Friday, 23 October 2009

Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time

This country allows a right of free speech. Those protesting that the BNP should not be heard are far more dangerous to our society than the BNP will ever be. They like anyone else should have their say, then the public, who have more intelligence than the UAF give them credit for, can vote as they see fit.

The BBC were right to have Nick Griffin on, he is the legitimate leader of a legitimate party. They were wrong to treaat the programme as a lesson in character assassination, it is not what that programme is about.

Having said that I thought he done himself no favours, came across as nervous, unsure of himself and even weaker as a leader than Gordon Brown if that were possible. It was Griffins perfect opportunity to dispel some of the myths about his party and give a reasonable argument as to why they believe some of their policies are necessary - he had his chance and he blew it. By the way why are they referred to as far right? their views on immigration may be but if you take the time to actually read their policies instead of just those publicised by others with an axe to grind, in most other areas they are the furthest left party we have.

I heard the answer to the one question I was hoping to hear last night and it came from the Tory
Sayeda Warsi  (love her accent, what is it Islamcashire?) on immigration, basically they will have set numbers (could be none) each year depending on many factors such as discussions with industry leaders as to how many employees are needed. (Not sure if this meant we could refuse other EU immigrants though). I don't want to see minorities repatriated, just recognition that this is an Island with finite space and resources and can not support an infinite population.

But the having said all that about Griffin, Jack Straw still managed to come across as the biggest knob on the panel.

Tuesday, 13 October 2009

A Picture (in this case a Video) Is Worth A Thousand Words

I was going to post my disgust at the blatant propaganda, selective use of "facts", scare-mongering and brain-washing tactics of this government funded (for funded read our money wasted) television advert.

Then I realised there was no need. The following video sums up my feelings far better than any words I write could possibly manage.

Improved video courtesy of The Londn Fog

White Christmas ?

At 8 a.m. this morning I left for work to find my car windscreen frozen over. Not up a mountain or in the Arctic Circle but on the sunny South Coast of England.

Can't remember it happening this early before. Global warming my arse, get your money on a White Christmas.

Monday, 12 October 2009

A Refreshing Change

I've not blogged for a few days. There's plenty I could write about, the Internet only England match, MPs expensed revisited, the Strictly Factor attempts to out-scandal each other.
But no.  There's something far more important. I have discovered Crabbie's Original Alcoholic Ginger Beer.
I picked up a couple of bottles on offer in a small corner shop thinking it would something different and worth a try, and if I didn't like it Mrs W likes ginger ale so it wouldn't go to waste. Two bottles later we were almost fighting over the last mouthful. This really is a ginger beer, not a ginger flavoured ale, and unlike some soft drinks it has the perfect amount of ginger to give it a real kick but without being overpowering. Refreshing drunk cool from the fridge ( we drank it straight, the label recommends a slice of lemon or lime) it also gives a warm glow as it goes down, so it's likely to be just as nice at room temperature on a cold winters evening. And at 4% alcohol a very pleasant way to spend an evening I'd imagine. Maybe I'll get a bottle of their Ginger Wine as well for those more "sophisticated" occasions
My next mission is to find a local pub stocking it. I can't imagine the big mega-brewery owned pubs would touch it,  but if anyone knows of any proper pubs serving it in the Hampshire area please leave a comment. Oh, and if anyone from Crabbie's is reading and has any free samples available .....

Friday, 9 October 2009

Bye Bye Brown

The present parliament MUST expire no later than Midnight, May 10th 2010.
Can it come quick enough ?

Friday, 2 October 2009

Flying Down To Rio ?

Today is decision day for the IOC to annonuce the host city for the 2016 Olympics. There are 4 contenders.

Chicago: Atlanta was generally accepted as the worst run games in living memory - Chicago could find themselves tarred with their brush.  In fact they should be refused just to show Obama that not every thing he touches turns to gold (although I'm sure he'll be finding that out soon anyway, but that's a different issue) Also, any country that holds World Series in sports that only they take part in doesn't really understand the Olympic ideal.

Madrid: Surely not likely that a European city will be picked to follow London in 2012. Insistence that bull-fighting be included also likely to count against them. Also it's within driving distance of Germany which will mean delays in the swimming events whilst they clear the towels from around the pool

Tokyo: Asia is a huge continent but with recent games held in Beijing and Seoul it's too early for a return to that continent. Japanese always come up with rubbish mascots wich should also count against them big time. As should  the little known fact that the Olympic rings translate, when written in Japanes characters, as "Your  Mum".

 Rio de Janeiro: The logical choice. The Olympics has never yet been held in South America, it's time they had their chance. City plagued by child street gangs but combining the marathon with the shooting events could help solve the problem in an exciting and entertaining way. Apart from football, Brazil is a country not renowned for sporting excellence so maybe their most famous resident of all time, Ronnie Biggs, could  light the flame at the opening ceremony. Another advantage would be the chance of some new corporate sponsors, with Kleenex being the logical choice for Rio's beach volleyball tournament.

Yep, Rio gets my vote

Thursday, 1 October 2009

TV Licence Warning

I have always though that, notwithstanding the fact that it's compulsory, compared with a Sky or Cable TV subscription the BBC Licence Fee is grea value for money. But now they are taking the piss.

I recently had a letter from them at my place of work. One of those "we notice you don't have a licence, tell us why not" type letters. I didn't even bother reading it properly, just returned it stating none was required - after all there is no tv on the premises.  After sending the reply I re-read the letter, it would appear that anyone with a laptop or pc with an internet connection now requires a licence as the BBC has now made it's content available live online. At home your existing licence would cover it, but apparently not at work.

How can this be fair? Both my laptop and PC at work are several years old and at the time they were purchased would have had to have used a separate TV tuner to show any programmes. Why should I now have to pay a licence fee just because the BBC have  chosen to make some of their content available online? No-one asked me if I wished to make use of such a service. Surely it is not beyond the realms of their technical wizards to come up with a sign in system where you enter the serial number of your current licence as a password before their content can be viewed.

An acquaintance told me that he had a similar letter at a restaurant he ran, coincidentally  within days of watching a live soccer match via his mobile (don't ask me how that works, I've no idea). It could of course have been a customers mobile that was being used without his knowledge but that didn't deter them from their enquiries. In that case it was conceded that the mobile was a battery operated device covered by his home licence. I don't ever recall watching any live BBC at work, (I-Player yes) possibly PMQs once or twice but no idea if that comes under the BBC banner or not. if it does, maybe that triggers off their investigation

Despite me returning the letter stating I don't need one, I received a reply which includes the following - "We'd therefore appreciate your help when one of our TV Licensing Officers  visits you shortly."  Almost sinister and threatening in it's tone.  I can't help but read it  in a "Ve haft vays ov making you talk" voice.

It seems that just as Channel Four decides to drop Big Brother, he is now alive and well and residing a the BBC.

(Hopefully this post can't be traced to my address, otherwise this could be the last you ever hear from me )