial didn't make them martyrs. However the Nazi's weren't religious fanatics. They were fanatics but not driven by an insane religious brainwashing.
In conclusion, if a democracy puts a person like Bin Laden on trial nine times out of ten, just because they didn't do it once out of those ten times that doesn't make that country any less democratic. Furthermore, I think said countries are allowed to make exceptions, especially in a case like Bin Laden, because Bin Laden and all that surrounded him and 9/11 is no ordinary case.
I believe it was right to kill him, so that all nations effected by 9/11 and the familes can perhaps move on, if indeed that is possible.
The Value of Friendship
I was browsing the Internet recently and I came across a video of habitual idiot Glenn Beck before he left fix...sorry....faux..nope..Fox News.
Watch the video here:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105190035
Now the title of the video is:
Beck on Obama's Israel Speech: The President has "Betrayed our last strong ally."
So from that title I was expecting...no...hoping for at least some substantial argument from Beck. A detailed argument of why Israel is a stronger ally than the others, and why it is more valuable than the other allies. Then why Israel is the USA's last strong ally.
But then I watched the video and I was disappointed for all of ten seconds, whereupon I remembered it's Glenn Beck one of the Faux News morons and a logical argument is difficult for them even on a good day.
In the video Beck breaks down the list of allies of the USA. They are (according to him:)
Japan,
Great Britain,
France,
Germany,
Australia,
and Canada.
So his reasoning is;
Japan - Beck says they have been devastated by earthquakes and tsunami’s and perhaps they have. And he says the USA is helping them. Well that might also be true, however Japan is still very involved with the USA in terms of massive trade and no doubt the economy.
France - "Well, where they ever our allies?" Glenn Beck asks. Well loosely I guess, however one of the reasons he gives were the civil unrest incidents. Not really substantial. Sure Sarkozy might not be on best terms with Obama and the USA and neither might his opponents, however I wouldn't call that a substantial argument.
Great Britain - (My favourite one.) He says Britain has been "ravaged by socialism and political correctness" and "is on fire."
I wonder what his reasoning is to think we are being "ravaged by socialism?" And as for the political correctness, well anyone who knows about the media we have here knows that many or most of the stories about political correctness are completely exaggerated and come from the tabloids, many of which are right wing and biased.
The political correctness side is seriously exaggerated and anyone who knows anything knows that it is definitely not a reason to dismiss a nation which frankly has probably given the most as an Ally of the USA.
After all we have, as a nation, fought alongside the USA in two world wars, Korea, two Gulf wars and one in Afghanistan, not to mention many other conflicts around the world.
What do we have to do to be recognised as an equal? Or maybe we should just stop trying. Because frankly, if all that we have done is not enough then nothing ever will be. Especially in the eyes of the Americans, or maybe at least in the eyes of plebs like Glenn Beck.
“God Bless Great Britain but are we really an ally?” Beck asks. Umm, yeah we are. We are involved financially with the USA, with the markets, we have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Americans and did so in Iraq before then, and then in the Balkans before that, then Iraq again before that, and Korea before that. Really, does none that mean anything to him?
So at the end of the video he says that Australia and Canada are the only two allies that the USA has left.
Frankly if this is the attitude of Beck and people like him, and those who listen to him (whomever those poor unfortunate misguided people are) then I think it’s time we, as a country re-evaluated our “special relationship” with the USA.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Playing politics with sexuality and morality (still) in the 21st century
When you have a politician who is in a respectable position there should be without a doubt a line. A line which draws out where personal issues and beliefs stop and professionalism starts. That same line should also indicate the beliefs of others when concerning the life style of said politician.
The finance minister for Australia, Penny Wong is a lesbian, and she is in a relationship with Sophie Allouache who, it has just been announced, is pregnant. She had gotten pregnant through IVF. I personally wish them both the very best, however such an occasion has raised the ugly head of ignorance and intolerance.
Although Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister of Australia, has wished them well it seems she still remains resolute on her opposition against gay marriage.
For a country so advanced I would have thought there would be a lot more tolerance. Wait a minute.....actually there is.
From that same article:
And of course the right wingers who are morally outraged (there is always some) came out to make their voice heard on this.
Fred Nile, an MP from New South Wales and leader of the Christian Democrat Party said:
Then onto the second part of his statement where he says she is trying to make something seem natural when it is unnatural, well that's just his opinion. That is obviously just his small minded bigoted opinion based on his religious beliefs. And for that we should pity him, because he obviously lacks the capacity or just the intelligence to be tolerant.
I hope in all honesty that soon whatever opposition of gay marriage remains in Australia will be overturned, or most of it at least so that gay marriage may be legalised. After all, it is the right and moral thing to do. It is also the sort of thing a modern society with modern ethics would do.
Here's hoping.
Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/lesbian-ministers-pregnancy-fails-to-sway-australia-pm-on-gay-marriage-2335023.html
The finance minister for Australia, Penny Wong is a lesbian, and she is in a relationship with Sophie Allouache who, it has just been announced, is pregnant. She had gotten pregnant through IVF. I personally wish them both the very best, however such an occasion has raised the ugly head of ignorance and intolerance.
Although Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister of Australia, has wished them well it seems she still remains resolute on her opposition against gay marriage.
Her view by the way is that marriage should be reserved only for a man and a woman.
"Clearly there are strong views about same-sex marriage in the community, There are strong views in the political party I lead, and we'll have a debate at national conference about those strongly held views. I've made my views clear."
For a country so advanced I would have thought there would be a lot more tolerance. Wait a minute.....actually there is.
From that same article:
That is a huge percentage considering the size of the country and it's demographics.
"Various polls in Australia have put support for gay marriage as high as 70 per cent."
And of course the right wingers who are morally outraged (there is always some) came out to make their voice heard on this.
Fred Nile, an MP from New South Wales and leader of the Christian Democrat Party said:
"She needn't have made it public, It just promotes their lesbian lifestyle and trying to make it natural where it's unnatural."How lovely of him. Firstly on the subject of making it public, if a straight politician of such a high stature and position was expecting a child they would no doubt announce it in much the same way, It is no different in that aspect at all. Of course the difference is that she is a lesbian so all of a sudden such a thing matters.
Then onto the second part of his statement where he says she is trying to make something seem natural when it is unnatural, well that's just his opinion. That is obviously just his small minded bigoted opinion based on his religious beliefs. And for that we should pity him, because he obviously lacks the capacity or just the intelligence to be tolerant.
I hope in all honesty that soon whatever opposition of gay marriage remains in Australia will be overturned, or most of it at least so that gay marriage may be legalised. After all, it is the right and moral thing to do. It is also the sort of thing a modern society with modern ethics would do.
Here's hoping.
Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/lesbian-ministers-pregnancy-fails-to-sway-australia-pm-on-gay-marriage-2335023.html
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Daily Star Columnist shows class (or lack thereof)
A columnist with the daily star has caused controversy by not only making light of Ricky Gervais and his weight loss, but by his remarks which stink of homophobia and a distinct lack of tact.
See below for said picture:
I don't think I need to tell you that such a comment is wholly unncessary and careless.
I would write more but it's been done quite well elsewehere.
For example "The New Statesman:"
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/-3
And "Pink News:"
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/04/12/daily-star-columnist-if-ricky-gervais-was-gay-youd-think-he-had-aids/
For a larger picture on this Joe Mott idiot read Charlie Brookers excellent blog post on him:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/26/pressandpublishing.digitalmedia
That's all for now folks!
See below for said picture:
I don't think I need to tell you that such a comment is wholly unncessary and careless.
I would write more but it's been done quite well elsewehere.
For example "The New Statesman:"
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/-3
And "Pink News:"
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/04/12/daily-star-columnist-if-ricky-gervais-was-gay-youd-think-he-had-aids/
For a larger picture on this Joe Mott idiot read Charlie Brookers excellent blog post on him:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/26/pressandpublishing.digitalmedia
That's all for now folks!
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Cleggs war or Nepotism
Nick Clegg the deputy Prime Minister has dropped the ball, again.
He has said recently that internships given to people by family members are "unfair" and that he seeks to level the playing field. The word for this is "nepotism" which means:
The major way in which Nick Clegg has has put his foot in it is by bringing this up and more or less declared war on nepotism. Except he was given an internship at the "United Trust Bank" whilst on a gap year because his father worked for that company, and because his father "had a word" with a friend who worked at a Finnish bank. Oops.
Now onto the concept of nepotism. Why do I think it is acceptable? Well I certainly don't think it is morally wrong. I have been helped by nepotism, because of nepotism I am in my current job. You could say my father also "had a word", from which a work experience position was created for me. Two a bit years on I am now a contracted worker. Does this make me biased? Well maybe but it doesn't cloud my judgement.
I think nepotism is good because if a person is struggling to find work no matter what background they come from, if you help a person out that you are related to or you know then you are first and foremost putting a person in employment. You are giving them a leg up.
I was in part time employment, had I not been giving the opportunity to work where I work now who knows where I would be. I might be working in part time retail or I might be unemployed.
I want to be clear that no-one lost out because of the opportunity I got. I did not get the job over someone else just because of nepotism, although a position it seems was created for me and for that I am forever grateful.
If you look at nepotism and it's definition it doesn't have to apply to just office jobs and high paid employment. Technically you could say if a builder gives his son work then that is nepotism. It works on many levels.
However it is obvious at which level Nick Clegg is aiming at here. He is obviously looking at the higher end of the scale where he seeks to drive such a practice out despite the fact that he got work experience because of it. He wants to increase the chances of the less fortunate getting employed that is fine. I agree with that, but doing so by waging war on those fortunate to know someone? That's just wrong
Just for the record I am only in favour of nepotism if it is harmless. I don't agree with it if someone who is more qualified loses out and doesn't get a job.
So in conclusion, nepotism isn't always bad and shouldn't be condemned across the board just for the sake of it, and Nick Clegg is a hypocrite and should think more carefully about his dreams of solving unemployment.
Links:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/clegg-labelled-a-hypocrite-after-nepotism-revelation-1.1094760
http://www.answers.com/topic/nepotism
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:nepotism&sa=X&ei=GoWcTYGJA9SZhQf_tZzOBg&ved=0CBYQkAE
He has said recently that internships given to people by family members are "unfair" and that he seeks to level the playing field. The word for this is "nepotism" which means:
"Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business."or:
"Favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)"I actually don't see a problem with nepotism but I'll come to that in the moment.
The major way in which Nick Clegg has has put his foot in it is by bringing this up and more or less declared war on nepotism. Except he was given an internship at the "United Trust Bank" whilst on a gap year because his father worked for that company, and because his father "had a word" with a friend who worked at a Finnish bank. Oops.
Now onto the concept of nepotism. Why do I think it is acceptable? Well I certainly don't think it is morally wrong. I have been helped by nepotism, because of nepotism I am in my current job. You could say my father also "had a word", from which a work experience position was created for me. Two a bit years on I am now a contracted worker. Does this make me biased? Well maybe but it doesn't cloud my judgement.
I think nepotism is good because if a person is struggling to find work no matter what background they come from, if you help a person out that you are related to or you know then you are first and foremost putting a person in employment. You are giving them a leg up.
I was in part time employment, had I not been giving the opportunity to work where I work now who knows where I would be. I might be working in part time retail or I might be unemployed.
I want to be clear that no-one lost out because of the opportunity I got. I did not get the job over someone else just because of nepotism, although a position it seems was created for me and for that I am forever grateful.
If you look at nepotism and it's definition it doesn't have to apply to just office jobs and high paid employment. Technically you could say if a builder gives his son work then that is nepotism. It works on many levels.
However it is obvious at which level Nick Clegg is aiming at here. He is obviously looking at the higher end of the scale where he seeks to drive such a practice out despite the fact that he got work experience because of it. He wants to increase the chances of the less fortunate getting employed that is fine. I agree with that, but doing so by waging war on those fortunate to know someone? That's just wrong
Just for the record I am only in favour of nepotism if it is harmless. I don't agree with it if someone who is more qualified loses out and doesn't get a job.
So in conclusion, nepotism isn't always bad and shouldn't be condemned across the board just for the sake of it, and Nick Clegg is a hypocrite and should think more carefully about his dreams of solving unemployment.
Links:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/clegg-labelled-a-hypocrite-after-nepotism-revelation-1.1094760
http://www.answers.com/topic/nepotism
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:nepotism&sa=X&ei=GoWcTYGJA9SZhQf_tZzOBg&ved=0CBYQkAE
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Lehmann Sue's over Jibe
I may not be correct, but I am under the distinct impression that professional football players (or soccer players to our American cousins) are a bit soft. They dive at the first sign of contact and writhe on the floor looking for pity and attention until they get it and a free kick too.
Despite this I have been under the impression that goalkeepers are better. Not much just slightly, however I'd be wrong!
Jens Lehmann, the reserve goalkeeper who has only recently returned to the North London club is threatening to sue Werder Bremen keeper Tim Wiese because Wiese said Lehmann should go on the Muppet show. He said:
"He should go on the Muppet Show, That man should be on a couch. Maybe someone would be able to help him there. Commit him - best to an asylum."
Why did Wiese say that? Because Lehmann had criticized him heavily during a game between Wiese's team Werder Bremen, which is a German side, against Tottenham Hotspur, another London club.
Apparently Lehmann didn't like this retort and is now suing for £17,500 because he felt his "personal rights were violated."
Oh dear poor Jens Lehmann, were your feelings hurt? Is your ego bruised? Bless.
What's that famous phrase? Something about people in glass houses, throwing stones? Oh nevermind.
Source:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05042011/58/bundesliga-lehmann-suing-muppet-jibe.html
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Anorexia in the Media
It is often that television programmes hit upon a touchy subject, but you don't often expect it from an popular TV animation.
"American Dad" is a fantastic cartoon, made by Seth McFarlane, the man who brought us "Family Guy." It is often well animated and well written and it proves to be very entertaining.
So imagine my surprise when in one episode they hit upon a tough subject: anorexia.
In the episode "The American Dad After School Special" Stan's son Steve starts dating a larger girl. When Stan finds out she is fat he is horrified and reacts badly which causes his wife and daughter to berate him claiming he is overweight.
You see Stan starting to do more and more exercise under the guidance of a personal trainer called "Zack." He also becomes quite paranoid that his family do not want him to lose weight and that they are injecting fat into his foods. Eventually under the instruction of Zack, Stan confronts his family at which point his family make him realise the truth. He isn't fat, he is in fact thin, and he is anorexic.
He also realises that his personal trainer "Zack" is actually a hallucination. Once Stan realises he is anorexic "Zack" fades away for good.
The rest of the episode involves Stan going to an anorexia support group and his family trying to make him eat.
I was pleasantly surprised by this episode because I found it topical and not in the controversial way. They covered a tough subject in a way that wasn't insulting or patronising or obtuse, they showed the effects that anorexia has on an individual and those around them. I would like to think that amongst all the satire and comedy in "American Dad" and as well the brilliant story lines, there will be more stories like this because this is a good way to get through to some people. It is a good way to drive a point home, it is a good way to plant an idea and a thought into a persons mind.
To Seth McFarlane and the others who make "American Dad", I tip my hat to you!
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Dad_After_School_Special
"American Dad" is a fantastic cartoon, made by Seth McFarlane, the man who brought us "Family Guy." It is often well animated and well written and it proves to be very entertaining.
So imagine my surprise when in one episode they hit upon a tough subject: anorexia.
In the episode "The American Dad After School Special" Stan's son Steve starts dating a larger girl. When Stan finds out she is fat he is horrified and reacts badly which causes his wife and daughter to berate him claiming he is overweight.
You see Stan starting to do more and more exercise under the guidance of a personal trainer called "Zack." He also becomes quite paranoid that his family do not want him to lose weight and that they are injecting fat into his foods. Eventually under the instruction of Zack, Stan confronts his family at which point his family make him realise the truth. He isn't fat, he is in fact thin, and he is anorexic.
He also realises that his personal trainer "Zack" is actually a hallucination. Once Stan realises he is anorexic "Zack" fades away for good.
The rest of the episode involves Stan going to an anorexia support group and his family trying to make him eat.
I was pleasantly surprised by this episode because I found it topical and not in the controversial way. They covered a tough subject in a way that wasn't insulting or patronising or obtuse, they showed the effects that anorexia has on an individual and those around them. I would like to think that amongst all the satire and comedy in "American Dad" and as well the brilliant story lines, there will be more stories like this because this is a good way to get through to some people. It is a good way to drive a point home, it is a good way to plant an idea and a thought into a persons mind.
To Seth McFarlane and the others who make "American Dad", I tip my hat to you!
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Dad_After_School_Special
Monday, 28 March 2011
MPAC and the Boycott
Whilst on my lunch break at work today I started idly browsing YouTube and somehow I came across a series of video's in which young Muslims (some or all of whom are of Palestinian origin) go into a supermarket and look for certain foods and certain products where the only available types are from Israel. These include such items as dates.
The organisation is called MPACUK, which is the "Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK." Their point is that by buying these items, people are fuelling the Israeli economy and therefore they are inadvertently supporting and funding the Israeli Defence force which commits a series of actions against Palestinians and Muslims which we often hear about in the news.
Here is the first video:
Now granted that woman shouldn't have reacted the way she did, it didn't help at all but she could have just been having a long day or a tough day, frustrated by many things. If this is true then this certainly didn't help. The last thing you want is further drama to hold you up and cause you further grief and something like this is certainly likely to provoke.
Now here are two more video's of a similar nature:
Ok so I hope you have had a chance to watch all three of those videos, now here is my opinion on this.
These people are obviously trying to make a point. They want to get the message across that people should boycott Israeli products because they believe that by buying products like dates it is fueling the Israeli economy and therefore their military actions which are often considered controversial.
They are most certainly going about this the wrong way. If they really wanted to make a point and make it heard and really bash some heads over this then they would go to the head office. They would make an amateur documentary about it where they actually try and get in contact with someone in the marketing department from those supermarkets and confronted them about it because that's where campaigning and media meets.
What they should not be doing is going into random supermarkets and stirring trouble in this way. By taking all the dates and other products from Israel off the shelves and taking them to the supermarket, to then say "oh look they are all from Israel, we don't want these" and to then just walk out doesn't do anything except inconvenience the little people who work at that branch who have no control over this whatsoever.
In at least one of those video's you see a manager being called, the manager of the store but even the branch manager wouldn't have much say over this. The most that the branch manager could do is report the incident and the objection of MPACUK to the head office but I am pretty sure that because the people from MPACUK decided to go down that route all they will get is a rather standard non-cooperative response from the head office.
What good does it do to target random branches of a supermarket? It does nothing. All it does is inconvenience the people who work there, and like you can see in the first video it inconvenience the other customers who if they are like me just want to get on and buy what they want and leave because unlike the people in that video from MPACUK, some people actually have lives and things to do. Not all of us can afford to spend time strolling into supermarkets to cause havoc and provocation in the most nonsensical fashion.
AND THEN.....then they have the audacity to claim it as a victory when they get outside. They get outside and they are smiling and congratulating themselves as if they have actually achieved something good and as if they have made their point so clearly. Also they seem to be under the distinct impression that they might have changed people's minds and maybe planted the seeds of thought on this matter into people's minds. Well I used to work in a supermarket myself and there were now and again wacky people who came in. None this wacky but still wacky, and I can guarantee you that after a few days those incidents were all but forgotten.
I'm pretty sure the people inside those stores whether they be employee's or customers had more important things to worry about so they probably forgot that incident within a few days, a week at most.
If you have read my post from a few days ago you might see I mentioned Keith Olbermann who was up until recently a political commentator on the American news channel MSNBC. He had a segment on his show called "Worst persons in the world" in which he would nominate three people because of things they had done and/or said.
Well once again if I were to have a similar segment I would nominate MPACUK, specifically the four or so people in those videos. Not because theirs was not a just cause, but because they did it in entirely the wrong fashion and in doing so they inconvenienced many people. They also made complete fools of themselves.
"You've just been MPAC'ed," what a farce.
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtSl9L-GHlM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSJRIC_rUFo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFD0HJIBo8
http://www.mpacuk.org/
The organisation is called MPACUK, which is the "Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK." Their point is that by buying these items, people are fuelling the Israeli economy and therefore they are inadvertently supporting and funding the Israeli Defence force which commits a series of actions against Palestinians and Muslims which we often hear about in the news.
Here is the first video:
Now granted that woman shouldn't have reacted the way she did, it didn't help at all but she could have just been having a long day or a tough day, frustrated by many things. If this is true then this certainly didn't help. The last thing you want is further drama to hold you up and cause you further grief and something like this is certainly likely to provoke.
Now here are two more video's of a similar nature:
Ok so I hope you have had a chance to watch all three of those videos, now here is my opinion on this.
These people are obviously trying to make a point. They want to get the message across that people should boycott Israeli products because they believe that by buying products like dates it is fueling the Israeli economy and therefore their military actions which are often considered controversial.
They are most certainly going about this the wrong way. If they really wanted to make a point and make it heard and really bash some heads over this then they would go to the head office. They would make an amateur documentary about it where they actually try and get in contact with someone in the marketing department from those supermarkets and confronted them about it because that's where campaigning and media meets.
What they should not be doing is going into random supermarkets and stirring trouble in this way. By taking all the dates and other products from Israel off the shelves and taking them to the supermarket, to then say "oh look they are all from Israel, we don't want these" and to then just walk out doesn't do anything except inconvenience the little people who work at that branch who have no control over this whatsoever.
In at least one of those video's you see a manager being called, the manager of the store but even the branch manager wouldn't have much say over this. The most that the branch manager could do is report the incident and the objection of MPACUK to the head office but I am pretty sure that because the people from MPACUK decided to go down that route all they will get is a rather standard non-cooperative response from the head office.
What good does it do to target random branches of a supermarket? It does nothing. All it does is inconvenience the people who work there, and like you can see in the first video it inconvenience the other customers who if they are like me just want to get on and buy what they want and leave because unlike the people in that video from MPACUK, some people actually have lives and things to do. Not all of us can afford to spend time strolling into supermarkets to cause havoc and provocation in the most nonsensical fashion.
AND THEN.....then they have the audacity to claim it as a victory when they get outside. They get outside and they are smiling and congratulating themselves as if they have actually achieved something good and as if they have made their point so clearly. Also they seem to be under the distinct impression that they might have changed people's minds and maybe planted the seeds of thought on this matter into people's minds. Well I used to work in a supermarket myself and there were now and again wacky people who came in. None this wacky but still wacky, and I can guarantee you that after a few days those incidents were all but forgotten.
I'm pretty sure the people inside those stores whether they be employee's or customers had more important things to worry about so they probably forgot that incident within a few days, a week at most.
If you have read my post from a few days ago you might see I mentioned Keith Olbermann who was up until recently a political commentator on the American news channel MSNBC. He had a segment on his show called "Worst persons in the world" in which he would nominate three people because of things they had done and/or said.
Well once again if I were to have a similar segment I would nominate MPACUK, specifically the four or so people in those videos. Not because theirs was not a just cause, but because they did it in entirely the wrong fashion and in doing so they inconvenienced many people. They also made complete fools of themselves.
"You've just been MPAC'ed," what a farce.
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtSl9L-GHlM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSJRIC_rUFo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFD0HJIBo8
http://www.mpacuk.org/
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Who was watching the kids?
In my last blog of the evening, something light hearted (as if my last post wasn't light hearted enough.)
Cingino Dam in Italy isn't entirely vertical but it is still by steep by anyones standards. Anyone but not anything. The fact that it was steep did not stop some goats from climbing it.
Those pictures were from the National Geographic website:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/photogalleries/101101-ibex-goats-dam-italy-bighorn-sheep-wyoming-science/#/goats-dam-licking_28159_600x450.jpg
For a fuller set of the pictures visit this website:
http://i.imgur.com/IERh4.jpg
Cingino Dam in Italy isn't entirely vertical but it is still by steep by anyones standards. Anyone but not anything. The fact that it was steep did not stop some goats from climbing it.
Those pictures were from the National Geographic website:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/photogalleries/101101-ibex-goats-dam-italy-bighorn-sheep-wyoming-science/#/goats-dam-licking_28159_600x450.jpg
For a fuller set of the pictures visit this website:
http://i.imgur.com/IERh4.jpg
Naked in New York
Artists do some crazy things these days in the name of art or expressing themselves, and Erica Simone is no different. Originally from Paris she had her photo taken whilst she was nude and out and about.
Wasn't she cold?
Anyway this is my second favourite one!
Apparently that one was the "most challenging one." I can't imagine why. At least she crossed her legs. I can't begin to imagine what was going on in the head of the people sitting opposite. Perhaps one of the thoughts was "I'm getting off at the next stop and going to the bathroom."
But my favourite out of all of them was this one:
Aside from the fact that she has a "tramp stamp." I have to say I used to work in a shop for over three years and if someone like that came in I would think all of my Christmases had came at once.
Of course I don't like it just for the obvious reason, I think it's quite a good shot. And by that I mean it's a good picture.
That is my reason...honest! That is my reason and I'm sticking with it!
Anyway if you want to read the full article you can find it here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369962/Naked-ambition-Photographer-lays-bare-nude-poses-streets-NYC.html
Enjoy!!
Wasn't she cold?
Anyway this is my second favourite one!
Apparently that one was the "most challenging one." I can't imagine why. At least she crossed her legs. I can't begin to imagine what was going on in the head of the people sitting opposite. Perhaps one of the thoughts was "I'm getting off at the next stop and going to the bathroom."
But my favourite out of all of them was this one:
Aside from the fact that she has a "tramp stamp." I have to say I used to work in a shop for over three years and if someone like that came in I would think all of my Christmases had came at once.
Of course I don't like it just for the obvious reason, I think it's quite a good shot. And by that I mean it's a good picture.
That is my reason...honest! That is my reason and I'm sticking with it!
Anyway if you want to read the full article you can find it here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369962/Naked-ambition-Photographer-lays-bare-nude-poses-streets-NYC.html
Enjoy!!
Violence in London
Today saw another demonstration, another protest. This was a massive protest, well organised with a huge variety of people protesting against the budget cuts. They claim amongst other things that the cuts were too deep and too soon.
This may be true and I don't disagree, however this is besides the point. As usual there were people who caused trouble, who acted violently and who created considerable damage.
There was violence at the prestigious Ritz hotel:
More window smashing and vandalism at banks:
And so on and so forth. These are people who are anarchists. They may have a cause but they ultimately use any protest, any excuse to turn up and cause damage. Destroy windows and get into fights with the police. These people are troublesome and the are also bad for the normal people who just want to protest peacefully and get their point across.
They are cowards who get joy and satisfaction from damage which solves nothing and proves no point except that they are despicable. These people, these anarchists are no better than your usual every day yobs who cause vandalism.
If you want to read the full article where there are more pictures then click on the link below:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370053/TUC-anti-cuts-demo-At-HALF-A-MILLION-peaceful-protesters-march-London.html
The people who caused this damage should not only be prosecuted but they should also be made to foot the bill for all of the damage collectively made on that day.
No doubt about it.
This may be true and I don't disagree, however this is besides the point. As usual there were people who caused trouble, who acted violently and who created considerable damage.
There was violence at the prestigious Ritz hotel:
More window smashing and vandalism at banks:
And so on and so forth. These are people who are anarchists. They may have a cause but they ultimately use any protest, any excuse to turn up and cause damage. Destroy windows and get into fights with the police. These people are troublesome and the are also bad for the normal people who just want to protest peacefully and get their point across.
They are cowards who get joy and satisfaction from damage which solves nothing and proves no point except that they are despicable. These people, these anarchists are no better than your usual every day yobs who cause vandalism.
If you want to read the full article where there are more pictures then click on the link below:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370053/TUC-anti-cuts-demo-At-HALF-A-MILLION-peaceful-protesters-march-London.html
The people who caused this damage should not only be prosecuted but they should also be made to foot the bill for all of the damage collectively made on that day.
No doubt about it.
Spiders in the Tree's
Last year during the terrible floods in Pakistan hordes of spiders looked for refuge. They eventually found it in the tree's, and that is where they stayed. Over time they all spun webs one by one and eventually the tree's were filled with silky webs.
Quite incredible. I used to enjoy climbing tree's when I was a kid, but I think that if I was asked to climb this tree I'd probably refuse.
Apart from looking spectacular there is also another positive side:
Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370181/The-ghost-trees-Pakistan-Spider-webs-cocoon-branches-creepy-effect-floods.html
Quite incredible. I used to enjoy climbing tree's when I was a kid, but I think that if I was asked to climb this tree I'd probably refuse.
Apart from looking spectacular there is also another positive side:
"People in this part of Sindh, in south eastern Pakistan, near Karachi, have never seen this phenomenon before, but locals are reporting that there are now fewer mosquito's than they would expect, given the amount of stagnant, standing water that is around.So, everybodies a winner?
It is thought that the mosquito's are getting caught in the spiders web and reducing the risk of malaria, benefiting local people."
Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370181/The-ghost-trees-Pakistan-Spider-webs-cocoon-branches-creepy-effect-floods.html
A Boycott of common sense
In the USA there is a man called Keith Olbermann who hosted a TV show for many years until recently called "Countdown." It was a review and and analysis of recent topical news items from political to general views on world matters.
He had a segment called "The Worst Persons in the World" in which he nominated three people for said award because of something they had said and/or done. Usually it was something highly insensitive or controversial.
Since the program no longer exists these awards do no exist, which is a shame because if they did I think the winner would be without a doubt Geoff Boycott. The former cricketer and commentator made some very insensitive remarks about England cricketer Mike Yardy who went home earlier this week from the World Cup because of his struggle with depression. Geoff Boycotts response?
It is obvious that Geoff Boycott should be without a doubt reprimanded so that next perhaps he will think before making comments like this again. Preferably it would be better if he just kept his old fashioned nonsocial views to himself.
Geoff Boycott the insensitive ass receives the Some Corner of the World honorary "Worsts person in the world" award.
Congratulations to him.
References:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/03/25/geoffrey-boycott-angers-mental-health-charities-by-criticising-depressed-player-michael-yardy-115875-23014038/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/2011/03/26/england-players-fury-at-geoff-boycott-115875-23017949/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-1370067/CRICKET-WORLD-CUP-2011-Andrew-Strauss-slams-Geoff-Boycott-Michael-Yardy-comments.html
He had a segment called "The Worst Persons in the World" in which he nominated three people for said award because of something they had said and/or done. Usually it was something highly insensitive or controversial.
Since the program no longer exists these awards do no exist, which is a shame because if they did I think the winner would be without a doubt Geoff Boycott. The former cricketer and commentator made some very insensitive remarks about England cricketer Mike Yardy who went home earlier this week from the World Cup because of his struggle with depression. Geoff Boycotts response?
"‘I’m very surprised but he must have been reading my comments about his bowling,’ he said. ‘That must have upset him because it’s obviously too much for him at this level."Not only are these words insensitive but they are not helpful, and they show a distinct lack of understanding too.
It is obvious that Geoff Boycott should be without a doubt reprimanded so that next perhaps he will think before making comments like this again. Preferably it would be better if he just kept his old fashioned nonsocial views to himself.
Geoff Boycott the insensitive ass receives the Some Corner of the World honorary "Worsts person in the world" award.
Congratulations to him.
References:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/03/25/geoffrey-boycott-angers-mental-health-charities-by-criticising-depressed-player-michael-yardy-115875-23014038/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/2011/03/26/england-players-fury-at-geoff-boycott-115875-23017949/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-1370067/CRICKET-WORLD-CUP-2011-Andrew-Strauss-slams-Geoff-Boycott-Michael-Yardy-comments.html
Friday, 4 March 2011
The Recruitment Game
Due to the recession many cuts have been made. There have been many cuts and ultimately many sacrifices have had to be made. It isn't just the financial sector which has become more difficult, the recruitment game has also become harder.
Before the recession and the financial troubles really kicked in recruitment and job hunting was sometimes troubling and difficult depending on what role you were looking for and of course what qualifications and experience you had. Unfortunately because of the recession the job hunting game has become much tougher, the competition has been raised.
The recession and financial woes have made many employers tighten their belts meaning there are fewer jobs whilst there are still many more unemployed. This has meant that there are invariably more people applying for the same jobs.
Usually the best candidates are shortlisted because of their qualifications, experience, and no doubt because of their CV and how they present themselves.
So does this mean that people who don't have as many qualifications or perhaps none at all will miss out more times than not? Does this mean that people with less experience will be less able to get a job? If so how are people ever expected to get a job?
It seems that even the most qualified people during this recession are finding it hard to find work, that is unless you know a person or are able to get employment another way. Is the government really doing enough to get people of all ages into training courses and education, to make them qualified enough to be able to get the job they desire and achieve the life they truly desire?
The next question after that is are people doing enough for themselves too? It is up to the individual to keep themselves motivated to learn and always be progressing. One problem we seem to have in this society we live in at the moment is we often rely too much on other people. Institutionalised laziness has become the norm.
That aside, I still have to wonder if the fortunate people who already have qualifications and experience are the currently the luckiest. Are they the ones who are being favoured for jobs and where does this leave those who have less experience and qualifications? What really can be done? What really must be done whilst we weather the storm that is the recession?
Your feedback would be most welcome
Before the recession and the financial troubles really kicked in recruitment and job hunting was sometimes troubling and difficult depending on what role you were looking for and of course what qualifications and experience you had. Unfortunately because of the recession the job hunting game has become much tougher, the competition has been raised.
The recession and financial woes have made many employers tighten their belts meaning there are fewer jobs whilst there are still many more unemployed. This has meant that there are invariably more people applying for the same jobs.
Usually the best candidates are shortlisted because of their qualifications, experience, and no doubt because of their CV and how they present themselves.
So does this mean that people who don't have as many qualifications or perhaps none at all will miss out more times than not? Does this mean that people with less experience will be less able to get a job? If so how are people ever expected to get a job?
It seems that even the most qualified people during this recession are finding it hard to find work, that is unless you know a person or are able to get employment another way. Is the government really doing enough to get people of all ages into training courses and education, to make them qualified enough to be able to get the job they desire and achieve the life they truly desire?
The next question after that is are people doing enough for themselves too? It is up to the individual to keep themselves motivated to learn and always be progressing. One problem we seem to have in this society we live in at the moment is we often rely too much on other people. Institutionalised laziness has become the norm.
That aside, I still have to wonder if the fortunate people who already have qualifications and experience are the currently the luckiest. Are they the ones who are being favoured for jobs and where does this leave those who have less experience and qualifications? What really can be done? What really must be done whilst we weather the storm that is the recession?
Your feedback would be most welcome
Monday, 28 February 2011
League Cup Final heartbreak
Being an Arsenal supporter perhaps my next entry should be one explaining what can only be described as extreme disappointment to say the least at the performance of Arsenal Football Club in the League Cup final today against Birmingham City.
My beloved Arsenal football club had the chance to win but they squandered every chance, furthermore with only a few minutes left of normal time to play a complete lack of communication between a defender and the goal keeper meant that the ball was put right in front of a Birmingham City forward in what can almost be described as an open goal scenario.
Had that happened in the first few moments of extra time I would have been worried but not greatly as that would have meant that Arsenal still would have had almost half an hour to equalise. Still, Birmingham City played well at times and the man of the match is, I have to admit, their goal Ben Foster who made countless saves, without which Arsenal could have been two perhaps three or more goals ahead.
I suppose I must once again rely on and remain hopeful that Arsenal succeed in the bigger trophies, although invariably the competition is tougher and the stakes are higher. One can only hope that Arsenal will really pull up their socks and finally break the dry spell which has left them without silverware for over five years.
One can only hope…
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Greyhound trainer held over mass cruelty
It's a sad fact of life these days that you don't have to look far to find shocking stories in the news, especially when it is on the subject of cruelty, whether it be cruelty to babies, children, or even animals.
So it is with great shock and disgust that I saw in the news a racing dog breeder in Florida is facing charges for the deaths of at least two dozen dogs.
Ronald Williams is under investigation for cruelty to and for the deaths of perhaps as many as thirty dogs.
Williams is (thankfully) in jail at the moment and is facing a $54,000 bond.
Here are a few quotes:
And another rather more chilling quote:
Hopefully over there in the United States their laws on animal cruelty are more defined and hopefully if found guilty/found to be guilty, they will go to prison for a long time.
It is the least that can be done for the animals that suffered and were killed, not least all the ones that may have been hurt and killed that we don't yet know about.
It astounds and disgusts me that as of yet the punishment for animal cruelty is not as strong as it perhaps should be.
Anyway, I will keep you updated on the latest with this when I hear it.
Until next time,
Ciao!
http://www.waltonsun.com/news/license-88279-newsherald-suspect-suspended.html
http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/Ronnie_Williams_Could_Be_Linked_To_More_Greyhound_Deaths_106577273.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/31/Trainer-cited-in-Florida-greyhound-deaths/UPI-57951288565122/
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2010/11/at_least_7_dead_dogs_believed_1.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299787
So it is with great shock and disgust that I saw in the news a racing dog breeder in Florida is facing charges for the deaths of at least two dozen dogs.
Ronald Williams is under investigation for cruelty to and for the deaths of perhaps as many as thirty dogs.
Williams is (thankfully) in jail at the moment and is facing a $54,000 bond.
Here are a few quotes:
According to the emergency suspension order, the pari-mutuel wagering division launched an investigation into Williams shortly after he delivered eight underweight dogs with sores to Greyhound Pets of America’s Emerald Coast (GPAEC) chapter on Oct. 25. Four days later, investigators entered Williams’ kennel at Ebro and discovered 21 dead greyhounds that had “suffered from extreme neglect.” Several of the animals were housed two per cage.
The five surviving dogs were rescued from the same kennel. Three of the survivors and one of the dead dogs had duct tape tightly wrapped around their necks, according to the order.
And another rather more chilling quote:
Five more carcasses were discovered in the freezer of the Building 7 kennels, and one more was found in the freezer of Building 5, where Williams also kept kennels.
Investigators also found six large plastic garbage bags that contained remains of an unknown number of animals. Investigators reported the rotting parts could not be safely inspected.
It's all rather disturbing, that a man could to this to an animal which is entrusted into his care and which relies on him for safe keeping and good company. It is truly disgusting
Hopefully over there in the United States their laws on animal cruelty are more defined and hopefully if found guilty/found to be guilty, they will go to prison for a long time.
It is the least that can be done for the animals that suffered and were killed, not least all the ones that may have been hurt and killed that we don't yet know about.
It astounds and disgusts me that as of yet the punishment for animal cruelty is not as strong as it perhaps should be.
Anyway, I will keep you updated on the latest with this when I hear it.
Until next time,
Ciao!
http://www.waltonsun.com/news/license-88279-newsherald-suspect-suspended.html
http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/Ronnie_Williams_Could_Be_Linked_To_More_Greyhound_Deaths_106577273.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/31/Trainer-cited-in-Florida-greyhound-deaths/UPI-57951288565122/
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2010/11/at_least_7_dead_dogs_believed_1.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299787
Thursday, 28 October 2010
It's been too long
Hey all, sorry I know it's been a while but I have been very busy.
I went away over the summer and then when I came back I moved into a flat, and then on top of that I have been pretty manic at work.
Don't worry I haven't fallen off the edge of the planet.
Back soon!
Ciao!
I went away over the summer and then when I came back I moved into a flat, and then on top of that I have been pretty manic at work.
Don't worry I haven't fallen off the edge of the planet.
Back soon!
Ciao!
Friday, 27 August 2010
MP's Bully Expenses Staff
Have they no shame?
Since it broke the expenses scandal has forever changed how people look and view MP's. Some have tried to make amends by either paying back or not doing it any more, or by finding other ways to look as honest and respectful as possible.
So it probably doesn't help when they call up the people who deal with expenses and deliver a tirade of abuse just because the rules and regulations have gotten tighter now the public know about them being sneaky and stealing from the tax payer.
In this news article from "The Express"
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/195536/Swearing-MPs-brand-expenses-staff-monkeys-/
It is explained how staff were called "monkeys" and were swore at and shouted at.
Quote:
The people who did this are bullies who are throwing their toys out of the pram because they couldn't get their way. And the reason they couldn't get their way is because them and other politicians fiddled expenses to their own means to allow them to claim as much as possible on expenses so they didn't have to use any of their own money.
It's their own fault, and their own doing. And now they have the audacity to blame others.
Any MP found to be verbally abusing staff like that should have their expenses barred for a certain amount of time, perhaps six months.
No person deserves to be talked to like that. It's despicable behaviour. Anyone who acts that way should be ashamed of themselves and action should be taken against them.
Sources:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/195536/Swearing-MPs-brand-expenses-staff-monkeys-/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-mps-greeted-the-new-expenses-regime-2062199.html
Since it broke the expenses scandal has forever changed how people look and view MP's. Some have tried to make amends by either paying back or not doing it any more, or by finding other ways to look as honest and respectful as possible.
So it probably doesn't help when they call up the people who deal with expenses and deliver a tirade of abuse just because the rules and regulations have gotten tighter now the public know about them being sneaky and stealing from the tax payer.
In this news article from "The Express"
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/195536/Swearing-MPs-brand-expenses-staff-monkeys-/
It is explained how staff were called "monkeys" and were swore at and shouted at.
Quote:
"He was said to have reduced one intern to tears though he later returned with a box of chocolates."
The people who did this are bullies who are throwing their toys out of the pram because they couldn't get their way. And the reason they couldn't get their way is because them and other politicians fiddled expenses to their own means to allow them to claim as much as possible on expenses so they didn't have to use any of their own money.
It's their own fault, and their own doing. And now they have the audacity to blame others.
Any MP found to be verbally abusing staff like that should have their expenses barred for a certain amount of time, perhaps six months.
No person deserves to be talked to like that. It's despicable behaviour. Anyone who acts that way should be ashamed of themselves and action should be taken against them.
Sources:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/195536/Swearing-MPs-brand-expenses-staff-monkeys-/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-mps-greeted-the-new-expenses-regime-2062199.html
Celebrity idiocy
Yet again we have a case of more money than sense.
It is a common thing these days for a person or persons to buy a house and then knock it down only to build another house in it's place to the acute customised liking of the land owner. It is always a shame when that house is relatively old and in it's place the people plan to build something shamelessly ugly.
So once again we have the case of someone who has more money than sense, except it's not one of these so called celebs it's Rowan Atkinson. Yes the star of Blackadder and Mr Bean plans to knock down a house that has been standing since the 1930's to make way for a futuristic house which frankly looks hideous.
Rowan Atkinson's house now:
It is a 1930's mansion in the village of Ipsden for £2,647,500 back in 2006. Neighbours thought they might restore it. Well how wrong they were. In fact the local council have just approved his application to knock it down and rebuild a house looking like this:
Good gawd Blackadder!
Frankly that is awful. Just how someone can replace a nice old beautiful house like that with modern nonsense I don't know.
Like I said, more money than sense.
It is a common thing these days for a person or persons to buy a house and then knock it down only to build another house in it's place to the acute customised liking of the land owner. It is always a shame when that house is relatively old and in it's place the people plan to build something shamelessly ugly.
So once again we have the case of someone who has more money than sense, except it's not one of these so called celebs it's Rowan Atkinson. Yes the star of Blackadder and Mr Bean plans to knock down a house that has been standing since the 1930's to make way for a futuristic house which frankly looks hideous.
Rowan Atkinson's house now:
It is a 1930's mansion in the village of Ipsden for £2,647,500 back in 2006. Neighbours thought they might restore it. Well how wrong they were. In fact the local council have just approved his application to knock it down and rebuild a house looking like this:
Good gawd Blackadder!
Frankly that is awful. Just how someone can replace a nice old beautiful house like that with modern nonsense I don't know.
Like I said, more money than sense.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
The conforming game?
Do you think referee's in football/soccer have conformed too much to the fans and the players who dive too much?
It seems in the last few years diving has continued, and even when it is obvious the player is not hurt they still appeal for a foul.
These days if a person dives and a free kick or penalty is not given more often than not the players, the fans and the managers still complain whether they know it is a foul or not. If they know they pretend they didn't see.
If a referee doesn't give a foul then they are often branded bad referees by managers who quite frankly are bullies, Alex Ferguson to name but one. (I refuse to refer to him as "sir Alex".)
Alex Ferguson bullies and berates referee's, calling them and the governing body corrupt every time a game or a mere decision doesn't go their way.
These days young players who are already being paid far too much for their own good dive far too often or at least fall over and feign injury all too often.
As a result the reaction from the player, his fellow players, fans and managers during and after the game pressure the referee to make a decision.
It seems a slippery slope, and now the referee is more likely to conform to this mockery of the rules by awarding free kicks and penalties for what are more often than not atrocious decisions. This allows more and more players more leeway to dive or to fall over easily and expect a free kick from it.
The game needs to return to it's roots.
- Reduce the pay for players
- Reduce transfer fee's
- And stop allowing players to get away with atrocious behaviour on the field.
Otherwise the game will just become even more of a joke.
It seems in the last few years diving has continued, and even when it is obvious the player is not hurt they still appeal for a foul.
These days if a person dives and a free kick or penalty is not given more often than not the players, the fans and the managers still complain whether they know it is a foul or not. If they know they pretend they didn't see.
If a referee doesn't give a foul then they are often branded bad referees by managers who quite frankly are bullies, Alex Ferguson to name but one. (I refuse to refer to him as "sir Alex".)
Alex Ferguson bullies and berates referee's, calling them and the governing body corrupt every time a game or a mere decision doesn't go their way.
These days young players who are already being paid far too much for their own good dive far too often or at least fall over and feign injury all too often.
As a result the reaction from the player, his fellow players, fans and managers during and after the game pressure the referee to make a decision.
It seems a slippery slope, and now the referee is more likely to conform to this mockery of the rules by awarding free kicks and penalties for what are more often than not atrocious decisions. This allows more and more players more leeway to dive or to fall over easily and expect a free kick from it.
The game needs to return to it's roots.
- Reduce the pay for players
- Reduce transfer fee's
- And stop allowing players to get away with atrocious behaviour on the field.
Otherwise the game will just become even more of a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)