Thursday - October 08, 2009

Teenage girl named and shamed. Yeah right. She’s shamed like I’m a rocket scientist.

This is really crap and it bothers me and I want to tell everyone why.

Cos the system is stupid and has ZERO logic.  On its own this story is so empty I wouldn’t even bother posting it.  In fact, I’m not even posting the whole thing. No point in that.

First of all it’s dumb to assume this teen is shamed just cos she held her gang member boy friend’s gun for him. But what got to me about this is that the court decided her crime was so serious (and I am not saying it wasn’t) that the court decided to allow her to be identified.  Oh woo-hoo.
That’ll teach her. NOT.

So here ... just a sample.

Teenage girl named and shamed after gangster’s loaded gun found stashed in her handbag

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:07 PM on 08th October 2009

A teenage girl was named and shamed as Britain’s youngest gangster’s moll today after she was caught carrying a loaded gun in her handbag.

Chanelle Merryweather was just 16 when a passing police patrol searched her in the street and found the deadly Browning pistol hidden amongst her lipsticks, purse and mobile phone.

The teenager was stopped after an eye witness told police that she had seen her and boyfriend Sammy Geldard, 19, brandishing the gun whilst they were walking hand-in-hand together from a youth disco at a local church.

The gangland sweethearts were members of the infamous Longsight Crew which has been involved in a bloody 15-year old turf feud with arch rivals the Gooch Close gang in Manchester. 

Police examined Miss Merryweather’s mobile phones and found 20 photos taken of the lovers outside a McDonalds restaurant showing them making hand gestures associated with their gang.

At Manchester Crown Court, Judge Martin Steiger QC lifted an order banning identification of Miss Merryweather, now 17 after she pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited weapon.

It is clear she was mixed up with dangerous gang members,’ said the judge. ‘Gun crime is a matter of very serious concern to the public.’

She is due to be sentenced next month and is facing a mandatory five-year jail term under gun laws.

THE REST AND GUN/GANG PHOTOS ARE HERE

ok, so she’s ID’d and facing five years.
Meanwhile, this useless, miserable pile of monkey turd has his ID protected because after all.  He only raped a five year old boy a few days after being released by a judge for the VERY SAME THING.  But his tender yoot protects him from being ...
NAMED and SHAMED.  Now that gets my goat.  I don’t understand that kind of logic.  Hide gun, be exposed and face jail.  Rape little boys, pass jail and land on boardwalk?  It’s even worse really because the shit got three years for the rape of a 7 yr old but served NO TIME.  He got a “community order.” And we can all see how impressed he was and what kind of deterrent that was.

Child rapist strikes again days after being let off because victim’s Christian family forgave him

By Jaya Narain

A judge is being investigated after he freed a child rapist who kidnapped and assaulted another youngster just eight days later.

Judge Adrian Smith spared the 16-year-old jail after the first victim’s family apparently forgave the teenager because of their Christian faith.

He was given a community order despite protests from prosecutors and police and went on to rape a five-year-old.

He gave his second victim a Star Wars light sabre toy as a ‘reward’ for keeping quiet.

By chance the new case was due to come back before Judge Smith but he agreed to release it to another judge after Crown Prosecution Service lawyers intervened.

Attorney General Baroness Scotland has been asked to investigate why the original sentence was so lenient.

Today the latest victim’s father, a 35-year-old printer from Greater Manchester, said: ‘Our son was abused not only by this lad but also in effect by the British legal system that was supposed to protect him. I always thought people who commit such serious offenses like rape automatically go to prison – yet this boy was allowed to go free. He was even allowed back onto the estate where he lived.

‘In my eyes if someone commits an adult or grown up crime then they should serve an adult or grown up sentence – not be mollycoddled by the courts and told to get treatment.’

He added: ‘My son is six years old now but as a result of what happened his childhood innocence has probably been robbed. Heaven only knows what effect it will have in him in the years to come. We should be able to rely on our judges to use common sense to protect us and our children. ‘In this case the judge has let us and in particular our son down. We won’t be letting the matter rest until the judge is brought to book for the original sentence he passed.’

In the first attack, the teenager lured a seven-year-old boy to a bedroom and subjected him to a horrific assault. He was convicted of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and rape and given a three-year community rehabilitation order at Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester, on June 26.

As part of the punishment he was ordered to go to counselling sessions to address his behaviour and was to be supervised by probation officers.

On July 4 the second victim was playing just yards from his doorstep when the attacker lured him away on the premise of looking for a lost football.

He was taken back to the teenager’s house where he was repeatedly sexually abused.

The boy’s parents realised their son was missing when they were alerted by his friend just minutes after his disappearance. He was found emerging from the attacker’s house as they frantically searched the neighbourhood for him.

The teenager initially claimed he was working for Christian Aid and that he ‘helped children who had been abused’.

But the boy told his parents what had happened and the teenager was arrested.

The attacker, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has admitted child abduction, rape and kidnap.

He was remanded in custody and will be sentenced next month after psychiatric reports have been prepared.

A HISTORY OF LENIENCY

It is not the first time that Judge Adrian Smith has faced criticism over claims he has handed down an unduly lenient sentence.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218021/Senior-judge-released-teenage-paedophile-raped-child--days-later.html#ixzz0T37f1dSl

Posted by peiper     on 10/08/2009 at 09:54 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - October 05, 2009

PREGNANT WOMAN FORCED TO LIE … SELF APPOINTED NANNIES IN THE NANNY STATE

It’s my understanding that this sort of thing has happened in the USA as well.  I believe that because there isn’t any reason for BMEWS people who told that to lie.  It’s damed disappointing though, to know that even in America this sort of lunacy has been let loose.  I guess it just proves that no one country owns the stupid nanny license.  Make the ole head do a turn though.  Why are folks putting up with it?

So, here’s another loony tune, moonbat one for the books.  I have also included a few comments from the article source which is The Daily Mail. Shows that a lot of folks are aware and unhappy, but nobody seems to be able to stem the stupid tide.

Sainsbury btw, is a major super market chain over here. And like Tesco, they need to retrain their staff methinks.

Sainsbury’s shopworker refuses to sell pregnant woman Cheddar cheese

By Daily Mail Reporter
05th October 2009

A pregnant woman was forced to lie and promise supermarket staff she would not eat a certain type of cheese before they would sell it to her.

Janet Lehain asked for some Canadian Cheddar while she was shopping at Sainsbury’s.

But the member of staff serving her on the deli counter said she could not have it because it was made from unpasteurised milk.

Sainsbury’s bosses have since admitted she got it wrong. In fact, pregnant women are advised to avoid eating ripened soft cheeses of the Brie, Camembert and blue-veined types, whether pasteurised or unpasteurised. Hard cheeses such as Cheddar can be safely eaten during pregnancy.

Mrs Lehain, who is pregnant with her third child, replied by saying that she was aware of the current medical advice and wanted to buy the cheese.

Eventually the member of staff working at Sainsbury’s Fairfield Park store at Clapham, Bedfordshire, handed over the cheese.

In a letter of formal complaint, Mrs Lehain said: ‘What followed was the most patronising encounter I have had the misfortune of experiencing in a long time and made worse by the fact it was entirely unexpected given the seemingly simple task.

‘The member of staff told me how lucky my generation of pregnant women are to have such information available to them because this was not the case “in her day”.

‘I could only respond by saying that I thought pregnant women in the past were probably a whole lot less stressed and guilt-ridden as a result.’

Mrs Lehain, from Bedford, added: ‘I asked if I could have the cheese if I promised not to eat any of it. How ridiculous that I had to openly lie in order to buy a piece of cheese!

‘Even if I were ignorant of the risks associated with this period in a woman’s life it is not the job of a supermarket to tell people what they should or not be eating.

‘Indeed if I am missing something, and the Government in its wisdom has made supermarkets guardians of public health without me noticing, then I should like to leave the country now.’

Mrs Lehain said: ‘Are they for example going to stop obese people buying chocolate and other high fat food?’

A spokesman for Sainsbury’s said: ‘It is not our policy to refuse sale of goods on grounds that they may be unsuitable for pregnant women, although we do ask our colleagues to make customers aware if there are any safety concerns.

‘Customers should always refer to the product packaging for the most accurate and up to date information. In this case, our colleague made a mistake unpasteurised cheddar does not pose a risk to health during pregnancy.’

Sainsbury’s are a class act. Yesterday I was refused a bottle of cider (despite being 28 years old and presenting them with ID) because my partner (also 28) didn’t also have ID. Common sense didn’t kick in at all… I presented them with my debit card so they could check that it was in fact me purchasing the cider, but they still refused citing their challenge 25 policy… I pointed out I understood that if someone looked under 25 they would be ID’d and that I was fine with that, however, I had presented ID.... but they insisted both of us (irrelevant of who was actually doing the purchasing) needed ID. I asked if I had a small child with me would they still refuse and they said no… I even pointed out that even if my partner was underage as long as the alcohol is being consumed at home with parental consent it is not illegal… nothing doing. In the end I walked out without buying anything because the kid on the till said I had to hurry up and pay for what I could buy!!!

- Unimpressed, Reading, England,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had to lie at Boots awhile ago. I had a slight rash on my eyelids and the GP advised me to go to the pharmacy and ask for a tube of 1% steroid cream.
The jobsworth gave me a lecture about how they were not going to sell it to me because it wasnot to be put anywhere near the eyes!
This was despite my telling them that my GP had said it was OK.
I then went over the road to another branch and told them I had a rash on my a*** and was given the ointment without any problems!!
Just learn to play their games - they are all covering their asses. I should know - I am a lawyer and it’s all getting ridiculously out of hand.
Whatever happened to commonsense?

- Erika, London, 05/10/2009 11:49

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get used to it....this is the New World Order slowly but surely being put into place while you all sit watching dancing nonsense, talent contests and soaps.

- Tony, Essex, 05/10/2009

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 10/05/2009 at 07:22 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - October 03, 2009

I HAVE NOW READ EVERYTHING THERE IS TO READ RE. THE “R” WORD. FOR THE BIRDS? APPARENTLY

A few of our regular commenters have, in the last 24 hours, wondered just how far down the dumb ladder some ppl would fall.  In one of his posts I believe Drew asked the same question.  Maybe not in those exact words but you get the picture.
While working on another story I found this bit of nonsense and so it’s my first for Saturday. 

The giant issue of the day ... Is killing a pesky bird .... RACIST?

This week Natural England officially deemed the ring-necked parakeet as a pest, making it possible to shoot the birds without a licence.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

However Dr Ian Rotherham, Director of the Environmental Change Research Unit at Sheffield Hallam University, said there is a danger that labelling parakeets as a “nasty alien” just because they are from abroad could be seen as a form of “racism” towards a foreign species.

Parakeets can be shot without a licence under new rules to control spread of exotic birds
‘Eco-xenophobia’ on the rise warns conservationist
Should we be shooting parakeets?

“If there is a problem - for example with the birds taking fruit - then we have to take steps to deal with it. If you start to label it as alien then that is some sort of racism. Eco-xenophobia is the label I would use.
“I suspect there is an underlying view it is because they are alien, but it should be because they are a problem.”

Matthew Frith, Deputy Chief Executive of the London Wildlife Trust, said parakeets were “as British as curry” and agreed it was dangerous to label the birds as a pest just because they are foreign.
“Parakeets are birds from the Indian sub-continent that came here is the last century and are doing very well. Just like curry,” he said.

“There are concerns that species from other parts of the world are scapegoated but we have been bringing different animals here like rabbits and hares since Roman times.
“The biodiversity in our country is a mix of native and non-native just like the social make-up of this country.”

The ring-necked parakeet first appeared in the wild in Britain in 1969, having been bought here as a pet.
By the late 1990s the birds were being seen throughout the South East and there are now thought to 20,000 birds across the country. The exotic birds are especially common in London around Richmond Park.

Farmers in Surrey have complained about the birds taking fruit and there have been concerns about parrakeets threatening native birds like woodpeckers and nuthatches.
Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, said it was important to control non-native and exotic species.

The new rules allow people to kill parakeets or take their eggs without a licence as long as they can prove the birds are causing a nuisance. Canada geese and Egyptian geese have also been given the designation under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
“Non-native species are a major threat to global biodiversity and it is important that licences can operate as an effective tool in helping to tackle the problem,” she said.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said parakeets are already controlled under licence and the new rules would just make it easier for people with legitimate concerns to control the birds.

SOURCE

While I don’t think anybody really is gonna take that fruitcake seriously (altho there may be a few) I doubt his “R” claim will have any effect. But what it does do, is show how easily and how ready in even the stupidest of ways, someone like the mad doctor will jump on the ‘r’ word.

Posted by peiper     on 10/03/2009 at 06:25 AM   
Filed Under: • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - October 01, 2009

Ok, I get it

But it’s still porn.

(Another follow up post; this one to Peiper’s post about the showing at the Tate gallery)

Tate Modern gallery has withdrawn a controversial photograph of Brooke Shields following a visit by police, amid concerns it could be in breach of child pornography laws.

Officers from the Metropolitan Police attended the gallery yesterday. They are consulting the Crown Prosecution Service over whether the image breaches the Obscene Publications Act.

The provocative picture by New York artist Richard Prince shows Shields standing naked in a bathtub, with a heavily made-up face and oiled torso. Children’s campaigners had condemned the Tate for including the picture in their latest exhibition, describing it as a “magnet” for paedophiles.

So controversial is the photograph, called Spiritual America, that it was hung in its own room behind a closed door bearing a warning that the work was “challenging”. However, visitors to a preview showing yesterday found the room closed.

The Tate chose to include the picture in the Pop Life: Art In A Material World after consulting lawyers. It has been exhibited in the US before but never in Britain. A spokesman said: “The exhibit is temporarily closed. We are in discussions with police.”

Prince’s work is a photograph of a photograph. The original was taken by Garry Gross, a US photographer, in 1975. It was commissioned by Shields’ mother, who was intent on turning her little girl into a child star and signed away the rights. The picture was later featured in a Playboy Press publication, and Gross planned to turn it into a poster.

In 1981, Shields made an unsuccessful attempt to buy back the negatives. A judge ruled that she was a “hapless victim of a contract… to which two grasping adults bound her”. The legal battle caught the eye of Prince, and he describes Spiritual America as a commentary on Shields as an “abstract entity”

When Gary Gross took the photograph, he called it “Brooke Shields : The woman in the child”. It is a photograph of an undeveloped little girl standing in a somewhat provocative pose, naked in a steamy fancy marble tub, while wearing a black lace choker, a ton of makeup, and a fancy hairstyle. At that age Brooke Shields had the facial structure of a woman in her mid 20s. That was her big appeal in the modeling world several years later. But it was this picture that her mother commissioned, signed away the rights to, and then published in a soft porn skin magazine to jump start the kid’s career. In my opinion the photograph is pornographic, though there are worse kinds of pornography.

Richard Prince comes along and takes a picture of the picture. Oooh, so creative. He might have saturated the colors a bit more, and he might have thrown in a little soft focus. But that’s it, and those are mights because I’ve never seen the originals, and how the heck can you really tell on the internet anyway? So Prince takes a picture of a picture, and gives it a smarmy douchebag title Spiritual America - ooh, what amazing irony, what soul splitting artistic insight: we crude Americans will whore out ourselves and our own children just to make a buck. Which pretty much was exactly what Brooke’s mother Terri Shields was doing.

Artistic merit: ZERO
Artistic effort: ZERO
Originality: ZERO

It isn’t “pop art”. At best Prince’s work is cynical snark. I get it already, now go away and take your kiddie smut with you.

But listen to the art world - this is the MAJOR PIECE at the Tate’s exhibition. The MOST IMPORTANT part. Which tells me that the Tate show sucks donkey hooves.

Tate Modern’s Pop Life is a fascinating show, but one of the most interesting works in it is the American artist Richard Prince’s 1983 work Spiritual America.

It takes the form of a ready-made or found object – a publicity photograph showing the prepubescent actress Brooke Shields naked, her body wet from the bath.

Prince framed the photo in an elaborate gilt frame, and then hung it alone. The heavily ironic title, Spiritual America, was used by Alfred Stieglitz for a photo taken in 1923 showing the haunches of a work horse. By using it Prince wasn’t inviting us to ogle the child, but to see exploitation as symptomatic of what was happening in America in the mink-coated Reagan years.

The image and title are used to contrast the country’s old values of hard work and honest endeavour with the pursuit of success and fame at whatever cost. When Prince first hung the picture on the gallery wall, it was without comment. It was as though he was speechless in the face of such crassness.

Nice try. FAIL. A picture of porn is still porn, no matter what “heavily ironic” title you steal from another work and label it with. Prince is a total loser. And the Tate Gallery are panderers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6248384/Brooke-Shields-picture-withdrawn-from-Tate-exhibition-after-police-visit.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturecritics/richarddorment/6249734/Tate-Moderns-Brooke-Shields-photograph-a-crass-lack-of-morals-in-mink-coated-Reagan-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/6248757/Brooke-Shields-photographer-disappointed-by-police-pornography-claim.html

Posted by Drew458     on 10/01/2009 at 06:59 PM   
Filed Under: • Politically-Incorrect • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

A NANNY STATE UPDATE OF SORTS …. WORKING MOMS AND BABIES AND CHILD PROTECTION

Even where there’s no need but ... it’s now in the books. It’s da law.  It’s also pretty stupid as you will see when you read this.

Here a simple sample of the idiocy that is now, this sceptered isle.

DC is Detective Constable

DC Shepherd earns just over £16,000 a year for working part-time, with a take-home wage of £1,000 per month. Edie’s nursery fees are £487 a month.
“The irony is that the state is now having to pay most of my child care because I am a single mother on a low income who works part-time and eligible for working tax credit and 80 per cent of my child care costs. They pay me nearly £500 a month, whereas before they didn’t have to pay me anything.
“The government is trying to promote the return of mothers to work and doing this at the same time.”

Posted this story very recently.  But now the ladies involved are speaking and while some is a rehash, this still makes for a very interesting illustration of this doomed culture.  If you are not familiar with this latest nanny state case, by all means read on.

DC Shepherd and DC Jarrett: “It has been a horrible few months”
DC Leanne Shepherd and DC Lucy Jarrett had no idea that their reciprocal child-care arrangement was illegal – until Ofsted came knocking.
By Neil Tweedie
The Telegraph

The creeping invasion of the state into what was once the preserve of the family and the individual – the databases, the intrusive checks, the inevitably disastrous attempts by bureaucrats to engage in social engineering through the promiscuous use of shoddy legislation and lazily-devised “initiatives” – has become so much a feature of modern life that most of us no longer notice it. Until the day it comes knocking at the door.

For Detective Constable Leanne Shepherd, that day was Friday July 10 of this year when an official from the Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) called at her home in Milton Keynes, Bedfordshire. A CID officer in Thames Valley Police, she was enjoying a day off with her daughter, Edie, just two-and-a-half years old, when the bell rang.

“She was really lovely, the Ofsted lady,” remembers DC Shepherd. “She said there was a report that I was child-minding illegally. When I asked her what she meant – was I committing a criminal offence or something - she said she wasn’t 100 per cent sure.”

DC Shepherd’s alleged “crime” – and even in the age of the nanny-state-gone-wild, this takes some beating – was to have embarked on an arrangement with her friend, colleague and job-sharing partner, DC Lucy Jarrett, by which they took turns to look after each other’s daughter during days off. It was, according to both women, a “perfect” arrangement that lasted more than two years and allowed them to pursue challenging careers part-time (they conduct investigations together), and spend sufficient time with their first-borns in the years when they needed their mothers most.
There was no rigid pattern to the arrangement – its virtue was its flexibility – but it was reciprocal: each woman received a benefit in the form of two, and occasionally more, days of free child care during most weeks of the year.

This supposedly violates the Childcare Act of 2006, which prohibits adults not registered as child-minders looking after other people’s children for more than two hours a day for reward – the reward being the free care.
Ofsted had been tipped off by someone who must have lived near to DC Shepherd’s house because the Ofsted woman talked of cars coming and going from her property.

“I was in shock the whole time,” remembers the police officer. “I couldn’t imagine I was doing something wrong – I thought I could clear it up if I told her everything. She talked about reciprocal care; I argued that it was an arrangement based on friendship.”
DC Shepherd pointed out that during her maternity leave she had looked after DC Jarrett’s daughter Amy, who is six months older than Edie, purely as an act of kindness. She had received no reciprocal child care at that time.

“She (the Ofsted official) said, ‘I’m just going to check’ and went out to her car to use the phone. She came back and said, ‘You are. You’re breaking the law’.
“Even when she left, I thought that there must be some mistake. I was angry that someone could complain about me – that someone could be so petty – and shocked that what we were doing could be wrong, and that I would have to change everything.”
Seventeen days later a letter arrived from Ofsted ordering DC Shepherd to stop minding Amy immediately, and warning her that she might be subject to surveillance and unannouced visits by Ofsted inspectors.

“I thought it was laughable that they would go the extreme of using surveillance when I was trying to live my life and do my job,” she says, still upset at her treatment.
DC Shepherd, 32, has been single since the end of her relationship with Edie’s father, also a police officer, in November last year. He remains supportive, but without DC Jarrett’s help there is no chance of Edie staying out at home while her mother is on duty, and she has had to be put into a nursery.

“Amy and Edie get on like sisters – they have grown up together. You would always hear them saying ‘you’re my best friend’, ‘I’m your best friend’. They are only-children, so it was nice for them to have each other around.
“Edie went to nursery today and cried her eyes out. It has happened too quickly for her. I haven’t been able to introduce her to it gently. She has still not settled properly – she barely eats there. She asks, ‘Can I see Amy today?’ A two-year-old is not going to understand.”

The enforced change has not only caused her daughter deep distress but has actually cost the government money. DC Shepherd earns just over £16,000 a year for working part-time, with a take-home wage of £1,000 per month. Edie’s nursery fees are £487 a month.
“The irony is that the state is now having to pay most of my child care because I am a single mother on a low income who works part-time and eligible for working tax credit and 80 per cent of my child care costs. They pay me nearly £500 a month, whereas before they didn’t have to pay me anything.

THERE’S A LOT MORE RIGHT HERE AT THE SOURCE.

Posted by peiper     on 10/01/2009 at 01:49 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - September 29, 2009

DO IT IN A LARGE PUBLIC PLACE LIKE AN ART GALLERY AND IT’S ART. AT HOME ITS KIDDIE PORN.

This really is bothersome on more then one level. Seems like anything that’s on display in a gallery like ... oh let me think.  How about a crucifix in a jar of urine.  Oh well. It’s art if it’s in a gallery. 

How about a photograph of a ten year old girl, oiled and made to look like a woman?  Is that kiddie porn? Is it porn at all or just a photo of a naked and oiled and made up kid having fun?

The newest filth going on display at the Tate Modern will show a nude Brooke Shields at age ten.  I guess back then her parents or guardian or whoever gave the okay.  I haven’t seen the photo and don’t know if it is art or it isn’t.  ??? Does it depend on how the pix was shot and what sort of background?  Somehow, and maybe I’m greatly out of step with the time here, nude ten year olds as described in this article fall far short of ‘art’ imho.

But wait.  That isn’t all.  The latest ‘artful display’ will include pornography including penetration. 

Just so we’re clear and understand things.
Two lady police officers who have kids can’t baby sit for one another (as reported here recently) because of concerns re. child safety.  If they care for one another’s children more then 14 days a year as the new law has been written, they must register and have tests of some sort to prove they are not criminals.  Never mind they’re cops. 
But an art (?) gallery can display an oiled nude of a ten year old.  Got it.

Try passing out porn in public spaces and you might find yourself up on charges of some kind I am certain.  Public nuisance perhaps.  Ah but .. give it a name, call it art and Bob’s your uncle. 

Here you go. See what you make of this.  And lets have no talk of censorship.  Remember. It’s “ART.”

Tate Modern to display nude picture of 10-year-old Brooke Shields alongside giant pornographic images

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:49 PM on 29th September 2009

A provocative nude picture of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields will appear in a new exhibition at the Tate Modern, it was revealed today.

Gallery chiefs said they sought legal advice before including the work, titled Spiritual America, in the Pop Life: Art In A Material World show, which opens on Thursday.

The exhibition also features huge sexually explicit images of penetration and works made from the pages of pornographic magazines.

Richard Prince’s image of Shields shows the actress from the knees up, naked, oiled and wearing make-up, looking directly at the viewer.

It is hung in a special room at the south London gallery with a notice on the door warning visitors they may find the image ‘challenging’.

Prince himself described the 1983 work, which is in fact a photograph of a photograph taken by another artist, Gary Gross, as ‘an extremely complicated photo of a naked girl who looks like a boy made up to look like a woman’.

The picture was originally shown anonymously in a disused shop in a run-down area of New York, and the Tate show is believed to be the work’s first appearance in a UK gallery.

Jack Bankowsky, the exhibition’s co-curator, said he hoped the artistic interest in Spiritual America would not be overshadowed by controversy over its content.

‘I hope that people respond to what is provocative and understand what the artist was trying to achieve,’ he said.

‘If it turned into that kind of brouhaha it would overwhelm the work and become a monosyllabic conversation.’

Prince wanted the viewer to respond to the ‘eerieness’ of Gross’ original image, Mr Bankowsky said.
Full on: American artist Jeff Koons’ Dirty-Jeff On Top’ statue stands in front of Made In Heaven, at the Pop Life, Art In A Material World exhibition to be staged at the Tate Modern

Full on: American artist Jeff Koons’ Dirty-Jeff On Top’ statue stands in front of Made In Heaven, at the Pop Life, Art In A Material World exhibition to be staged at the Tate Modern

A spokesman for the Tate said they had given careful consideration to the work and the reaction it could provoke before including it in the exhibition.

‘As with any artwork that contains challenging imagery, Tate has sought legal advice and evaluated the situation,’ the spokesman said.

‘Tate has taken measures to inform visitors of the nature of the work, providing information outlining the intentions of the artist.

‘This is an important work by Richard Prince which has been publicly exhibited on a number of occasions, most recently in Richard Prince’s major retrospective, Spiritual America, at the Guggenheim in New York.’

MORE TO SEE HERE

This is also art. Art? This?  How about garbage?  And ppl fall for this crap. Why? Where is the art in this. I guess I just don’t understand the term.
works by Damien Hirst, including False Idol, a calf preserved in formaldehyde.

Posted by peiper     on 09/29/2009 at 12:40 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Stoopid-People • UK • wierd stuff •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - September 19, 2009

SCOOTER KILLER CLEARED BY LOOPHOLE ….

I saw the original article under news bulletins in The Telegraph but do not have any link.
Therefore, you will I trust take my word for it that I haven’t the imagination to make this up.

So the old fool is 76. So what?  If he’s that doddery he shouldn’t be allowed off a leash.  Yeah, harsh. I probably don’t mean that or I won’t 10 minutes from now.

Here’s what happened.

A 76 year old who killed a woman when he knocked her down while driving a mobility scooter was not prosecuted due to a legal loophole.

Lillian Macey, 90, died in hosp. after being knocked down by a reckless fuckin idiot.

The jerk’s driving was deemed “careless” by authorities, however he can NOT be prosecuted because …Mobility scooter users cannot be prosecuted for careless driving.

So some poor old woman dies and he gets off all because a loophole is way freeken more important then a life.

I kinda feel like tossing out the rest of the newspapers and shutting down this damn slow moving puter.

Oh btw … Long as I’m upset with the world. Have you folks read the latest from Wal-Mart?  I found and then lost the damn article but will hunt again.
Seems Sam’s stupendous olde company is joining the green movement but big time.
WM never does things small really and they are apparently going to investigate companies that supply them to determine how gween they are or lose doing business with WM.

Yeah … maybe I will throw away the rest of the damn papers and close. 
Jeesh!

Posted by peiper     on 09/19/2009 at 09:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - September 15, 2009

IT’S RAP AND ROLL TIME FOR THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND … Yawn. Moonbats think this will save em.

Several days ago I was gonna post something in the nature of one of life’s annoyances. Nothing too serious really but bothersome. It was so minor I have forgotten now what it was.
But along came Drew and blew my little nothing out of the water with the story of his travails over the major move he and his wife were faced with.  So I didn’t share whatever the now non momentous event was.

Yesterday we had a flat tire.  Woo-hoo. big event.
Meanwhile we learn that Drew is busy with a hundred window house to take care of. So okay ... never mind about the flat tire. But I would have liked to learn a bit more about Mrs. Rich Lady and her fab. bottom. Ah well.  Drew’s secret. Phots Drew, Photos!

Anyway, how’s this for disaster ?
The Church of England in its infinate wisdom is making plans to hold services in RAP, in an effort to attract that group back to the fold.  Say what? That group was NEVER in to begin with.

This may be an interesting experiment for sure.  The rocket scientists in the church will in time issue a statement informing all and sundry how successful their little effort had been yadda,yadda.
They’ll issue that statement because they won’t have the balls to openly say they had it wrong from the start and that many have dropped out of attending services where Rap is the hymnal medium. That’s just me talking and yes, I could have it all wrong.  Don’t think so, but could.
Stay Tuned on this one.

MEANWHILE .....

Listen up, rappin’ crew, come on in and take a pew… church tries to appeal to the young
By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 7:46 AM on 15th September 2009

In the beginning, the elders gathered and set up a mighty cry: How are we to get young people into church? And, lo, they decreed: Let there be rap.
In a move which risks ridicule, the Church of England has turned to street culture in the hope of attracting new blood.
A radio advert will appeal to the lapsed faithful to ‘stop, turn around, walk back’ to church on Sunday.
The spoken message, voiced by a series of actors, is described by the Church as ‘a rap-style poem’.
The ad is the latest in a 15-year campaign by the C of E to use advertising to boost church attendances and attract the attention of those, in particular the young, who have no interest in Christianity.
Past efforts have met with mixed success. One mid-1990s slogan that declared Christmas to be a ‘bad hair day’ won universal mockery.
The C of E’s usual Sunday attendance figures dropped below the one million figure at the turn of the millennium and have fallen at the most recent count to 871,000.
The new advert, produced by a Christian agency based in Bradford, aims to assure its young target audience that they do not need to dress up to go to church.
In defiance of the idea of Sunday best, the 40-second routine, which is not set to a drum beat, suggests that congregations where people make an effort to look smart could lack sincerity.
The grammar also does little credit to the C of E’s efforts in the thousands of secondary and primary schools it helps run.

RAPPIN’ CREW?

My wild off the wall guess is that the C of E is desperate and this lasted bit of moonbat thinking will only accomplish what their detractors have been saying out loud for a long time.  Which is ... they haven’t got a clue and are pointless.

Posted by peiper     on 09/15/2009 at 07:42 AM   
Filed Under: • Religion • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 10, 2009

‘pocket money’ thug paid not to steal… is jailed for knifepoint robbery

Just doesn’t make a G-D bit of sense does it?  But of course it did. This is England.  NOT, “This is London” as in the radio broadcasts of the war years.
No, this shit is England today where multi-culture and diversity are everything.  Where English history is criticized and belittled, where the English language itself isn’t much encouraged or it seems that way. This is England 2009 where one idiot politician who actually heads a party once suggested ppl should, “hug a hoodie.” A country of ASBOs (Anti Social Behavior Orders) where young thugs and street punks try to earn one and wear it as a badge of honor.  This is an UNARMED except for the punks and killers, place where it was thought to be a really neat idea to pay a thug NOT TO STEAL.
Imagine that.  And horror of horrors what do you suppose happened? You won’t guess so I’ll spill the beans.
The criminal broke his word.  Yeah I know. Hard to believe.  After accepting the bribe he went out and robbed people anyway.
Just what in the heck is this world coming to when authorities can’t count on the word and promise of a criminal?

Fuckin Idiots!

Look I’m sorry for the bad language and it doesn’t make me look very smart I will grant you that.  But stuff like this just makes me boil and see red.
How in the world with all sorts of evidence to guide them, could authorities begin to believe this might work?  Bribes for thugs?
Oh heaven forbid they should find the money for libraries or child care or anything else but this, this, stupidity.

“Britain is the one sinking ship where all the rats have stayed!”

Soft justice fails as ‘pocket money’ thug paid not to steal… is jailed for knifepoint robbery

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:23 PM on 10th September 2009

A scheme which saw a teenage robber handed £60 a week not to steal by the Government has been exposed as a dismal failure after he was jailed for a terrifying knifepoint robbery.

Career criminal Casey Bowen, 28, burst into a shop in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, and subjected staff to a terrifying raid in May.

He punched a customer in the face and forced two members of staff to open the shop safe before stuffing the cash in a plastic box and cycling off.

Bowen was given the moniker ‘pocket money boy’ in 1994 when he was handed a £60-a-week incentive not to steal - after he was arrested a staggering 37 times in two years.

But after forking out £1,560 of tax payer’s cash in just six months, social services stopped the payments after it emerged his offending had got worse.

Bowen, of Churchdown, Gloucestershire, was paid to go on trips to Birmingham and London, visits to the cinema, the zoo, football matches and the seaside - but continued to offend.

And on Tuesday Bowen was jailed for five-and-a-half years at Gloucester Crown Court after admitting robbery.

A spokesman for social policy think tank Civitas said: ‘It was an enormous experiment which ended in utter failure. The 1990s scheme was a total disaster.

‘Young offenders were pampered when they should have been forcefully dealt with.’

Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, told the Daily Express: ‘I hope the namby-pamby do-gooders take notice of this.

‘Instead of having money and goodies thrown at them, offenders should be punished for their crimes.’

Sentencing, Judge Martin Picton told the yob he nearly jailed him for life under a public protection sentence.

He said: ‘This was a very serious offence. You committed a grave robbery when armed with a knife, causing terror to your victims.

‘Wielding a knife like that created an obvious risk that someone could be badly injured.

‘If you ever commit an offence like this again in the future that will be it; it will be a public protection sentence.’

Balaclava-clad Bowen burst into the shop in Whaddon, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, on May 28 before staging the brutal raid.

He was arrested after police found him hiding at a nearby house.

Bowen ordered staff Philip Clements and Jemma Giesdorf to open the safe and fill a plastic box with cash.

The court heard that Miss Giesdorf has been left so traumatised by the robbery she refused to work without a security guard.

Bowen has previously absconded from children’s homes all over the country, including the top-security Aycliffe home in County Durham where he got into trouble for assaulting staff.

In 1996 he got his second custodial sentence in two months for a 3am burglary at the Cheltenham home of a 100-year-old woman.

He stole her jewellery box and £40 and got just three months after his barrister pleaded with the judge: ‘He is only just 16 and it is far too early to give up on this young man.’

Aged 19, he was jailed for burgling the homes of two elderly women and was told by the judge: ‘You have a dreadful record and nothing seems to have stopped you so far.

‘Your own hardships are no excuse for burgling other people.’

In May, Bowen admitted threatening to kill police officers and their children after he stole alcohol and threatened staff at a Cheltenham supermarket.

He was jailed for a week for a similar offence last October.

In July 2005, he was jailed for a year for harassing a former girlfriend by bombarding her with 800 text messages.

Bowen’s younger brother, Clinton, was dubbed ‘Canal Boat boy’ after he was given a supervision order with a ‘specified activity’ - a three-month cruise with an organisation called Care Afloat, costing £1,100 a week.

HERE FOR PHOTOS OF THIS THUG

his barrister pleaded with the judge: ‘He is only just 16

Right.  First we kill the lawyers!

Posted by peiper     on 09/10/2009 at 09:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - September 06, 2009

Germany Avoids Criticizing Radical Islam & Radical … Germans have sure lost it ….

This is another one of those very long reads.
Don’t know as I could do better and most likely not. It’s an important issue BUT ... I do wish they could make these things shorter.
Which is not to say that it isn’t worth reading. It sure is.

H/T EUROPE NEWS

Apologists throughout history have never achieved anything. They have at most strengthened the forces of evil and delayed their demise. Biased economic success is temporary. It is built on sand. Only human rationale is solid and eternal.

Germany Avoids Criticizing Radical Islam & Radical ...

By Sami Alrabaa

The German media and some German public figures are soft, too soft, on radical Islam and avoid critics and critique of this violent “religion.” The audio-visual media invite only uncritical talking heads. The print media publish only articles by apologists of Islam. Here are some examples:

The recent confession of the four Muslim terrorists, also called the “Suaerland Group,” who were planning to kill as many Americans in Germany as they could, was hailed by the judge, state prosecutor, and the media. The devastating terrorist attack prepared by these men was foiled from a tip by the CIA, which the German media depict as not abiding by the law and acting against human rights.

The German media and some German politicians hailed the confession and deliberately ignored the ideological/religious sources of their attack, namely the Koran and Hadith, which incite Muslims to kill non-Muslims.

In an interview with Al Arabiya TV (August 16th), Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a leading politician of the Green Party in the European Parliament, presented radical Muslims as “part of a socio-political religious movement across the world, like the RAF, the German terrorist group we had in the 1970s.”

Cohn-Bendit argued that a dialogue with radical Muslims must be established, also with the Taliban. He reminded his interviewer that he (Cohn-Bendit) and the former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer used to sympathize with the RAF. They took to the street and threw stones on the police. “As the Green Party was established as a radical social ecological movement, I joined the party. Little by little, the Green party was accepted by the German political establishment, and now it is a full-fledged political party.” Cohn-Bendit added.

Also, Cohn-Bendit praised Turkey for reconciling Islam with democracy.

The truth of the matter, the AKP, the Islamic party that is ruling Turkey is slowly but steadily Islamizing Turkey. It is also true that Islam is against democracy and formation of parties. Both the Koran and Hadith reject democracy and the formation of political parties. According to a recent poll, the ultimate aim of Islamic Turkey is Sharia, and this what the majority of Turks inside and outside turkey want to see established.

To add insult to injury, Cohn-Bendit said the maiming and killing of innocent people “has nothing to do with Islam.” And radical Muslims are fighting a justice war against their oppressors. He also argued that foreign troops must leave Afghanistan and Iraq and “leave the people of these nations in peace.”

In other words, fanatic Muslim regimes in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia must be left alone, rule against human rights and export terrorisms. Hence Cohn-Bendit and his ilk have joined the Muslim chaplains on Muslim media.

Further, Cohn-Bendit suggested that Islam “be modernized and can be modernized, like all other religions.”

Cohn-Bendit’s “arguments” about Islam is merely wishful thinking. Radical Muslims strongly believe that the Koran – which includes numerous passages that are diametrically opposed to modern human rights – is the “word of Allah.” They are also convinced that Sharia, which primarily includes the Koran, must be introduced everywhere. Appeasing radical Muslims implies ultimately accepting their Sharia. And “modernizing Islam will eventually lead to scraping the Koran or reducing it to a few pages, something which radical Muslims vehemently refuse.

Contributions of critics of radical Islam are rejected by German media. For example, The German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung published on July 10, 2009, an article by Alaa Al-Aswani in which he twists facts and argues that the West is ill-informed and biased toward Islam. “Westerners are misinformed about Islam, therefore they hate Islam and hate Muslims,” Al-Aswani says.

Read all of it here >> EUROPE NEWS

Posted by peiper     on 09/06/2009 at 12:49 PM   
Filed Under: • EUro-peons • Media-Bias • RoPMA • Stoopid-People • Terrorists •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - August 31, 2009

Almost 50 thousand dollars just to drop one word, and that’s just a drop in the bucket.

Gotta wonder what makes ppl get up to really stupid stuff like this and it isn’t funny!

In an update in another newspaper this morning, the sum for stupid spending is actually £170,000 of taxpayer money on just this one thing.
The thing being, dropping a word from documents or changing logos and like items.
Why do they need to be changed when they’re working.

In this particular case, it really is the very height of stupid. They’re removing ONE name from a govt. department.  And what word is being deleted?

DEPARTMENT.

I have this photo inside my head of a group of bored looking and vacant people, trying to think of things to do. Ideas to change something, anything.
Just for the sake of change and justifying their jobs.  Which they should not be in to begin with.
But hey ...  The taxpayer is always RIPE!  Don’t believe it?  Here.  Take a look at some of the dumb assed things that just HAD to be changed. NOT!

And this is a govt. telling ppl to save. Warning everyone of hard times. Yeah. Hard times for who?  Not the ppl who spend the money in govt.

£25,000 bill as Government drops single word from department name

By Miles Goslett
Daily Mail

The Government has spent nearly £25,000 of taxpayers’ money removing one word from the name of a Whitehall department.

In a ‘rebranding project’, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has been renamed Communities and Local Government (CLG).

The change involved producing a new logo for the department’s website and headed paper. In a parliamentary answer, a Minister explained that the name change was deemed necessary to ‘emphasise the mission of the department’.

Freedom of Information documents reveal that the rebranding cost £24,765.
The Government has spent nearly £25,000 of taxpayers’ money removing one word from the name of a Whitehall department

The Government has spent nearly £25,000 of taxpayers’ money removing one word from the name of a Whitehall department

The move was described as ‘farcical’ last night by a Conservative spokesman.

The DCLG was established in May 2006, after the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, under John Prescott, was abolished following a string of revelations about his private life.

But within months the decision was taken to refine the department’s name from DCLG to CLG on letterheads and its website ‘for ease of branding’. A spokesman for the CLG, which has been headed by John Denham since June, refused to name the person responsible for implementing the change.

The Government has spent millions on other rebranding exercises since 1997.

Mr Prescott spent £645 of public money on a new brass plaque for his office, replacing a sign saying Office of the Deputy Prime Minister with one which read Deputy Prime Minister’s Office.

He was given the sign as a memento when he left his office in June 2007.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) was renamed twice between 2005 and 2007 at a cost of £250,000.

Earlier this year, Lord Mandelson decided to change its name for a third time to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS). The Government refused to reveal how much it cost to create the new department, or to rebrand it.

Caroline Spelman, Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said: ‘This is a Whitehall farce at taxpayers’ expense.

Taxes have gone through the roof under Labour and examples like these show how the public’s money is squandered on Ministerial vanity projects and a corrosive culture of spin.’

A CLG spokesman said: ‘Given the scale of the restructuring and the department’s new policy agenda, a more fundamental overhaul of our corporate identity was deemed necessary.

Since October 2006, therefore, the department has been branded as Communities and Local Government in all of our corporate communications and contact with the public and outside bodies.’

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 08/31/2009 at 05:17 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Outrageous • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - August 24, 2009

AND TO THINK, THE PUTZES WHO DREAM UP THIS STUFF ARE UNELECTED AND PAID BY ???

Sure. Who do ya think they get paid by?  BMEWS didn’t hire these absolute schmucks.  Aggghghhhhhhh

RCOB ...  Jerks. All jerks. I’m trying to think of something clever here.  Forget it. BLANK. Just blank.

These ppl really do not have anything else to do. Do they? Maybe they aren’t employable. ?  How do they manage to see things that just are not there.  Jeesh.

Right-hand man, gentleman’s agreement and whiter than white: PC quangos ban common phrases to avoid causing offence

By James Slack, Home Affairs Editor
Last updated at 2:19 AM on 24th August 2009

Nonsense: Matthew Elliott said ‘Most people assumed that this sort of PC madness went out in the 1980s.’

Right-hand man, gentleman’s agreement and whiter than white are the latest phrases to fall foul of the political correctness lobby.

Government quangos have issued fresh lists of phrases they are seeking to ban to avoid causing offence.

Staff at the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have been advised to use ‘miserable day’ instead of ‘black day’. The Commission claims that certain words carry a ‘hierarchical valuation of skin colour’.

It also cautions that the term ethnic minority can imply ‘something smaller and less important’ and should be used with care.

The examples of political correctness emerged in answer to a series of Freedom of Information requests.

Some institutions have urged workers to watch out for gender bias or sexism in language.

The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to ‘perfect’ their brief rather than ‘master’ it while Newcastle University reckons ‘master bedroom’ can be problematic.

The National Gallery in London says the phrase gentleman’s agreement may be considered offensive to women and suggests using ‘unwritten agreement’ or ‘ agreement based on trust’ instead.

The phrase right-hand man is also considered taboo, with ‘second in command’ thought more suitable. Advice issued by the South West Regional Development Agency says: ‘Terms such as black sheep of the family, black looks and black mark have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black.

‘Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of black by reinforcing the positive aspects of white.

‘For example, in the context of being above suspicion, the phrase whiter than white is often used. Purer than pure or cleaner than clean are alternatives which do not infer that anything other than white should be regarded with suspicion.’

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘Most people assumed that this sort of PC madness went out in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher reined in the Left-wing councils, so it’s unbelievable that it’s rearing its head again.

SEE MORE HERE

Here’s what a few Daily Mail readers had to say.

Posted by peiper     on 08/24/2009 at 03:15 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

ALL GLORIOUS COMRADES TAKE NOTE.  ATTN PLEASE WHILE EUROPE PRONOUNCES

Stupid fuckin socialist dipshits!

PUBLIC URGED TO SNOOP ON BLUB SHOPS

THE public has been urged by the govt. to inform trading standards officers about shops that continue to sell traditional light bubs banned by Europe.

From Sept. 1st it will be illegal to make or import coventional pearl or frosted bulbs of any shape or wattage.

All traditional incandescent bulbs of 100watts will also be banned.  They will be replaced by energy-saving bulbs.

But it is thought that consumers still prefer the traditional type because of the apparent poor quality of light from the new bulbs.

Daily Telegraph
Monday
24 August ‘09

it is thought that consumers still prefer the traditional type
Well duh.  Who pays any attention to the consumer when the eu speaks?

note to p. BUY another hundred bulbs today.

ON the other hand.

‘Green’ Germans hoard traditional bulbs to beat ban

By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 1:34 AM on 24th August 2009

Germans have been stockpiling vast numbers of energy-hungry lightbulbs

Germany’s green credentials have long made it the spiritual home of tree-huggers across the world.

But those who actually live there seem reluctant to embrace the eco-warriors’ latest symbol - the energy-saving lightbulb.

Germans have been stockpiling vast numbers of old-fashioned energy-hungry lightbulbs ahead of next week’s EU ban on many of them.

Sales of conventional incandescent bulbs shot up 34 per cent in the first six months of this year as consumers hoarded the dwindling supplies.

In most other European countries, sales fell over the same period. In Britain, where big retailers introduced a voluntary ban on 100 watt bulbs in January, sales are down by a fifth.

Brussels is banning all pearl or frosted traditional bulbs and clear 100 watt bulbs from September 1 as part of its drive to cut carbon dioxide emissions and tackle climate change.

Stocks are expected to run out in most towns by the end of next month, forcing householders to buy energy-saving compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) or low-energy halogen bulbs.

The figures highlighting Germany’s unwillingness to switch to CFLs have surprised some in a country with such a strong green movement and which brought the world the eco-friendly repairable Birkenstock sandal.

DAILY MAIL

Posted by peiper     on 08/24/2009 at 02:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Daily Life • FREEDOM • Government • Corruption and Greed • Jack Booted Thugs • Nanny State • News-Briefs • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - August 17, 2009

It’s being called, “Pink Diplomacy” and yes , the taxpayer will fund it. Like there’s a choice?

So these folks deface their flag and make it pink, which should outrage Brits because that flag is supposed to represent the country and not just one small but highly vocal group of misfits and deviants.  This pink outrage does not represent any Brit I personally know. Hey I admit it. I’m a dinosaur.

I just don’t believe a national flag should be taken so much for granted and used that way. I even wonder if it’s right when ppl use the stars and stripes as bathing suits.  I know they mean no harm in it. Hell, I don’t even think the homosexuals intend any harm in it.  I just don’t believe it’s right.

Jeesh I got long winded there but I have strong feeling about this stuff.

This country is not out of the financial woods by any means. There are serious problems here, the ppl are being told not to be wasteful yadda,yadda while govt. payrolls save nothing. Oh sure, take some cash away from some program or end another program. But that’s so that more councilors and ministers can take “fact finding” trips to warm climes and toast one another on the success of another nice holiday on the txpayer.
So while things are tight and money is short, this fraken govt. somehow finds the money somewhere to:

FUND FOREIGN GAY QUEER RIGHTS CAMPAIGNS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
This, they have money for.

Foreign Office Minister takes ‘pink diplomacy’ to anti-gay nations.

The gay Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant is championing a controversial drive to fund equal-rights activists in homophobic regimes.

British missions in countries such as Jamaica, where homosexual acts are punishable by long jail terms, and Nigeria, where they can lead to the death penalty, are being encouraged to “support progress” by financing gay pride marches and legal challenges from local campaigners.

As well as targeting Commonwealth countries, “pink diplomacy” will extend to eastern Europe, where gays have suffered brutal attacks from far-right groups. Opportunities to tackle discrimination in ultra-conservative nations, such as Iran, are also being considered - cautiously.

The move risks a backlash from countries where support for homosexuality runs contrary to state teaching and religious beliefs.

TIMES ON LINE

So now as if that isn’t enough not so very good policy ..... This guy does a deep throat by sticking his foot in it by saying that,

Terrorism can be ‘justified’ in some circumstances. 

He also said in an interview that “there were circumstances where terror was ‘effective’.”

See the problem with that is, this fellow just happens to be , The Foreign Secretary. At least for now.

Foreign Secretary, David Miliband

THE WHOLE STORY IS HERE

Posted by peiper     on 08/17/2009 at 09:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Gay Gay Gay! • Government • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (5) • 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 © 2004-2008 Domain Owner