The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you
having to purchase a tracking device for your car and paying a monthly
bill to use it.
The tracking device will cost about £200 and in a recent study by the
BBC, the lowest monthly bill was £28 for a rural florist and £194 for a
delivery driver.
A non working Mum who used the car to take the kids to school paid £86
in one month.
On top of this massive increase in tax, you will be tracked. Somebody
will know where you are at all times. They will also know how fast you
have been going, so even if you accidentally creep over a speed limit
you can expect a NIP with your monthly bill.
If you care about our freedoms and stopping the constant bashing of the
car driver, please sign the petition on No 10's new website
The idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong. Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay.
It will be an unfair tax on those who live apart from families and poorer people who will not be able to afford the high monthly costs.
Please Mr Blair - forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion.
>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT GET MARRIED
Whilst listening to Classic FM at approx 3pm Friday. I heard a rather crass piece of sensationalism normally attributed to more down market radio stations "A proposal of marriage on air" this in itself is rather tacky but when it turns out the conversation was between two men I obviously felt disgusted not just by the promotion of homosexuality but the inaccuracy of the fact one man asked another to marry him, to my knowledge there is no legal way Homosexuals can marry each other in the UK. They can enter a Civil Partnership, which even on the government web site states this is not a marriage, (The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is a British Act of Parliament enacted in 2004. ... to have the right to enter into a non-marriage civil partnership. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Partnership_Act - 29k - Cached - Similar pageso ) I presume this was some sensational reporting to get Classic FM free publicity? if that is the case it has worked
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Partnership_Act - 29k - Cached - Similar pageso ) I presume this was some sensational reporting to get Classic FM free publicity? if that is the case it has worked
Thursday, December 21, 2006
A PC HOLIDAY GREETING
A Friend sent me this
I wanted to send out some sort of holiday greeting but it is so difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone.
I met with my solicitor today, and on his advice I want to say to all of you:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the Winter or Summer solstice holiday, depending on whether you are currently resident or seeking refuge and/or asylum in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Great Britain great (not to imply that Great Britain is necessarily greater than any other country ), and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual preference of the wisher.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.
This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the
issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher...
"HAPPY HOLIDAYS"
I wanted to send out some sort of holiday greeting but it is so difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone.
I met with my solicitor today, and on his advice I want to say to all of you:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the Winter or Summer solstice holiday, depending on whether you are currently resident or seeking refuge and/or asylum in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Great Britain great (not to imply that Great Britain is necessarily greater than any other country ), and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual preference of the wisher.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.
This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the
issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher...
"HAPPY HOLIDAYS"
Monday, December 18, 2006
Prostitutes & Drugs
I like the rest of the country am shocked by the recent murders of the Prostitutes but we must learn lessons from this misery. Surely the time has come for legalised brothels as there will always be a need for men and women to pay for Sex, a lot of people say why bother paying it readily available at anytime free of charge, with young people treating the sex act and morality the same as playing a computer game. This may be the case but there are people who want to be totally dispassionate about the whole act, that being the case give the women a safe environment to work in.
My main concern is not what they are doing is why they are doing and it seems that “illegal drug dependency” is the cause. All we hear from the Police and the chattering classes is we should go after the dealers, great idea but no dealer can survive without customers. For far to long we have ignored the users, the people who keep the drug barons in power, stop treating occasional drug users as victims. Lets make example of these recreational drug takers and maybe there will be less addicts in then future, plus we could spend more money on the addicts who are victims.
I would come down hard on anyone caught with drugs no matter how small, first time offence a heavy fine relevant to their income i.e. 4 weeks money this would be fair as it would be relative, second offence 6 months prison and if there is not enough prisons build more. In the long term less people would take drugs, so therefore less people are in prison. Make high profile example of Pop Stars and people in Public life they are well aware they have big influence on the public so therefore they are duty bound to act responsible.
Will this happen NO because to many professional people want to protect their offspring from a criminal record, Pop Stars seem to think it’s a badge of rebellion to take drugs and all them have the money to get a cure but what of the kid on a Council Estate who can not afford the cure and just wants to emulate their hero’s.
Society has made drug use easy and has accepted it as part of life! Well that has not worked so time has come for draconian methods before we continue to fall further into the sew called “Modern Britain”
My main concern is not what they are doing is why they are doing and it seems that “illegal drug dependency” is the cause. All we hear from the Police and the chattering classes is we should go after the dealers, great idea but no dealer can survive without customers. For far to long we have ignored the users, the people who keep the drug barons in power, stop treating occasional drug users as victims. Lets make example of these recreational drug takers and maybe there will be less addicts in then future, plus we could spend more money on the addicts who are victims.
I would come down hard on anyone caught with drugs no matter how small, first time offence a heavy fine relevant to their income i.e. 4 weeks money this would be fair as it would be relative, second offence 6 months prison and if there is not enough prisons build more. In the long term less people would take drugs, so therefore less people are in prison. Make high profile example of Pop Stars and people in Public life they are well aware they have big influence on the public so therefore they are duty bound to act responsible.
Will this happen NO because to many professional people want to protect their offspring from a criminal record, Pop Stars seem to think it’s a badge of rebellion to take drugs and all them have the money to get a cure but what of the kid on a Council Estate who can not afford the cure and just wants to emulate their hero’s.
Society has made drug use easy and has accepted it as part of life! Well that has not worked so time has come for draconian methods before we continue to fall further into the sew called “Modern Britain”
Campaign Against Polical Correctness
Please look at these people site, it is a real eye opener. It seems the lunatics have taken over the asylum
Sunday, December 17, 2006
SEND A MESSAGE TO OUR BRAVE TROOPS
SWALE’S very own community radio, BRFM 95.6, is using the Internet to broadcast a special request show for local people who are serving overseas with the Armed Forces.
The programme, which will be broadcast on Friday 29th December during the Danny Lawrence Show, which runs from 1pm to 4pm, will play requests sent in from Swale families who have relatives serving abroad.
This unique broadcast is being organised in association with the Soldiers, Sailors and Airman Families Association whose local Chairman, Brian Lyons, will help present the programme.
BRFM 95.6 are accepting requests not only from people with relatives serving abroad, but also from ex servicemen who live in the Swale area and would like a record played.
Also involved in presenting the show will be Gordon Henderson and Cllr Ken Pugh.
Gordon said:
‘What a brilliant idea! I am old enough to remember Forces Favourites, which was broadcast by the BBC on a Sunday and played requests for members of the Armed Forces serving in Germany.
‘I suppose this is a Twenty First Century version, broadcast from here in Swale, but using the Internet to send messages to loved ones overseas.
‘I would urge local people to make good use of this service not only by sending in their requests to www.office@brfm.net but also by tuning in to BRFM 95.6 on Friday 29th December.
‘Anybody who doesn’t have access to a computer, but would still like to send a message to somebody servicing abroad, or simply have a tune played that reminds them of that person, can send their requests to me at the Halfway Conservative Hall and I will happily forward them to Danny Lawrence.’
The programme, which will be broadcast on Friday 29th December during the Danny Lawrence Show, which runs from 1pm to 4pm, will play requests sent in from Swale families who have relatives serving abroad.
This unique broadcast is being organised in association with the Soldiers, Sailors and Airman Families Association whose local Chairman, Brian Lyons, will help present the programme.
BRFM 95.6 are accepting requests not only from people with relatives serving abroad, but also from ex servicemen who live in the Swale area and would like a record played.
Also involved in presenting the show will be Gordon Henderson and Cllr Ken Pugh.
Gordon said:
‘What a brilliant idea! I am old enough to remember Forces Favourites, which was broadcast by the BBC on a Sunday and played requests for members of the Armed Forces serving in Germany.
‘I suppose this is a Twenty First Century version, broadcast from here in Swale, but using the Internet to send messages to loved ones overseas.
‘I would urge local people to make good use of this service not only by sending in their requests to www.office@brfm.net but also by tuning in to BRFM 95.6 on Friday 29th December.
‘Anybody who doesn’t have access to a computer, but would still like to send a message to somebody servicing abroad, or simply have a tune played that reminds them of that person, can send their requests to me at the Halfway Conservative Hall and I will happily forward them to Danny Lawrence.’
Thursday, December 14, 2006
VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDANT BRITAIN
An occasional Euro-briefing from Daniel Hannan
Vote for an independent Britain!
The Today programme on radio 4 is running a listeners poll to find the most unpopular law in Britain. The Christmas Repeal invites you to nominate the piece of legislation you would most like to see scrapped. You can vote online at www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/2006vote/
This is a huge step forward from two years ago, when Radio 4 wanted us to squeeze yet another law onto our already crammed statute book (in the event, listeners plumped for a Bill to allow householders to shoot intruders, but the Labour MP who had promised to propose the winning entry in Parliament backed out).
There are, of course, many otiose statutes: The Football Supporters Act, the Firearms Act, the Human Rights Act, the Hunting With Dogs Act and a goodly chunk of the illiberal legislation that has been brought in over the past five years under the guise of anti-terrorism legislation.
But there is surely one outstanding candidate for repeal: the 1972 European Communities Act. This is the piece of legislation that gives EU decisions automatic primacy over British Acts of Parliament. When it was passed, most people assumed that this precedence would be confined to cross-border questions, such as trade, competition and pollution. Thirty-four years on, we know better. Brussels is now the primary source of legislation in the United Kingdom, accounting for 80 per cent of our laws. This astonishing statistic, as regular readers of this bulletin will know, comes from the German Government; our own refuses to name a figure, claiming that it is too expensive to compile the data.
What is the point of voting when four out of every five legal acts in Britain are proposed, not just by people that we didn't vote for, but by unelected EU officials whom nobody voted for?
Scrap the 1972 European Communities Act, and we will automatically restore the supremacy our elected representatives. From that moment, EU directives and regulations would have force in this country only following a specific decision by Parliament to enact them; otherwise they would be treated as advisory.
I shall appear on the Today Programme on Thursday morning to argue the case for repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. If you share my belief in an independent, democratic Britain, please add your vote on the Today programme website. The address again: www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/2006vote/
Vote for an independent Britain!
The Today programme on radio 4 is running a listeners poll to find the most unpopular law in Britain. The Christmas Repeal invites you to nominate the piece of legislation you would most like to see scrapped. You can vote online at www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/2006vote/
This is a huge step forward from two years ago, when Radio 4 wanted us to squeeze yet another law onto our already crammed statute book (in the event, listeners plumped for a Bill to allow householders to shoot intruders, but the Labour MP who had promised to propose the winning entry in Parliament backed out).
There are, of course, many otiose statutes: The Football Supporters Act, the Firearms Act, the Human Rights Act, the Hunting With Dogs Act and a goodly chunk of the illiberal legislation that has been brought in over the past five years under the guise of anti-terrorism legislation.
But there is surely one outstanding candidate for repeal: the 1972 European Communities Act. This is the piece of legislation that gives EU decisions automatic primacy over British Acts of Parliament. When it was passed, most people assumed that this precedence would be confined to cross-border questions, such as trade, competition and pollution. Thirty-four years on, we know better. Brussels is now the primary source of legislation in the United Kingdom, accounting for 80 per cent of our laws. This astonishing statistic, as regular readers of this bulletin will know, comes from the German Government; our own refuses to name a figure, claiming that it is too expensive to compile the data.
What is the point of voting when four out of every five legal acts in Britain are proposed, not just by people that we didn't vote for, but by unelected EU officials whom nobody voted for?
Scrap the 1972 European Communities Act, and we will automatically restore the supremacy our elected representatives. From that moment, EU directives and regulations would have force in this country only following a specific decision by Parliament to enact them; otherwise they would be treated as advisory.
I shall appear on the Today Programme on Thursday morning to argue the case for repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. If you share my belief in an independent, democratic Britain, please add your vote on the Today programme website. The address again: www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/2006vote/
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
COUNCIL TAX CON
COUNCIL TAX CON
I expect most of you only have one house so what I am going to say will not affect you but as a landlord of several flats there is a con in my eyes with regard to Council Tax. If one of my flats is empty for more then 6 months (or any property) I have to pay 80% Council Tax on that property! Why there is no one living there so what is the Council Tax being spent on? Why cannot I own a property and leave it empty, it does not cost the Council or the government anything? Once again it is a way of taxing people by the back door.
I expect most of you only have one house so what I am going to say will not affect you but as a landlord of several flats there is a con in my eyes with regard to Council Tax. If one of my flats is empty for more then 6 months (or any property) I have to pay 80% Council Tax on that property! Why there is no one living there so what is the Council Tax being spent on? Why cannot I own a property and leave it empty, it does not cost the Council or the government anything? Once again it is a way of taxing people by the back door.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
£190 to cross channel
Last weekend I travelled to Germany to see relatives and visit Europe’s largest Christmas fair in Dortmund. The fair was marvellous and I recommend anyone to attend in fact it was more then a fair it was a spectacular, the main thing I noticed was the presentation nice wooden huts big bar areas a stage everything decked out in greener, English markets could learn a lot from the Germans.
A couple of things annoyed me why is it in Europe I pay 66p per litre for diesel and in the UK I pay 97p? Why is diesel considerably cheaper then petrol in Europe yet in the UK it is dearer?
I originally booked a ferry for the crossing which cost £85 return because of the very bad weather I cancelled and was charged a £30 cancellation fee no problem with that, so booked to go on the Euro Tunnel this cost £190, if Euro Tunnel want to make money, which through bad management they are not doing, they need to encourage people to use the tunnel these prices put people off. I for one will think twice about travelling again with them, plus they have an automated check in system which causes havoc and long queues on both sides of the channel, you are told to arrive ½ before departure to book in reality you have to be there 1 hour before because it took us ½ hour to go through check in. As for security there is none my daughter went with an out of date passport and it was not checked properly either side.
Queuing and long delays are common today the excuse being security but I wonder if it is just inefficiency and understaffing.
A couple of things annoyed me why is it in Europe I pay 66p per litre for diesel and in the UK I pay 97p? Why is diesel considerably cheaper then petrol in Europe yet in the UK it is dearer?
I originally booked a ferry for the crossing which cost £85 return because of the very bad weather I cancelled and was charged a £30 cancellation fee no problem with that, so booked to go on the Euro Tunnel this cost £190, if Euro Tunnel want to make money, which through bad management they are not doing, they need to encourage people to use the tunnel these prices put people off. I for one will think twice about travelling again with them, plus they have an automated check in system which causes havoc and long queues on both sides of the channel, you are told to arrive ½ before departure to book in reality you have to be there 1 hour before because it took us ½ hour to go through check in. As for security there is none my daughter went with an out of date passport and it was not checked properly either side.
Queuing and long delays are common today the excuse being security but I wonder if it is just inefficiency and understaffing.
CINEMA TO CLOSE "SO WHAT"
In the local paper their featured a piece on the closure of the local Cinema/Bingo Hall and the fact that a Christian group wanted to buy it and convert it into a church. One of your reporters commented that rather then let this building become a Church it should be a centre for the community, 1) “surely a Christian Church is a centre for the community” 2) presumably this community centre would be paid for by the Council.
My first reaction is why should the Council get involved in investing Council Tax payer’s money in a “Community Centre” what ever that means? Most of us know that these types of projects are usually not financially viable and become a drain on Council Tax payer’s money, with a small group of people running it with their own agenda. I own the building which houses the Swale Martial Arts Club which is an Amateur run body they would not expect to be financially supported by the local council and nor should they, there are grants available for small projects which are available if the Council think worthy. If a group wants to convert the Cinema into a Community Centre let them raise the money and run it as a non profit making self financing organisation, Council Tax payer’s money being put into projects like this is just another form of Tax and considering we are one of the most taxed counties in the world enough is enough.
What other things could be done with building 1) demolish it and build something else 2) Attract an apartment store to use it, it is big enough 3) Entertainment Centre i.e. restaurant, bar, night club etc 4) Indoor market with lots of small shops, cafes, antiques, ob je dar etc, 5) Offices 6) Casino. I am sure there is much more can be done but a Community Centre NO. With the state this country is in maybe we should encourage more Christian Churches maybe we they can the Christian ethic back into the UK where the government and political parties are failing remember our whole fabric of British Society is based on Christianity.
My first reaction is why should the Council get involved in investing Council Tax payer’s money in a “Community Centre” what ever that means? Most of us know that these types of projects are usually not financially viable and become a drain on Council Tax payer’s money, with a small group of people running it with their own agenda. I own the building which houses the Swale Martial Arts Club which is an Amateur run body they would not expect to be financially supported by the local council and nor should they, there are grants available for small projects which are available if the Council think worthy. If a group wants to convert the Cinema into a Community Centre let them raise the money and run it as a non profit making self financing organisation, Council Tax payer’s money being put into projects like this is just another form of Tax and considering we are one of the most taxed counties in the world enough is enough.
What other things could be done with building 1) demolish it and build something else 2) Attract an apartment store to use it, it is big enough 3) Entertainment Centre i.e. restaurant, bar, night club etc 4) Indoor market with lots of small shops, cafes, antiques, ob je dar etc, 5) Offices 6) Casino. I am sure there is much more can be done but a Community Centre NO. With the state this country is in maybe we should encourage more Christian Churches maybe we they can the Christian ethic back into the UK where the government and political parties are failing remember our whole fabric of British Society is based on Christianity.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Pension Rip Off
At 56 I had a look at my pension scheme I have been paying in for decades and decide I was not getting much from them. I telephoned and found that one pension was worth oa considerable ammount, yet when I came to claim I was told I could only get 25% as a cash payment, the government had brought in a law forbidding me to have access to MY MONEY!!!! it gets worse I had 25% and the rest as a monthly pension a pittance at £161.48p, my first payment came today and I was deducted £35.52p tax. Remember all the money I had paid in was taxed, these Robber Barons called Tony Blair and henchman Gordan Brown do not encourage people to prepare for old age, so I suggest that once you are 65 years old make sure you have no money or property and live off the state because LABOUR will not support you if you help yourself, they will continue to tax you to the hilt. I wonder what our local MP Derek Wyatt has to say on the subject.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
FREE DANCING FOR FAT PEOPLE
FAT PEOPLE TO HAVE FREE DANCE LESSONS
The latest gimmick from the new Labour Government is for “Over weight people to have free dance lessons” what a load of rubbish and waste of money!
Yes we have a problem in this country with people being unfit and overweight, this leads to all sorts of diseases, plus it could cost the NHS money. It could be argued that the government of the day should warn us about this and advise us to do something about it, the operable word is ADVICE not DICTATE, why does this government want to get involved in every aspect of our lives. One must ask the question how long will be before if you are over a certain weight you will be ordered to attend Dance Classes. What next Restaurants being ordered not to serve O.W.P. (over weight people), supermarkets restricting food to O.W.P.? That will never happen I hear you say “well they made laws making it an offence to smoke tobacco and in Scotland they want to try and bring out a law to restrict how much you can drink in a day” The British people are not dumb animals they have a brain and they can think plus they can make up their own minds.
For those people who wish to be fat and lazy surely that is their choice and why should they get preferential treatment over someone who trains, watches what they eat and has a healthy life style, if anyone should be rewarded it is them because they become less of a burden to the NHS, they have less time off work so over a lifetime pay more in taxes. What is over weight? I am 6ft 2inches and weigh 23st 7lbs according to the charts I have to be 15st 7lbs yet I am ex World Judo Champion and have not been 15st 7lbs since I was 15 years old, I train 5 times a week, watch my food and alcohol intake, eat healthily, my chest still bigger then my stomach and am very fit for a 56 year old man. My only problem is that I need a knee replacement as this gets worse I become more and more immobile, so get a new knee I hear you say! Well for the last 3 years I have been told I cannot have the operation because I am to heavy, I should lose 8 stone! The same money it would cost to operate on me, three others could have the operation, so is it weight or money or waiting lists yet if I go private at a cost of £10,000 my weight would not be a problem. I use this example to highlight the con of this business of O.W.P. the excuse not to look after you soon it will be lose weight or die. Recently a report came out stating that we should get away with the obsession of weight and concentrate on being fit, this to me is a common sense approach because as you start to train you begin to realise what effect alcohol and junk food have on your body and if you are lucky you will lose weight, for those who do not, well at least you will be a fit O.W.P. like me.
As for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown maybe they should concentrate on getting the country into better shape then interfering in what I do.
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
.
The latest gimmick from the new Labour Government is for “Over weight people to have free dance lessons” what a load of rubbish and waste of money!
Yes we have a problem in this country with people being unfit and overweight, this leads to all sorts of diseases, plus it could cost the NHS money. It could be argued that the government of the day should warn us about this and advise us to do something about it, the operable word is ADVICE not DICTATE, why does this government want to get involved in every aspect of our lives. One must ask the question how long will be before if you are over a certain weight you will be ordered to attend Dance Classes. What next Restaurants being ordered not to serve O.W.P. (over weight people), supermarkets restricting food to O.W.P.? That will never happen I hear you say “well they made laws making it an offence to smoke tobacco and in Scotland they want to try and bring out a law to restrict how much you can drink in a day” The British people are not dumb animals they have a brain and they can think plus they can make up their own minds.
For those people who wish to be fat and lazy surely that is their choice and why should they get preferential treatment over someone who trains, watches what they eat and has a healthy life style, if anyone should be rewarded it is them because they become less of a burden to the NHS, they have less time off work so over a lifetime pay more in taxes. What is over weight? I am 6ft 2inches and weigh 23st 7lbs according to the charts I have to be 15st 7lbs yet I am ex World Judo Champion and have not been 15st 7lbs since I was 15 years old, I train 5 times a week, watch my food and alcohol intake, eat healthily, my chest still bigger then my stomach and am very fit for a 56 year old man. My only problem is that I need a knee replacement as this gets worse I become more and more immobile, so get a new knee I hear you say! Well for the last 3 years I have been told I cannot have the operation because I am to heavy, I should lose 8 stone! The same money it would cost to operate on me, three others could have the operation, so is it weight or money or waiting lists yet if I go private at a cost of £10,000 my weight would not be a problem. I use this example to highlight the con of this business of O.W.P. the excuse not to look after you soon it will be lose weight or die. Recently a report came out stating that we should get away with the obsession of weight and concentrate on being fit, this to me is a common sense approach because as you start to train you begin to realise what effect alcohol and junk food have on your body and if you are lucky you will lose weight, for those who do not, well at least you will be a fit O.W.P. like me.
As for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown maybe they should concentrate on getting the country into better shape then interfering in what I do.
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
.
Monday, December 04, 2006
An Update on "A Squirrels Tale"
A SQUIRRELS TALE
REST OF THE WORLD VERSION:
The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.
The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
THE END
THE U.K. VERSION:
The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.
A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.
The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.
The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so, while others have plenty.
The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house.
The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing "We Shall Overcome".
Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his "fair share" and increases the charge for squirrels to enter inner London.
In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The squirrel's taxes are reassessed.
He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.
The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile. The squirrel's food is seized and re distributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper.
Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home.
The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Britain's apparent love of dogs.
The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempted bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody.
Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from people's credit cards.
A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel's food, though spring is still months away, while the council house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain the house.
He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshopper's drug 'illness'.
The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since arrival in UK.
The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks.
He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.
A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost £10,000,000 and state the obvious, is set up.
Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased.
The asylum-seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Britain's multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats.
The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison.
They call for the resignation of a minister.
The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in the United Kingdom.
The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.
THE END
REST OF THE WORLD VERSION:
The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.
The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
THE END
THE U.K. VERSION:
The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.
A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.
The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.
The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so, while others have plenty.
The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house.
The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing "We Shall Overcome".
Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his "fair share" and increases the charge for squirrels to enter inner London.
In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The squirrel's taxes are reassessed.
He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.
The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile. The squirrel's food is seized and re distributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper.
Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home.
The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Britain's apparent love of dogs.
The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempted bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody.
Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from people's credit cards.
A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel's food, though spring is still months away, while the council house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain the house.
He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshopper's drug 'illness'.
The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since arrival in UK.
The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks.
He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.
A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost £10,000,000 and state the obvious, is set up.
Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased.
The asylum-seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Britain's multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats.
The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison.
They call for the resignation of a minister.
The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in the United Kingdom.
The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.
THE END
Friday, December 01, 2006
Gaunt on TalkSport
No I am not a sports fan but I do listen to TalkSport Radio 1086 medium wave especially between 10am till 1pm where John Gaunt or GAUNTY as he likes to call himself, it is a really good show. Although I agree with hime most of the time just lately he is becoming the same as a lot of other journalist who continujally tell us "How marvelous the Eastern Europen workers are and how lazy the British workers are" tell me that 2 yaers ago I may have agreed with him. Like him I believe in what the USA does with regard to what I believe they call "Work Fair" Refuse to work no dole. Yet the cheap labour from the Eastern block is affecting genuine British Workers, my own Son in Law had to take a £40 a day drop in pay, his job as an odd carrier was usually around £120 a day now it is £80. He has left the firm who now pay £50 a day because Eastern Europeans will work for that money. The problem is most firms have now dropped there daily pay to £80 he is £200 a week worse of then he was two years ago but he still has to pay the bills. This is repeated all over the country most people in the biulding industry will tell you they earnt more money under Maggie Thatcher then they do now. As for their standard of work at best it is shoddy, I have been to Poland, Russia and Bulgaria I have seen there work. The government keep telling us that immigrants benefit the country well they certainly benefit Company Directors, share holders and people in large houses who get labour on the cheap but once again it is the ordnary man in the street who suffers and we supposed to have a government of the people!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
