Category Archives: hypocrisy

Stupid, stupid everywhere, and no-one stops to think.

Posted on by
3

Bugger it being a big weekend for sport, this has been one of the biggest weekends for idiocy I can remember in a long time. Let’s start with sport though;

Iran has indicated it will attend the 2012 Olympics in London, despite complaining that the Games logo resembles the word “Zion”.

I couldn’t help but chuckle when the story of a proposed boycott broke, but it would appear that perhaps it isn’t that important to them after all.

They objected on the grounds that its resemblance to the word Zion – a Biblical term for Israel – was racist.

But now the Iranian-backed Press TV has quoted an official as saying Iranians will “participate gloriously”.

Will they? Oh, that’s nice. It’s not often I agree with Cameron but he hits the nail on the head here:

In an interview with the London-based paper Jewish News, Mr Cameron said: “It’s completely paranoid. If the Iranians don’t want to come, don’t come – we won’t miss you.

I think Iran may have one or two more important things to worry about. Boycott the Olympics because the logo is a Zionist insult to Islam? Really? I can understand you boycotting the Olmypics because the logo is crap and a PR catastrophe, but this?

William Hague isn’t about to quit, and hasn’t lost his mojo and has the full support of the PM. That makes me think there’ll be a new Foreign Secretary before the month is out. It seems that Baldy Bill hasn’t learned from his mistakes of the past:

“So there’s a certain irony,” he adds. “People tell me there’s a newspaper article saying I lack energy, presumably written by some lounge lizard who’s rolled up at 11am and wondered what to write about (without being rude about journalists!) when I’m already on my second country that day. We’ve put a huge amount of new energy into British foreign policy.”

How many pints at how many pubs on the dray round? ‘When I’m already on my second country that day’? I have visions of Hague sat at a table, with the tablecloth tucked into his collar, knife and fork in hand.

What is it with politicians and willy waving? What is it with politicians and making laws, then deciding that the laws they’ve made don’t apply to them because they’re too important? EU law especially. I forget who it was who made the point in the House over the prisoner votes debate about the danger of governments picking and choosing which laws they abide by, and the SNP are masters of this.

Plans to introduce minimum drink pricing in Scotland will be revived if the SNP wins May’s Holyrood election.

If, although given the low regard the big three are held in at present, May probably can’t come quick enough for the SNP.

But they [the plans] were opposed by Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories, who said minimum pricing would penalise responsible drinkers and was probably illegal.

It doesn’t matter if it’s illegal though, because a politician wants to do it. The thing with politicians (especially Socialists) is that the rule of law is absolutely sacrosant, right up until the point where it is obstructive or inconvenient for them, then it must be ignored.

But addressing delegates, Ms Sturgeon, also the Scottish health secretary, will say the SNP acted like a government, while opponents acted disgracefully.

Oh, how telling. She’s right though, by completely disregarding a law they don’t like, the SNP have indeed acted just like I would expect a government to act. The disgraceful actions of the opposition must only refer to their saying ‘but that’s against the law, we can’t do that’, if so, I have no desire to be a disgrace, does this give me carte-blanche to ignore all laws? Because I’m game.

As Counting Cats pointed out the Ecoloons are already starting to make capital out of the quake and tsunami in Japan. He has some arseclown putting it all down to homeless polar bears, or something. Meanwhile in Germany. . .

The nuclear accident in Japan has sparked a discussion about atomic power in Germany, where a massive anti-nuclear protest was already planned for Saturday. A senior Green Party politician has said that some German plants are vulnerable to the same kind of failure as happened at Fukushima 1.

Riiiiiight. Vulnerable to the same kind of failure?

According to the US Geological Survey, the last earthquake in Germany was as recent as February 14th this year, it came in at a jaw dropping 3.9 on the Richter Scale. 3.9 is labelled as ‘often felt, but rarely causes damage‘. The difference between 3.9 in Germany and 8.9 in Japan is akin to the difference between dropping teaspoon on your kitchen floor and dropping a reinforced concrete box full of lead and elephants on your floor.

I can find no records of a tsunami in either the Baltic or the North Sea. So when you say that ‘some German plants are vulnerable to the same kind of failure as happened at Fukushima 1′, you mean that after an earthquake of unbelievable power and then being hit by a bloody great tsunami it still hasn’t blown up and made the east coast of Japan uninhabitable for the next four generations, I think I’d be tempted to take my chances. I wonder how many Japanese wind turbines are standing after the quake and tsunami. I’m betting not many, but then I’d be surprised if there were that many to start with, because the Japanese have more sense and realise that a functioning country is more important than making offerings to some green god.

It looks like 10,000 people in one town, half the town’s population, has been wiped out. It makes Aberfan look like a stubbed toe, and you have the gall to make capital out of it for your own self-importance and political agenda? The Greens really are some of the least attractive people about, there is no depth to which they will not stoop.

Does he have any redeeming features?

Posted on by
3

This descends into trivia, but has got my goat this weekend. If you want something with a little more import, head on over to Old Holborn’s place, where it would seem that some serious shit has gone down. . .

Anyway, who is it that does not have any redeeming features?

I could be talking about William Hague, who has not had a good couple of weeks as foreign secretary. Indeed he’s proven that the spirit of Palmerston is alive and well, although perhaps unfortunately for Baldy Bill, it seems to be living in the body of an assistant working on a whelk stall in Folkestone.

But I’m not though.

I could be talking about the poor old Duke of York, who appears to have made some very poor choices when it comes to friends. He’s accused of being boorish, heavy handed and of having bad judgement. Well, he did marry that woman after all.

But I’m not talking about him either.

I’m talking about one of the nastiest, meanest and downright objectionable people to have occupied the public stage for the last twenty five years. He is arrogant, lacking in grace and manners, bears grudges whilst suffering from a towering persecution complex, which is kind of ironic, given his history of embarking on campaigns against other individuals, and is a master of hypocrisy.

To many people he is a hero, to many more his is the role of villain, posturing, shouting and screaming, bullying and intimidating others. Who am I speaking of?

Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager of Manchester United. I have no club axe to grind here, I was the supporter of a small non-league team until they went out of business last summer. It always amuses me that the supporters of five or six clubs perpetually accuse each other of trying to buy the title, long gone are the days of the The Lisbon Lions, the Celtic team that won the 1967 European Cup when all team members were from within 30 miles of Glasgow. I have no problem with United, Ferguson I have a big problem with however.

His latest act was to refuse to speak to the media following United’s 3-1 away defeat to Liverpool over the weekend, he also barred his assistant, Mike Phelan (who normally does the talking to the BBC, more of which in a moment) and senior player Ryan Giggs from talking to the media post match. It is a mark of the man that on the fairly rare occasion when United lose (and for all his faults there is no doubt that for a generation, Ferguson has proven himself to be one of the best, if not the best in the game) this is the sort of stunt that he pulls. I cannot remember any occasion where having lost we’ve seen Ferguson come out and say ‘fair play to the opposition, they were the better team today and deserved the victory’. You see, Ferguson’s United, in his mind, are never beaten, they are cheated by a dishonest opposition, a negligent or colluding referee, a poor pitch, on one famous occasions by the colour of their shirts. I’m not a psychologist, but I’m betting he’s a fascinating case study and it certainly seems to work, I’m guessing that a lot of his team talks are based upon the concept of a band of brothers, struggling against a system which is set up to penalise them.

This latest episode all comes down to comments made by Ferguson following the recent game against Chelsea. United lost, and, surprise surprise, it was all down to the referee, Martin Atkinson. Atkinson, it would seem did not send off a Chelsea player that Ferguson considered should have been sent off. Ferguson said that he ‘feared the worst’ when he heard that Atkinson had been selected for the match and that ‘You want a fair referee – or a strong referee, anyway – and we didn’t get that.’

On the sending off that wasn’t he said: ‘He does Rooney clear as day, [Atkinson was] six yards from it, he doesn’t do anything’. Ferguson has form in this area and is the subject of a two match suspended ban for similar displays, he may well find himself barred from the dressing room and pitchside for four games when the wheels of FA justice finish turning. I have no problem with any manager or player criticising a poor refereeing performance, but here Ferguson is questioning the integrity of a fellow professional, and that isn’t on.

It is also the height of hypocrisy, given the line trotted out by Mike Phelan following an elbow that was thrown by Rooney in the game against Wolves, an assault which the referee decided did not merit ejection from the game, to the amazement of the non-United supporting public. Without any hint of irony, Phelan told the BBC that ‘The referee saw what he saw and he kept the game rolling. We can’t dispute a referee’s decision. He is out there on the field to take charge of the situation.’

Quite, well, what’s good for the goose, or does it only count if the decision is in United’s favour? If it isn’t then it can be disputed until the cows come home.

So why was Phelan talking to the BBC? Well, in 2004, the BBC made a documentary about Jason Ferguson, one of Sir Alex’s sons, who was acting as a player agent. The programme made some allegations about Jason’s activities and character that perhaps did not reflect well on either Ferguson. As a result of this, Ferguson never speaks to the BBC. I have never heard of any action taken against the BBC for defamation, so make your own judgements on that.

I can’t stand this man, his attitude, his behaviour, his face, his inability to chew gum with his mouth closed, his habit of threatening reporters who ask him a question he doesn’t like that they’ll never work again. In my opinion he is a bully, who tries to use his position to belittle others and expects special treatment, treatment that would have him ranting if others received it.

He’s not the only villain of the story, Wenger at Arsenal is notoriously short sighted, Carlo Ancelotti at Chelsea seems to blithely allow the most appalling behaviour from his charges, the list goes on. But Ferguson takes the biscuit. The best line I heard about him was on the radio the other day; ‘He could start an argument with the Dalai Lama, in a prozac factory.’

I detest him, especially when you consider him against the character of one of his contemporaries, the late, great Sir Bobby Robson.

How modern Unionism works.

Posted on by
Reply

Make a joke about stoning a leftie. . .

Roger McKenzie, Unison’s West Midlands regional secretary, said he had been inundated with complaints from city council workers outraged at Mr Compton’s comments and he called on Mr Compton to resign from the council.

Destroy property and throw fire extinguishers at police officers. . .

We reject any attempt to characterise the Millbank protest as small, “extremist” or unrepresentative of our movement… We stand with the protesters, and anyone who is victimised as a result of the protest.’

 As with all authoritarian organisations it is one rule for you, one for them.

(I’ll bet poor old Roger was shagged out after chasing round and browbeating all those people into complaining.)

Compare and contrast.

Posted on by
Reply

I’m making no points about either event, but how does (emphasis mine):

New rules aimed at banning discrimination by employers, covering areas such as age, disability and pay, have come into force.

The Equality Act covers many workplace areas and draws nine separate pieces of legislation into a single Act.

Sit with:

The national minimum wage has risen to £5.93 an hour from £5.80 and for the first time people aged 21 will benefit from the rate.

[...]There are also corresponding increases for younger workers, with 16 and 17-year-olds seeing a rise from £3.57 an hour to £3.64.

So in effect, if an employer were to deny a 17 year old a promotion on the basis that they were too young, they’d be liable to prosecution under the new Equality Act. However, the government is totally at liberty to limit minimum wage payments for those under 21.

Some are obviously more equal than others. . .

The One That Is Marvelling . . .

Posted on by
Reply

Election time is over, let the stupidity begin!

Where to start? There really are some idiots out there.

Let’s start with the cabin crew at BA, pictured standing outside the High Court singing ‘We are the champions’ as the injunction on their strike was overturned. I’m very pleased for you. CF has a very eloquent rant on the stupidity of their stance. If they’ve not driven the final nail into their own coffin, then they’ve certainly lined it up and whacked their thumb with the hammer.

I went on holiday a couple of months ago and BA were cheaper by about £50 per ticket and the take off and landing times in London were much more convenient for me, but I chose to fly Virgin. Why? Simple, I knew that the Virgin staff would turn up for work. Anyone booking a BA flight at the moment must be doing so with fingers crossed in hope. As CF points out, who is going to trust BA now? The holidaymakers won’t, the business men and women won’t, who does that leave? No-one. BA will be dead by the time the decade is out, and then where will these cabin crew be? I’ll tell you, they’ll be whining at the government for not taking our money off us and putting it in their pockets whilst they get paid a shitload more than the staff at Virgin, get free flights and all the other perks.

Tough shit. There’s thousands of people who’d love to have your job. I’m sure a long haul flight is hard work, I have no doubt that the travelling public are the biggest collection of idiots and arseholes you’ll ever encounter, but really, you’ve got it very easy and you’re throwing it all away. Your loss, not mine, I’ve plenty of choice, see you later on.

OH then links to more stupid. This time from an article in the Graun.

The poor old MPs are having a tough time of it. They’re not being given unfettered access to our money.

Aw, diddums. Here’s a point, we’ve just had an election. If the T&C’s of your employment were so onerous, why the bloody hell did you stand? Are you simple? This sort of thing just underlines how little this new politics differs from the old:

We just have to accept this because the public is not with us. It will take something really horrendous, such as a woman MP being stabbed on the streets of London because she is not entitled to take a taxi home late at night, before people wake up and realise how unfair this is.

Really? Has there been some new Act passed which forbids politicians to stand on Whitehall with their hand in the air, hailing a cab, telling the nice man where they want to go and then putting their hand in their own pocket, rather than mine, and paying the fare?

No-one pays for my transport from work to home. I have to pay for that myself. And it’s not as if you’re having to pay for transport from Penzance or Perth to Westminster, is it? No, you’re getting a cab to your second home. A second home paid for by me.

If one of you get stabbed on the street, then perhaps you’ll have an understanding of the world the rest of us live in. Now, let’s think, who could possibly change that world?

Thirteen years of Labour’s entitlement culture, why am I surprised? They’ve been telling everyone how they are deserving of this and that. Not any more, that ship has sailed.

This new government is ticking some boxes at the moment. The civil liberties thing is going down very well with me. I also enjoyed Sarko’s very glum expression when Cameron was talking last night. No doubt the odious little shit was browbeating Dave for our bizarre decision to have stayed out of the Euro thus far, and the even more peverse decision to stay as far away from this phoney currency as we possibly can now. These Greek retirees with their huge state pensions and French farmers being paid an awful lot to produce fuck all aren’t going to feed themselves, you know. It’s our duty to bankrupt ourselves even further, to take food from our own childrens’ mouths just to ensure these lazy, corrupt, grasping arseclowns can continue to be kept in the style to which they have become accustomed.

Sorry Jean-Paul, you’re own your own. You spent years trying to block our produce in direct contravention of the free-trade rules and now you come crying to us because you’re broke? Three points: 1 – Fuck you. 2 – We’re broke too. 3 – Fuck you.

The sooner this corrupt, anti-democratic and protectionist currency and international experiment comes crashing down, the better. Hopefully Cameron digging his heels in will hasten that collapse.

Yes, it’s all being going quite nicely from my point of view. Oh, hello? What’s this?

The UK’s coalition government has pledged to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price in an effort to cut binge drinking in England and Wales.

The plan is likely to ban retailers from running loss leader promotions on lager, wine and alcopops.

The coalition said that it would also review alcohol taxation and pricing and strengthen licensing powers.

You stupid, stupid fucks. Can you not make the connection? Is it so difficult, or are you just so hard of thinking? What is the difference between:

There were some bad apples who did terrible things with their expenses. The system had to change. But decent people in all parties are being treated in an infantile way.

And then bumping up the price of booze because:

Police officers frequently report that some of the young people they deal with arrive in pubs well on the way to being drunk thanks to cheap alcohol bought and consumed earlier in the evening.

Do you see? Do as you would be done by. You’ve treated us like this for years, and now you’re getting some back. Not very nice, is it? Good. I hope it makes you miserable, you arrogant, preaching righteous fucks.

The One That Is Surprised And Not Surprised . . .

Posted on by
1

Sky News (TV, can’t find a link) have just reported this morning that Baroness Scotland has been find £5000 by the UKBA for employing an overstayer.

The comment from Eamonn Holmes was that she ‘will accept the fine.’ Well that’s gracious of her, isn’t it? Is that a line we can all take? Or is it only senior politicians that can decide whether they accept a fine or not?

It matters not, she’ll probably claim it on her expenses, anyway.

Of more concern is the report that she doesn’t see this as a resigning matter.

Riiiight.

So the government’s senior legal officer breaks a law that she was instrumental in pushing through and as the highest legal figure in the country, doesn’t see it as an issue when she breaks the law she is sworn to uphold.

So, if breaking the law isn’t cause for a resignation, what the hell is?

It isn’t one law for us and one law for them, it is one law for us and no law for them.

The One That Is Going To Write To Ofcom. . .

Posted on by
Reply

I’m going to sit in on Sunday, waiting for Songs of Praise, just so I can be offended after reading this snivelling whinging guff from the ridiculous self-obsessed sky pixie brigade.

Angry Coronation Street viewers have complained to Ofcom and ITV after a character made “anti-Christian” remarks during an episode on Easter Sunday.

The broadcast watchdog said it received 23 complaints over Ken Barlow referring to the faith as “superstition” and God as a “supernatural being”.

Oh for crying out loud, just get a life won’t you?

One minute you’re bleating about how God is all powerful, created the universe etc, etc, and the next your bellyaching that ‘To choose this script on the most holy day in the Christian calendar is insulting and greatly offensive.‘

Well isn’t that the ultimate in offence by proxy? Taking offence that a fictional character said something you don’t agree with about a character who is either a; fictional themselves, or b; omnipotent.

So either it doesn’t matter, or God who is all powerful really won’t give a flying fuck.

And besides, if Easter Day is the holiest day in the Christian calendar, then why are you spending it watching Coronation Street, you hypocritical fuckers?

What a bunch of arseclowns.