Thursday - February 05, 2009

THE FACE OF THE ENEMY ….. WHAT AN UGLY PUTRID DARK AGES AND EVIL LOOKING SCUM.

PUTRID doesn’t entirely cover it but it’ll have to do.

Iraqi woman recruited army of female suicide bombers by having them raped… then told them martyrdom was only way to escape shame

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 11:18 AM on 05th February 2009

An Iraqi woman allegedly recruited female suicide bombers by having them raped - then persuading them martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Ahmed Jassim, who is also known by the nickname ‘Umm al-Mumineen’ (the mother of believers), is believed to be responsible for persuading more than 80 women to join her cause.

She has been arrested by the military and was shown confessing in a video played for reporters at a press conference in Baghdad.

The mother of all believers: Samira Ahmed Jassim, pictured in a detention facility in Baghdad yesterday, has been arrested on suspicion of recruiting 80 female suicide bombers

Dressed in an all-encompassing black Islamic robe, she described how she would persuade the women to be bombers, then escort them to an orchard for insurgent training and finally pick them up and lead them to their targets.

She said she was acting on behalf of insurgents based in the volatile Diyala province, north of Baghdad.

Iraqi military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said the suspect had recruited more than 80 women willing to carry out attacks and had admitted masterminding 28 bombings in different areas.

The number of bombings carried out by women has spiked even as overall violence has declined, and U.S. commanders have warned insurgents are actively trying to find more recruits.

The use of female suicide bombers is part of a shift in insurgent tactics to avoid detection at U.S.-Iraqi military checkpoints that have become ubiquitous in Iraq as part of increased security measures.

Iraqi women often are allowed to pass through male-guarded checkpoints without being searched, and they traditionally wear flowing black robes that make it easier to hide explosives belts.

For the rest of the article and another photo, see THE CREEP

Posted by peiper     on 02/05/2009 at 11:45 AM   
Filed Under: • RoPMA • Terrorists • War On Terror •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

now why think for yourself when you have a govt. more then happy to do it for ya?

Well if this don’t beat all.

The question I have is, what is to stop anyone who wants more from just doubling up on their buying.

I guess the next step will be a doctor’s Rx for candy bars for certain ppl.  Seems logical.  It all starts with one really small step.

Chocolate bars to be made smaller in Government anti-obesity drive

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:30 PM on 05th February 2009

Crisis: Obesity ‘threatens to puts 90 per cent of youngsters at risk of related illnesses’

The Government is set to order manufacturers to shrink the size of chocolate bars and fizzy drinks.

Health Secretary Alan Johnson will tell firms such as Mars, Coca-Cola, Britvic and Nestlé that smaller versions of their products should be available in all garages and corner shops to help stop people piling on weight.

Speaking to the Business4Life coalition of companies, Mr Johnson will ask them to create healthy new snacks that will appeal to children and cut down portion sizes.

He will also say small packs of dried fruit, nuts and fresh fruit should be widely available at places where people buy on impulse and warn that sugar levels must be cut in all products.

Mr Johnson will say: ‘People want to eat more healthily. I challenge the industry to come up with healthier snacks. That’s not just good for the nation’s health, it’s also good for business.’

While many companies do offer smaller sizes, they are often only available if consumers ‘bulk buy’, he will say.

For example, multi-pack crisp sizes are generally 25g a bag compared with 34.4g on general sale, while multi-pack chocolate bars are 54g compared with a normal 62.5g.

OK, I need to splain somethin’ here. A translation for fellow Yanks who might not be aware of this.

Over here, potato chips are called “CRISPS."

What Americans call French Fries, are known here as, “CHIPS."

so, to continue,

The obesity drive is part of the Change4 Life campaign and could lead to tougher regulation if the warnings go unheeded.

The Government believes businesses can create a new world leading ‘healthy market’ to help drive down obesity.

Anti-obesity drive: Firms such as Mars and Nestle will be asked to scale-down the size of their chocolate bars

While many companies have invested in low sugar options, the sugar content of normal food and drink should also be cut and not just replaced with artificial sweeteners,Mr Johnson will tell the businessmen.

Consumer tastes are changing and people want healthier foods, which has to be good for business, Mr Johnson will argue.

One example is that the public eats 10 per cent more fruit compared with 2005 and most people choose brown bread instead of white.

Mr Johnson will say: ‘We were raised to waste not want not so if we buy a big chocolate bar, we’ll eat it all.
Coke Bottle
Britvic

Coca-Cola and Britvic will be among the drinks manufacturers asked to make smaller versions of their products for sale in garages and corner shops

‘If snack sizes were available it would help us to eat less.

The Business4Life coalition, led by the Advertising Association, has committed £200million to the Change4Life campaign over the next four years.

Supermarkets and gyms are among more than 12,000 businesses, charities and local groups who have agreed to promote healthy living as part of the Government’s programme.

It is designed to halt an obesity epidemic that threatens to leave 90 per cent of youngsters at risk of obesity-induced illness and cost the NHS £50billion a year by 2050.

Research for the Department of Health found most parents underestimated the issue, with almost nine out of 10 failing to recognise that their children were overweight or obese.

pssst, hey lady. want a larger candy bar?

Posted by peiper     on 02/05/2009 at 10:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Health-Medicine • Miscellaneous • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Fans’ fury as TV cuts away from the climax (and only goal) of Everton-Liverpool cup game…

Imagine you’re a huge fan of this (any) game and this happens.

I also had to post this cause Wardmom’s daughter is an Everton fan, and I haven’t seen anything on that team in yonks. Britspeak for a looong time.

This’d drive me up the wall were I fan of any game.

I used to be a fan of football (American) until the game passed away sometime in the 60’s I think it might have been.
And all my baseball favorites are gone now so that’s dead to me as well.  I could never make up my mind if it was da bums I liked or the calls by Vince Scully, the very best who ever did that job.  Hey .... I remember Bill Stern. Liked Mel Allen too.  He got us kids to try White Owl cigars (radio commercials) and we got sick.  Very sick.  But what fun.

I have edited the article for space but if you want the whole thing, IT’S HERE

Video below but do see the article link for more pix and diagram on the site.  Interesting stuff.  Ya know ,,, I think I could get to like this sport. It sure seems to move fast. Kind of like our football used to.  I’ve never watched a soccer game before.  Do they break for commercials in soccer also?
I’m not being funny. I really don’t know.

Fans’ fury as TV cuts away from the climax (and only goal) of Everton-Liverpool cup game… to a Tic-Tac ad

By Rashid Razaq
Last updated at 1:35 PM on 05th February 2009

ITV sparked a storm of protest last night after millions of viewers missed the dramatic ending of a live FA Cup match.

As the televised clash between Everton and Liverpool reached its climax, coverage of the game suddenly switched to adverts for Volkswagen cars and Tic-Tac sweets.

When the football returned, viewers were stunned to see that they had missed the only goal of the game - and were only able to see the Everton players celebrating Dan Gosling’s dramatic winner.

WHAT YOU SAW: ITV displayed this Tic-Tac advert during the crucial minute when Everton scored a last-gasp winning goal against Liverpool

Football fans immediately called for the broadcaster to be stripped of its FA Cup television rights and nearly 100 complaints were registered on the ITV website within an hour of the end of the programme.

ITV today announced it is launching an investigation into the cause of the fault, but said it was too early to say whether it had been due to human error.

Fans were angry as the match coverage cut away to adverts in the 27th minute of extra time with the fourth round replay stuck at 0-0 and heading for penalties.

ITV returned to the live action only for fans to see Everton’s goal celebrations. Host Steve Ryder apologised, laying the blame on ‘technical problems’ while ITV showed images of Everton fans at Goodison Park.

But the problems continued as ITV went to adverts again and cut back midway into a post-match interview with Gosling. After the programme the channel went to a test card for more than five minutes before resuming normal service with News at Ten.

Ryder, discussing the match with studio pundit Andy Townsend, said: ‘Well, it was a dream strike from Gosling and Liverpool’s goose was cooked, and technically I’m afraid it came at a pretty bad time for us as well. If you missed the goal our apologies for the technical problems we had at that time.

What you didn’t see: Everton’s Dan Gosling (2nd from right) shoots past Liverpool’s keeper Jose Reina to score during their FA Cup fourth round replay soccer match

Posted by peiper     on 02/05/2009 at 10:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Sports • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Barack Obama needs to learn that apologising is for wimps.

It hardly matters to me (sometimes but not always) what this lady writes.  I just think she writes well and knows how to use the language. Very often she is quite funny.  I also like her looks. Which is not why I posted this article. But it is why I posted her photo.

Barack Obama needs to learn that apologising is for wimps
Politicians shouldn’t apologise, it just undermines our confidence in them, says Bryony Gordon.

By Bryony Gordon
Last Updated: 8:34AM GMT 05 Feb 2009

They say that sorry seems to be the hardest word. Certainly, Carol Thatcher has been having some trouble with it of late, especially regarding conversations about tennis players and the resemblance they may or may not bear to children’s toys. Gordon Brown also finds it a difficult one to get his mouth around, particularly in relation to the crumbling economy. Instead, he seems to have opted for the political equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming: “SNOT MY FAULT, IT’S THEIRS.”

But the best non-apology ever must surely go to former defence secretary Des Browne. Of the sailors captured in Iran two years ago, and his decision to allow them to sell their stories, he said: “I have expressed a degree of regret that can be equated with an apology.”
Oh Des. A bunch of flowers would have sufficed.

Politicians don’t really do apologies, which is why the world briefly teetered on its axis this week when Barack Obama issued one, and a heartfelt one at that. Just two weeks into his presidency, Obama went on television to talk about Tom Daschle, the man he had nominated as health and human services secretary, a man who was forced to withdraw after it transpired that he had forgotten to pay some of his taxes. While any self-respecting politician would have stood up and pinned all the blame on Daschle, Obama went on record to praise him, and then blame himself. “I screwed up,” he said. “I take responsibility for this mistake.”

I’m sorry? Come again?

Most people believe this to be a very good thing indeed. They think “good grief, the man even apologises! And by admitting his mistakes, he has just proved himself to be even more perfect.” But I am not so convinced. I don’t want the most powerful man in the world to admit that he has screwed up, and so early on. I didn’t much care about this Daschle fellow, but thanks to this mea culpa my confidence in the Leader of the Free World has been severely dented. I’m sorry, but apologising is for wimps.

I know this because I do it all the time. Someone treads on my foot. I say sorry. A person knocks me on the Tube. I say sorry. I throw a one pound coin into the hat of a busker only to miss. I say sorry. If a burglar was hurt crashing through my front window, I would probably say sorry. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I know quite a few people who apologise all the time, and what we have in common is that we are all pathetic, weedy excuses for human beings. Bosses, friends and family do not think we are decent people – they just think that we have self esteem issues and could do with some therapy.

I don’t think I can deal with another four years of Mr Obama saying sorry every time he screws up, which he inevitably will. Eventually it will seem tedious, needy and grasping rather than charming. Never apologise, never explain, Barack.

BRYONY

Posted by peiper     on 02/05/2009 at 08:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Golly: now we know what’s truly offensive.  (an interesting editorial on yesterday’s subject)

I was happy to see this editorial today following the big deal the BBC has made over a PRIVATE comment by Carol Thatcher recently.

Of course, the man writing this is a well known conservative which means he really does believe in freedom.

“those who are forced to fund it” Translation for Americans who might not know about this, the taxpayer over here, who must pay a yearly fee for having a TV set.
Over a certain age and the fee is waived.  I don’t know what age that waiver kicks in but expect something from the agency that oversees this sort of thing to notify us that we have something to pay, since the mil passed away and we still have her TV here.  And btw ... we haven’t watched the darn thing in years. It was in the old lady’s room and we’ve no desire to see whatever is being shown.

I suppose we’ll most likely have to rid ourselves of the TV. But it isn’t any great loss to be honest.  We can catch show afters broadcast right on the computer, for 7 days after original broadcast, if something appears in our paper or TV schedule in the paper.  The only time I have done that is recently with BBC radio on the bio of Gene Krupa. 
Amazing how little we miss TV.
I will confess that were it not for computers and You Tube and loads of books, well.  Who knows. I might look to TV for the odd thing. 

In sacking Carol Thatcher for saying ‘golliwog’ while off air, but allowing Jonathan Ross to remain in his job, the BBC has revealed its contempt for those who are forced to fund it , says Charles Moore.

By Charles Moore
Last Updated: 11:47AM GMT 05 Feb 2009

Throughout Carol Thatcher’s childhood, the Golliwog was a popular toy Photo: The Advertising Archives

Commenting on the BBC’s decision to sack Carol Thatcher from The One Show because she described a tennis player as looking like a “golliwog”, a spokesman for the corporation said: “The BBC considers any language of a racist nature wholly unacceptable.”

This raises a few questions. First, how can he/she be so sure that the remark was “racist”? All through Carol Thatcher’s childhood – indeed, until into her thirties – golliwogs were popular toys. Robertson’s jam marketed itself with a golliwog, which appeared on every jar. You could collect golliwog stickers and send them off, and then you got a smart metal golliwog badge.

Carol Thatcher liked the jam and she liked the golliwog. When she said that the mixed-race Jo-Wilfried Tsonga resembled a golly, she was making a friendly joke, rather as someone of the same generation might say, “Ooh, he looks just like Rupert Bear” (or Captain Pugwash, or Noggin the Nog).

To get the measure of how Carol talks and thinks, you need to understand that she is not at all like her mother – except that both women speak their mind. Carol is not full of opinions or highly conscious of politics or deeply serious. She is a friendly, spontaneous, amused person, who, for someone who has been so close to power, is attractively unsophisticated. She is certainly not politically correct, but nor is she determinedly, fiercely, politically incorrect, as her father, Denis, was. She is, for want of a better word, normal. The idea that she feels racial malice is absurd.

If Carol used the supposedly shocking word “golliwog”, you can be quite sure that she used it without malice – indeed, with good will. The worst that you could possibly say about her was that her choice of words was thoughtless.

But, before you say that, you come to the second question. Since when has the BBC decided that what is said off screen, in the studio, is a matter of career life or death? I have spent more hours than I care to remember sitting in BBC studios, and the remarks I have heard in them, often delivered by household names, have frequently strayed – I am putting this politely – from the standards supposedly demanded by the BBC on air. I have heard racism (usually against Americans), sexism (usually against Carol’s mother), blasphemy, obscenity, rage, bias. If I had decided to profess myself “shocked” (as Adrian Chiles, the presenter of The One Show, did), and if I had then sneaked to the authorities, would the speaker have been thrown out of his job? Should he have been?

A BBC executive might argue – though I would disagree – that the word “golliwog” is so offensive that it should never be broadcast. As an experienced broadcaster herself, Carol Thatcher might be expected to be aware of that sensitivity and be careful about it. But she was not broadcasting. She committed no offence, professional or moral – not even, since the person she described was not in the room, an offence of manners.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, the “telescreen” compulsorily present in every house is not only a television broadcasting from the outside, but a sort of CCTV camera, observing the people in the room, shouting at them if they fail to meet the standards ordained by the state of which Big Brother is the dictator, always watching them. The BBC would appear to have adapted this concept for everyone who comes under its roof.

A third question arises for the corporation. We have it from its spokesman’s own lips that any racist language is “wholly unacceptable”. How does that square with its fervent commitment, constantly repeated in the affair of Jonathan Ross, to “cutting edge” comedy?

The justification of being “edgy” is that offence is necessary to “push the boundaries” of creativity. It is thus considered appropriate to use the F-word, sometimes as much as 25 times in one programme, although – or rather, because – that word, when used in public, upsets millions of people. The word “golliwog”, on the other hand, is so unbearably wicked that its user must be punished, even when only a few other people, who happened to be sitting in the room, actually heard it.

You and I might think that the joys of “edgy” comedy are overrated, but if we are to have it, wouldn’t it be edgier to have words like “golliwog” scattered about as well? Why not antagonise Disgusted of Brixton, as well as Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

Jonathan Ross asked David Cameron, on television, whether he ever masturbated about Lady Thatcher. For this, and similar sallies of consummate edginess, Ross is paid £6 million a year, which is more than any other employee of the BBC in the whole of its history.

(David Cameron is the head of the conservative party here. The Tory Party. Referred to as Tories.)

Since his return, he has encouraged a man on his radio programme to go and have sexual intercourse with a woman in her eighties who has Alzheimer’s.

Even when Ross rang up Andrew Sachs, a 78-year-old Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, and left obscene (broadcast) messages about how Russell Brand had slept with his granddaughter, his punishment was a mere three months’ suspension. But of course he would never do anything really nasty, like use the word “g------g” in private. Ross stays, and gets rich. “Wholly unacceptable” Carol is out.

So this affair enables us to understand better what the BBC is really up to when it pays Jonathan Ross so much money to swear and talk on screen about bodily functions and sex with octogenarians for hours on end. It is not engaged in a brave, if misguided, attempt to challenge the conventional opinions of viewers in general in order to shake them out of their complacency and strike a blow for artistic innovation. If that were the case, it would also insult homosexuals, the prophet Mohammed, President Obama, racial minorities, and anyone else who qualifies for the strangely assorted club of those who earn special deference from our modern elites.

No, what the BBC is doing is the cultural target-bombing of people who are very numerous, but whose attitudes do not accord with those of its senior executives – old people, white people, Christian people, monarchist people, people who value politeness, conservative people, provincial people, suburban people, rural people – many people, I suspect, who are reading this article.

As bombing campaigns go, the BBC’s culture war is unique in history, because it makes the victims pay for its attacks. Pay £139.50, and Ross is dropped on you from a great height. My feeble little form of passive resistance, as I cower in my shelter, is to refuse to pay for the privilege.

Just after the Second World War, the Left-wing firebrand Aneurin Bevan called the Tories “lower than vermin”. Conservatives, fired up, started a Vermin Club, with badges, to boast of their defiance. Thousands signed up. The young Margaret Roberts (soon to be Thatcher) was a member. Carol could claim a much nicer symbol than a rodent. I think she should start a Golliwog Club to defy the BBC, and I think we should all join.

GOLLIWOG EDITORIAL

Posted by peiper     on 02/05/2009 at 07:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 04, 2009

More evidence of the failed Bush policies

Another guest post by the lovely and talented Carol!

Subject: The non news NEWS from Iraq

Sunday meant super bowl for most Americans and their attention was on NBC, its exciting last minute-finish ball game, lousy commercials, and gabbing announcers.  Half way around the world there was more attention on how the election in Iraq would proceed.  I notice that the White House has conveniently not mentioned the unparalleled success of the election.  But here is a dispatch from the Marine general there; we won!



Subject: [U] Election Day

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

I don’t suppose this will get much coverage in the States as the news is so good.  No, the news is unbelievable.

Something didn’t happen in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, today.  Once the most violent and most dangerous places on earth, no suicide vest bomber detonated killing dozens of voters.  No suicide truck bomber drove into a polling place collapsing the building and killing and injuring over 100.  No Marine was in a firefight engaging an Al Qaida terrorist trying to disrupt democracy.

What did happen was Anbar Sunnis came out in their tens of thousands to vote in the first free election of their lives.

With the expectation of all of the above
(suicide bombers) they walked miles (we shut down all vehicle traffic with the exception of some shuttle busses for the elderly and infirm) to the polling places.  I slept under the stars with some Grunts at Combat Outpost Iba on the far side of Karma, and started driving the 200 miles up the Euphrates River Valley through Karma, Fallujah, Habbiniyah, Ramadi, Hit, Baghdad and back here to Al Asad. I stopped here and there to speak with cops, soldiers, Marines, and most importantly, regular Iraqi men and women along the way.  It was the same everywhere.  A tension with every finger on a trigger that broke at perhaps 3PM when we all began to think what was almost unthinkable a year ago. We might just pull this off without a bombing.  No way.  By
4PM it seemed like we’d make it to 5PM when the polls closed.  At 4:30 the unbelievable happened: the election was extended an hour to 6PM because of the large crowds!  What are they kidding?  Tempting fate like that is not nice.  Six PM and the polls close without a single act of violence or a single accusation of fraud, and nearly by early reports pretty close to 100% voted.  Priceless.

Every Anbari walking towards the polling place had these determined and, frankly, concerned looks on their faces.  No children with them (here mothers and grandmothers are NEVER without their children or grandchildren) because of the expectation of death. Husbands voted separately from wives, and mothers separately from fathers for the same reason.  In and out quickly to be less of a target for the expected suicide murderer.  When they came out after voting they also wore the same expression on their faces, but now one of smiling amazement as they held up and stared at ink stained index fingers.

Norman Rockwell could not have captured this wonderment.  Even the ladies voted in large numbers and their husbands didn’t insist on going into the booths to tell them who to vote for.

One of the things I’ve always said was that we came here to “give” them democracy.  Even in the dark days my only consolation was that it was about freedom and democracy.  After what I saw today, and having forgotten our own history and revolution, this was arrogance.  People are not given freedom and democracy - they take it for themselves.  The Anbaris deserve this credit.

Today I step down as the dictator, albeit benevolent, of Anbar Province.  Today the Anbaris took it from me.  I am ecstatic.  It was a privilege to be part of it, to have somehow in a small way to have helped make it happen.

Semper Fi.

Kelly

PS - I’m not making that first part up. Carol builds her own cars, from the ground up. And she sends me all these cooool emails on top of that!

Posted by Drew458     on 02/04/2009 at 08:39 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

bizzy bee

Sorry no posts from me lately. I’m working on squaring away my letter to my state legislators, the one about improving the firearms application process. I’ve done some more research, and I’ve talked to some more people. Their responses are not positive; the opinion is that NJ does not want it’s citizens to own guns. Period. That the cops, who process all the applications, are going to sit on them as long as they want, regardless of what the law says. Period. That bringing my awareness of the existence of the law to their attention is akin to mouthing off, and is bound to get me in trouble or at least to have my forms shunted to the bottom of the pile. Forever.

So it’s been quite a struggle for me to write this idea up in a way that can come out win-win for everyone involved. But I think I have it. The last part to fall in place was my consideration of the workload of the staff who processes all the application forms. It’s quite possible that these are the same people who who process the background checks done on prospective employees. And if they are snowed under with work, then that means that people trying to get hired have longer to wait. So give them a little more staff if necessary ... because it will be good for the economy as well.

It’s the New Jersey way. I do something for you, you do something for him, he does something for me. And everybody’s happy. Even Obama. Badda bing baby.

Posted by Drew458     on 02/04/2009 at 06:03 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

THE WHITE HOUSE PET ?

H/T Theo Spark. 

Interesting site here folks.  >> http://www.theospark.net/

Posted by peiper     on 02/04/2009 at 02:24 PM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Government •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

SPEAKING OF POL.CORRECTNESS. KEYSTONE COPS FLY QUEER FLAG IN PLACE OF NATIONAL FLAG.

There’s an official transgender history month?
What’ll they think of next.  Maybe I don’t wanna know.

Outrage as police station ditches Union Jack… for a gay homosexual rights flag
By Stephen Wright

A Union Flag at a police station was replaced by a gay queer rights flag in a move that has triggered a fresh row over political correctness.

The rainbow flag was hoisted outside Limehouse police station in East London to mark Lesbian Gay Bisexual odd and Transgender history month in February.

Sir Paul Stephenson is said to have demanded the flag be removed from Limehouse police station immediately
Metropolitan Police rules state that only the Union Flag and its own flag can fly from force buildings.

Sir Paul Stephenson, the new Met commissioner, angrily ordered the flag to be taken down after being told of the controversy it had caused.

One officer said: ‘I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw it.

‘The police are playing politics again. I can understand the need to show acceptance to people of all sexualities - but the Union Jack should never be taken down.’

A Scotland Yard spokesman said the decision to display the rainbow flag for the first day of LGBT history month had been taken by the borough commander, Chief Superintendent Paul Rickett.

But he added: ‘The Met policy is that only two flags should be flown: the Union Flag or the Met flag. The commissioner reaffirmed that he expects all staff to adhere to this policy.

Tory MP David Jones has waded into the debate describing the gay rights flag flying outside the police station as ‘political tokenism’

‘It would appear someone, albeit with good intentions, decided to fly the rainbow flag over a police building in suppolice-port of Lesbian Gay Bisexual, queer and Transgender history month.’

The spokesman went on: ‘The Met is supporting LGBT history month this year through a number of events and activities aimed at encouraging victims of hate crime to report incidents to police, and to celebrate the contribution made by LGBT people in the Met.’

Earlier this week the ’gay pride’ flag was flown at the North Wales headquarters of Britain’s most controversial chief, Richard Brunstromto mark LGBT history

David Jones, Tory MP for Clwyd West, said: ‘This is tokenism and posturing. People want to see their police force focus on fighting crime, not getting involved in political tokenism and gestures.’

Critics believe the London flag row is a legacy of Sir Ian Blair’s stint as Met chief, when he was often accused of being obsessed with political correctness.

At one stage he asked officers to declare whether they were homosexual - a first step to quotas for numbers of gay and lesbian officers in the Met.

And officers at an exam for prospective chief superintendents were once asked how they would react if they realized a male colleague was a transvestite after seeing him dressed as a woman in a pub.

Sir Paul, keen to portray himself as a more traditional leader, has said he has no intention of being a ‘celebrity’ commissioner and his main focus is to fight crime and not bow to a PC agenda.

A QUEER FLAG

Posted by peiper     on 02/04/2009 at 01:16 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • UK • work and the workplace •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The age of the snitch: How public sector informers are creating Stasi Britain…!

This shows ya what multi-culture/diversity, anti this and anti that get you.
Even a PRIVATE conversation where someone makes an offhand remark brings the PC Police in the form of snitches. For what?
Read the article.

Meanwhile, a totally foul mouthed and tasteless personality on the Beeb (BBC) gets MILLIONS a year because he has the talent to use the ‘F’ word a lot and make public phone calls of a lewd nature to ppl. 

But Carol Thatcher did worse.  Yeah, instead of the ‘F’ word she used ”GOLLIWOG.” Now then, I did know that Wog was supposed to be the equivalent of our ‘N’ word back home.  It is used not just for Negroes but to describe ppl from India and Pakistan as well.  It isn’t a term of endearment.

I do know that a Gollywog was a minstrel doll in another age.  Kinda doubt they still make them. 
So Thatcher, with a drinky or two under her belt referred to someone as a Golliwog. In a private conversation.
BUT ... There are ALWAYS and FOREVER gonna be (white) people who will be, “offended” and “outraged” by remarks of a racist nature.
Naturally, they have to go running and shout MOMMIE - MOMMIE, Mary said this and Tommy did that.

So the result is that Carol Thatcher gets the axe for a private comment while the another ON AIR personality gets away with sleaze in public.
What logic. What a culture. How stupid!

HOW POLITICALLY CORRECT!

How public sector informers are creating Stasi Britain.
Last updated at 2:10 PM on 04th February 2009

BY MELANIE PHILLIPS, WRITING IN THE DAILY MAIL

Sometimes you have to pinch yourself to remember that Britain has historically always been the cradle of liberty. For today we seem to be sliding inexorably into a culture of control which would have been very familiar to the Stasi or the KGB.

Carol Thatcher, the daughter of former Prime Minister Lady Thatcher, now faces being banned from the BBC after reportedly referring to an unnamed tennis player as reminding her of a ‘golliwog’.

Carol, who was crowned Queen of the Jungle in the 2005 reality series I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!, has been a regular presenter on The One Show - a daily magazine programme on BBC One - for three years and is described as part of the family on the BBC website.

But yesterday the BBC threw her out by announcing in the wake of the ‘golliwog’ row that it now had ‘no plans’ to use her again in her regular presenting slot.

Row: Carol Thatcher’s use of the word ‘golliwog’ has seen her fired from the BBC

Let it be said loud and clear, racially offensive language is unacceptable. Ms Thatcher maintains, however, that she made merely a jokey remark.

Her friends say that all she did was to compare the player’s hairstyle to the ‘Robertson’s Golly’ which once adorned that company’s jars of jam and marmalade.

But without knowing the context in which she made this remark - and the tone in which it was said - none of us can judge what to make of it. And that surely is the point.

For the really disturbing thing about this episode - unlike that involving Jonathan Ross, who deeply offended millions in public, had to have an apology dragged out of him and kept his £18million job - is not so much the remark itself but the fact that Carol Thatcher made it in private.

Offence: Friends of Carol Thatcher say she just compared a tennis player’s hair to that of a golliwog

We can’t gauge whether or not this really is a hanging offence or a trivial aside of no consequence, because she made the remark after several drinks in the show’s hospitality room to the presenter Adrian Chiles, who is said to have been ‘outraged’ by it.  So outraged that it seems it is being used to hang her out to dry. But it was a remark made in the course of a private conversation - which has now been used to sack her after someone involved in that lighthearted banter passed it on to BBC executives in the form of a complaint.

Despicable
It is the BBC’s reaction which is really shocking and offensive, together with the behaviour of the person who turned in Ms Thatcher (would they have done so if she’d had a different mother?) to the Corporation’s commissars.

It is hard to think of anything more despicable than snitching like this on a private conversation. People say or do all kinds of things which are perfectly acceptable in the context of drinks with friends or colleagues, but which would cause a very different impression if they occurred in public.

If we were all to be treated in this way, how many of us would remain in our jobs? Is there anyone who can honestly claim never to have uttered an injudicious remark when sharing a drink with friends?

This is the whole point of privacy. The very essence of a liberal society is to acknowledge the distinction between public and private, and to tolerate in private what might not be acceptable in public.

To seek to enforce codes of behaviour in private relationships is totally coercive and illiberal. Yet that is precisely what has happened in the case of Carol Thatcher.

By reporting her remark to the BBC hierarchy - and who knows whether or not it was distorted or taken out of context in the lodging of this complaint - her disloyal and sneaky colleagues took an axe to her right to privacy.

The implications are deeply disturbing. For such behaviour means that no one can ever relax with colleagues for fear that one of them might go running to the boss to complain.

It destroys the freedom to speak in private for fear that this might be used to cast you into outer darkness for having a view which falls foul of some arbitrary definition of what is acceptable.

After all, no offence could possibly have been given to the unnamed tennis player or the public at large because the remark was not broadcast.

This is, in fact, the second time in just a few days in which someone has found herself facing the sack for behaviour which has caused no actual offence but where charges have been laid by officious colleagues enforcing an oppressive code of behaviour.

Disciplined
Community nurse Caroline Petrie offered to pray for an elderly patient who was being treated at home. The following day, Mrs Petrie was confronted over her offer by a nursing sister.
The day after that, she was told that she was suspended while disciplinary action would be taken against her which might lead to the sack.

But although the patient had turned down her offer of a prayer, she said she was not the slightest bit offended and certainly had not made a complaint.

As with Carol Thatcher, it was this nurse’s colleagues who were offended that Mrs Petrie had transgressed codes of ‘equality and diversity’ - which apparently preclude a nurse offering the Christian solace of prayer.

And it was professional colleagues, both in that NHS Trust and in the BBC, who took it upon themselves to enforce those approved attitudes from which there can be no deviation.

Mr Ross’s offence is that in sick language he offended the elderly. Old, white, middle-class people don’t really count for much in the BBC mindset. Ms Thatcher’s alleged offence involved race - which to the BBC constitutes the most heinous crime of all.

Such political correctness is now the governing characteristic of public sector institutions such as the BBC and the NHS, along with an intelligentsia determined upon a draconian process of social engineering aimed at changing not just society but human nature itself.

Ostensibly designed to protect disadvantaged groups, it is actually all about advertising the moral purity of those who enforce it. It’s a dogma enforced with the zealotry of a secular inquisition and is profoundly totalitarian in character. Indeed, behaviour such as this has always been a key feature of police states and totalitarian regimes.

The Stasi or the KGB gained much of their power over the population they tyrannised by getting people to inform on each other, using such informers to bring forward evidence of ‘thought crimes’ from private or overheard conversations.

Such use of informers sets people against each other in a climate of permanent and corrosive suspicion.

Destroying the trust which is the basis of relationships, it is thus a principal means of controlling the population.

In Communist regimes, Stasi and KGB informers and apparatchiks designated dissidents, religious believers and other free spirits as enemies of the state.

Conformist
In politically correct Britain, BBC informers and NHS apparatchiks designate jovially gabby broadcasters and Christian nurses as enemies of society, to be summarily convicted by kangaroo courts of conformist bureaucrats and banished in opprobrium and disgust.

It’s all part of a wider trend. The police ‘hate crime’ division urges the public to inform on anyone who expresses an opinion they deem hateful to the usual range of disadvantaged groups.

An energy company invites children to become ‘climate cops’, reporting on parents, relatives and friends who leave TV sets on and commit other examples of ‘climate crime’.

It is this combination of lunacy and coercion which leads one to think that the land of those great apostles of free thinking, John Milton and John Locke, is fast turning into a nightmare straight out of the pages of George Orwell or Franz Kafka.

GOLLIWOG

Posted by peiper     on 02/04/2009 at 09:56 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • Typical White People: Stupid, Evil, Willfully Blind • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

IT’S A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.  MAYBE. DEPENDS. TRY YOUR HAND AND EYE ON THIS.

OK, just so ya know.  This is NOT a lazy post. Go ahead. You try it but PLEASE don’t write saying you got this darn thing in the first go.  Or the second.
Not even the third try and beyond.
I’m not fast enough due to my age. That’s my excuse and I’m staying with it.

So young whippersnapper, what’s your excuse.  lol.
Ya I know it’s a time waster ...Got anything else serious at the moment?

http://www.addictinggames.com/theworldshardestgame.html

THIS MAY BE THE HARDEST GAME YOU HAVE EVER PLAYED.  maybe.

I got the above from Steve Bass newsletter.  Here. >> http://www.techbite.com.

Posted by peiper     on 02/04/2009 at 06:48 AM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 03, 2009

Just In Time Auto Repairs

I was having a bit of a problem with my car’s exhaust system a couple months ago. The Check Engine light kept coming on when I hit rough roads, and the engine code that caused that to happen implied there was something wrong with the oxygen sensors in the exhaust system. Since the sensors and everything, even the muffler, are factory original and the car is 13 years old, I figured I’d have to get a whole new exhaust system. I looked up what I could on the Internet, joined a couple Saturn forums, and nosed around as much as I could, and it looked like the sensors ought to be replaced once every 5 years. It also looked like I might have to find a shady mechanic, since my New Jersey registered car was actually built as a California emissions compliant vehicle ... and California changed it’s emissions laws, retroactively of course, just last month, so a lot of the aftermarket repair parts that were California legal in December are no longer certified now that it’s February. And my car has this big DO NOT sticker under the hood: DO NOT EVER put any parts on this car that aren’t California Air Research Board (CARB) certified. Even if the car has never been further west than Harrisburg PA.

I got my car inspected last week and it failed. Not for emissions, but because they said there was an exhaust leak. Which was no real surprise, since I’ve had the muffler hanging from metal straps and bailing wire for the past few years. So I went down a the local garage which I happened to know was a bit, um, flexible; I figured it was going to be a big $$$ hit. I’d already worked out a parts list from Walker (largest exhaust parts company in the country) and found a source for every last part of the exhaust system. If I had to, I could have cut off the old pipes, put on a new catalytic with new sensors and a new downpipe, then gone back to the shop with a “uh, my muffler fell off, hur hur hur” and they’d be ... flexible ... and finish the job while not noticing that I had a 49 state legal cat under the car. This turned out to be unnecessary. While my muffler was shot, I only had a leak in the downpipe. My catalytic converter was fine. But how can you tell? The inspection guys didn’t use that tailpipe sniffer thing, so how do I know that the emissions levels are Ok? According to Slippery Jim, my mechanic, the OBDC-II sensors built into my car are more sensitive than the old tailpipe sniffer system. I guess that’s why NJ automatically fails any car that shows up for inspection with the Check Engine light on. And not just on! They told me that the OBDC-II system has a bit of memory, and that it can tell you if the codes were recently cleared. So you can’t just use your own OBDC tool ($50, I own one) to turn off the engine codes. The thing remembers that they were recently on, and that memory will also get you an automatic FAIL. But since my Check Engine light wasn’t on, ipso facto my emissions system was fine, thus my catalytic converter was fine. I had the shop put in a new muffler, and I had them weld on a new flexible section to the downpipe. Good to go.

While I was there I also had them check the brakes. The old Saturn hasn’t been stopping too well lately. It still stops, but the brakes just didn’t seem to work as good as the ones in my wife’s SPEC-V. The guy pulled off the front rim and started laughing. All the other guys in the shop had to come over and see, so they could have a laugh too. I had about 124,000 miles on this set of brakes. My pads were so worn that the bearing surface was barely as thick as a fingernail, and the rotors were worn almost right down to the central vents. There was literally almost nothing left of them. Paper thin. They told me I had maybe another 50 or 100 stops left, maybe a lot less than that, at which point the rotors would have caved in and probably torn the front wheels off the car. Phew!

So I wound up spending the same amount that I had figured I’d spend in new exhaust parts, but I came away with brand new brakes and rotors. Plus the car is quiet again and will pass inspection. Not bad.

Posted by Drew458     on 02/03/2009 at 04:03 PM   
Filed Under: • Adventure • Daily Life •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

It’s a Balance Thing

Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination for health and human services secretary Tuesday, after fielding mounting criticism over his failure to pay more than $130,000 in taxes.

The move marked a stunning turnaround from the day before, when Daschle mounted a campaign to retain allies on Capitol Hill and President Obama told reporters he “absolutely” stands by the former South Dakota senator.

But the president accepted Daschle’s withdrawal with “sadness and regret” Tuesday morning, according to a White House statement.

Yadda yadda, support the president, yadda yadda, don’t want to be a distraction. In other words, he is too big a crook. Too much of a tax cheat. Ok, I can accept that.

But Geithner, who owed $34,000 in unpaid taxes, went through the nomination process like effluent through the proverbial waterfowl. He’s in. So $34,000 worth of tax cheating is Ok.

Does this mean that the right number is ($34,000+$146,000)/2 = $90,000? Is that the upper cheater limit allowable? Because these jobs all come with a nice paycheck. And I can forget to pay my taxes if that’s what it takes to get in the front door.

Bill Richardson had to pull his name out of the hat too, because his dirty money problems weren’t tax liabilities, they were somehow connected to improper campaign donations. Works for me; I haven’t had a thing to do with any donations to anyone. Ok, $20 to Fred Thompson, and $50 to Sarah Palin Juan McAmnesty. But I will promise to run up some tax debt if that can get me one of those $200,000 a year cabinet jobs.

The confusing part is that I also hear that Nancy Killefer also withdrew her name. She was in the running for White House Performance Officer (now there’s a position Clinton would have appreciated!!) but she had her own tax problems: DC fined her $946 for not paying $298 in unemployment compensation for her household help. I guess that $298 either goes back a long long time, or her fine was so large because she was abusing the hired (illegal?) help. So her under $300 problem might have been more important than Geithner’s $34,000. It’s all the look of the thing after all.

Posted by Drew458     on 02/03/2009 at 03:26 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Taxes •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Amazing Weather

I don’t know what this is, but I don’t want to be underneath it.

Posted by Drew458     on 02/03/2009 at 09:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner