Monday - July 21, 2008
policeman ‘victimised’ over opposition to homosexual event
Please allow me to state at the top as it were, that I do not personally have anything against these folks except the following.
Certainly not all but a very vocal and perhaps large group want me and apparently this cop, to accept their queer (as in very odd) behavior as normal.
Well okay. I will concede that perhaps for some this is very normal. For them however. For nobody else. But not only do they expect, no they demand that this be accepted as normal, they go further. They want everyone else to celebrate their abnormality. The police dept. in this case also want their officers to wear a pink ribbon. How utterly absurd and totally STUPID!
I am not religious. However, I fail to understand how quoting a biblical phrase and believing it is somehow “homophobic.”
Why is it homophobic of me to think that there’s something not quite right in the world if a guy would rather kiss me (GAK) then say Kate Moss. That’s not homophobic. That’s the norm.
I do not have a problem with people who just happen to have a lifestyle that really is at odds with nature. And it by golly is. But I don’t hate anyone because they’re homosexual. I don’t even dislike them for that reason. But I have a hell of a problem with all this homosexual pride crap. And damn it give me back that word you hijacked. Gay is NOT queer damn it! You are. Get used to it.
It also occurs to me that very many homosexuals (not all of course) are perhaps somewhat ashamed or embarrassed by their proclivities. If they weren’t, they would not go to such lengths to make the rest of us buy into their self delusions. They wouldn’t need parades nor would they insist that we are never to be critical and if we are, there should be laws against it. A police department should NOT insist that cops wear any kind of anything to promote anybody’s lifestyle whether homosexual or heterosexual.
The homosexual community must deep down be rather a sad lot if what it take to make em happy is a pink ribbon worn by cops to prove what?
I just can’t wait to see what comes next. Hey, some folks are attracted to little kids. The majority of us think that is sick beyond measure but hey wait. For some ppl it’s ... just normal behavior. How long will it be before they want parades and ribbons also?
Christian policeman ‘victimised’ over opposition to
gayqueer pride event
By David Thomas
Last Updated: 8:31PM BST 20/07/2008A Christian policeman is taking his own force to an employment tribunal over claims that it “harassed” him because of his religious opposition to homosexuality.
Graham Cogman, a constable with 15 years experience, is taking action against Norfolk Police as he claims he was victimised for refusing to wear a pink ribbon on his uniform to mark a ”
gayhomosexual pride” event, and for questioning the force’s stance towardsgayqueer acting men and lesbians.The 49-year churchgoer, who circulated emails to officers quoting the biblical stance on homosexuality being a sin, claims he is being singled out because of his beliefs. The force has responded by saying it will not tolerate any “homophobic behaviour”.
His case echoes that of London registrar Lillian Ladele, who recently won a tribunal after refusing to officiate at same-sex civil partnerships because of her religious views.
PC Cogman, a father of two, said reconciling his religious beliefs with his job was becoming more difficult because the force’s stance on homosexuality was at odds with his religious views.
“The blatant support for homosexual rights in Norfolk Police makes being a Christian officer extremely difficult,” he said.
“I am not undertaking this action lightly but I have to make a stand when things become so blatantly biased against me just because I hold a faith.”
His complaint stems from a circular email sent to officers in early 2005 encouraging staff to wear a pink ribbon on their uniforms during Gay History Month.
After receiving the email, PC Cogman sent a reply to his fellow officers featuring biblical quotations about homosexuality being a sin. He objected again the following year when a similar email was again sent to officers.
He was subjected to a disciplinary tribunal and fined 13 days’ pay.
A spokesman for Norfolk Police yesterday said that PC Cogman’s behaviour “fell well below the standard which we expect”.
“Whilst the force fully respects the officer has strong beliefs, it is only correct that he respects the beliefs and wishes of others,” he said.
“The force will not tolerate any form of homophobic behaviour.”
At the beginning of July, Islington registrar and devout Christian Lillian Ladele won an employment tribunal after claiming she was bullied and treated as a “pariah” for refusing to officiate over same-sex civil partnerships.
Posted by Drew458
on 07/21/2008 at 09:50 AM
Filed Under: • Odd-Strange • Sex • UK •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • ‘Idiots and lunatics’ may be given right to stand for Parliament. (thought they already were)
‘Idiots and lunatics’ may be given right to stand for Parliament
By Joanna Corrigan
Last Updated: 12:57AM BST 21/07/2008People labelled “idiots” and “lunatics” under archaic mental health laws could soon be allowed to stand for Parliament.
(My Brit wife believes they are already there. Based on things I’ve seen so far, I think she may be right.)
Ministers are considering scrapping ancient rules after complaints from mental health campaigners that they are discriminatory.
Laws created in Elizabethan times define idiots as “incapable of gaining reason” and lunatics as capable of only periods of lucidity.
They are banned from becoming MPs “in their non lucid intervals”.
The ancient laws also ban anyone sectioned under the Mental Health Act from putting themselves forward for election, even if they have fully recovered, and require MPs to give up their seat for life if they are sectioned for six months.
A spokesman for Mind, the mental health charity, said it was wrong to rule out people that have suffered in the past but are still extremely capable.
“People who have suffered mental health problems can function at a very high level. Look at Stephen Fry. He has been open about his manic depression and people would be shocked if someone like him were not eligible to stand,” he said.
A recent survey of MPs found 27 per cent had suffered some kind of mental health problem.
One in three said the stigma attached to that type of illness had prevented them being open about it.
Posted by Drew458
on 07/21/2008 at 09:17 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Politics • Scary Stuff • UK •
• Comments (0)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Ministry of Defence admits it was wrong to deny war widow a pension. (GOTTA SEE THIS)
This really is an outrageous bureaucratic blunder of the worst sort. My mind can’t take in how it happens, and yet I know it does and this is probably only one of many stories. But this is exceptional I think you might agree.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:29AM BST 21/07/2008The widow of a war hero who had been wrongfully denied a pension by Whitehall bureaucrats for years was celebrating a victory after the Ministry of Defence admitted “maladministration”.
(only “maladmin?” Is that how the jerks cover their collective butts?)
Dozens of Daily Telegraph readers gave more than £5,000 to Gillian Norbury after hearing of her plight, but she has now been freed from poverty after the Veterans’ Agency admitted it was wrong to deny her a war widow’s pension.
For five years a tireless campaign has been led by one of husband Lt Billy Norbury’s comrades, Capt John Nunneley, which included personally haranguing the former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
He finally confronted Me Blair last year after bluffing his way into a veterans tea party at No 10 telling the then Prime Minister: “I protest most strongly at the inhumane treatment of Lt Billy Norbury”.
Lt Norbury won an immediate Military Cross for an action in Burma in 1944 in which he received horrific injuries to his feet, legs and abdomen.
Fifty-four years later the decorated King’s African Rifles officer died penniless in a public hospital in South Africa after decades of agony and operations.After selling the family home and its contents and despite his wife Gillian working part-time while nursing her husband, the Norburys ran out of money to support the medical bills. For decades, following alleged bureaucratic bungles by the Ministry of Defence and the Veterans’ Agency, Lt Norbury, MC, was denied a war disability pension because he had enlisted in a “colonial” regiment.
After his death in 1998 Mrs Norbury was forced to leave her family behind in South Africa, where one of her sons was murdered and another died in a flying accident, to live off a state pension in a flat in Newbury, Berks.
(Berks. is short for Berkshire. A county. It is I am informed, not pronounced the way spelled. It’s pronounced, Barkshire. like, Hampshire in USA)But now the Veterans’ Agency has finally caved in admitting the “maladministration” and will pay Mrs Norbury a pension plus a modest back-payment.
In a letter to Derek Twigg, the Veterans’ Minister, Mr Nunneley wrote of the “army of heavily entrenched bureaucrats” who had obstructed the case for five years.
The minister replied that the victory it was “in no small way down to your dogged determination to fight Mrs Norbury’s case”.
Mrs Norbury said without the “terrier-like” help from Mr Nunneley she would never have won. “Without his determination and utter refusal to give up on my behalf he has done everything no other person would have done.”
Richard Benyon, her MP, said the case was an example of “a disgraceful performance by officials” and “appalling maladministration” in the pensions system.
The MoD said “new evidence” - a third letter from Mr Norbury’s doctor stating he had died from war wounds - meant it was now possible to award the pension.
It claimed that the pension was back-dated from her claim, two years ago. Both Mr Nunneley and Mrs Norbury had to accept the MoD’s decision despite making their original claim five years ago.
(uh huh. but it’s perfectly okay to pay out hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to immigrants both legal and otherwise and an equal amount to would be terrorists and make nice and spend big on asylum seekers who CAN’T BE RETURNED to their native countries cause they might get boo-boos there.
But this woman had to jump thru hoops and go thru all she has. I’m glad she got something but those so called civil servants should be canned.)
Posted by Drew458
on 07/21/2008 at 07:58 AM
Filed Under: • Outrageous • UK •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - July 19, 2008
Right of households to rubbish bin collection by councils to be abolished
THIS IS THE ANTI-SOCIAL ACT OF A LEFT WING LABOR GOVT.
I can’t imagine the town or city councils telling homeowners to drop dead BUT ...
I suppose that they could tell homeowners to contract out for trash pick up the same way we did in California.
Thing is tho, in our particular situation, the household is currently paying out £1700 a year to the city council. We have no street lights or sidewalks on this street. I’m not at all certain what the payments do cover, outside trash pick ups. They did provide rat control (outside the house fortunately) two years in a row. That was interesting btw. Someone came out and put poison down this hole and spent the time to come back for something like three weeks treating the area. They could have done it in one day with gas. But they aren’t allowed to use it here. ?? It’s thought they come from the field across the road which is a farm and grows rape seed, among other things.
By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 11:30AM BST 19/07/2008The legal right of all householders to have their bins emptied by their local council is to be abolished, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.
The government is to give councils the power to refuse to collect rubbish if home owners fail to abide by draconian rules which may include leaving bins in the right place, sticking to weight restrictions and following strict recycling policies.
Labour is quietly pushing the new rules through parliament without any debate after it proposed amendments to a 130-year-old law which has, until now, made it a statutory duty of local authorities to collect household waste.
There are fears that the changes to the law will lead to large increases in fly-tipping, bonfires of noxious substances and rat infestations around uncollected waste. Despite this, there will no reduction in council tax for home owners.
The Conservatives described the plans as “disgraceful”, adding that bin men will now be able to use “any excuse not to empty your bin”.
Many Labour MPs fear the changes will add to a growing backlash against the government which has seen them slump in the polls.
Ian Gibson, a Labour MP who sits on the parliamentary committee which is scrutinising the changes, said: “It is a British way of life to have your bins emptied once a week. Taking that away is like losing your birthright.”
Phil Woolas, the environment minister, quietly added an amendment to section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 earlier this month which now states: “A waste collection authority is not obliged to collect household waste that is placed for collection in contravention of a requirement under this section.”
Town halls will be free to set their own rules on what constitutes a “contravention” of waste collection policies.
Councils could refuse to empty bins that are too far from a curb, are not placed directly outside a gate or are put out on the street too early.
The proposed changes amount to a reversal of the basic right of all households to have their rubbish collected, which was enshrined in law by the Public Health Act 1875.
The measures have already passed through two parts of a three-stage scrutiny process in parliament and will become law later this year if they are approved by the standing committee on climate change, which is dominated by Labour MPs.
It comes at a time when the government is already under fire over controversial fortnightly rubbish collections, which affect almost 20 million people, and “pay as you throw” schemes being trialled by some councils, in which bins are weighed and penalties imposed on people whose rubbish exceeds set limits.
Eric Pickles, the shadow local government secretary, said: “It is disgraceful that these new laws are being rushed through Parliament with no debate and no vote.
“People genuinely want to improve recycling and go green, but Labour’s policy of bin cuts and bin taxes will fuel fly-tipping, backyard burning and harm public health.
“These changes will fuel the public backlash at the Government’s rubbish policy. Under Gordon Brown, local residents are paying exorbitant levels of council tax, but are failing to get decent public services in return.”
Currently councils must collect rubbish from home owners unless it breaches one of two policies – “a closed lid” policy where the bin is not shut properly or a “side waste” policy meaning bin bags cannot be left alongside wheelie bins.
Whitehall sources said that the change in the law was proposed by central government and was not requested by councils.
A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: “It is in no way in councils’ interests to use tactics that would alienate local people. It would be wholly counterproductive for town halls to approach this issue in a heavy-handed way that could put people off dealing with their rubbish responsibly.
“Councils always provide people with straightforward information about what to do with their rubbish and work with residents to reduce the amount they produce and to encourage them to recycle.
“Britain is the dustbin of Europe, throwing away more per household than any other country in the EU. We have to change radically the way that we get rid of our rubbish and the days of tipping everything into a hole in the ground are long gone.”
Joan Ruddock, the minister for climate change, biodiversity and waste, said: “There is still a general duty to collect rubbish free from households. All that has changed is that when a household is given a formal notice, if they don’t abide by it then the council no longer has a duty to collect.”
(Free? What Free? Isn’t that one of the things taxes pay for? Or are taxes only paid to support the lifestyles of politicians? oh. right. forgot. )Government targets are for 40 per cent of household waste to be recycled by 2010, rising to 50 per cent by 2020. Policy papers show that officials want to limit rubbish collections in a bid “to compel householders to reduce their waste”.
Last month ministers also revealed that householders will face fines of £50 for failing to recycle their rubbish.
Councils will refuse to collect rubbish if homeowners break recycling rules
Posted by Drew458
on 07/19/2008 at 09:13 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Taxes • UK •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Friday - July 18, 2008
vicious mob attack on police officers
Now see, here again the police who I generally support handled this all wrong.
Pepper spray? Spray? NO-NO guys.
THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH TO HANDLE A MOB, IS TO EXTERMINATE IT!
You’d only have to kill a couple dozen using real weapons. That’s live ammo in case ya forgot. Anybody bitches about that, you turn your weapons on the trouble makers also. That’s how you clear a violent mob. Bang-Bang ur graveyard dead. Problem solved in seconds. No paperwork, no lawyers, no civil right groups sticking their noses in. Those who do, repeat all the above.
Take a peek at the town center where this happened. This isn’t some inner city ghetto.
Police officer bitten in vicious mob attack ... after asking girl to pick up a piece of litter
Last updated at 4:01 PM on 18th July 2008
Two policemen who were attacked by a 30-strong mob were today recovering from their injuries - with one receiving hospital treatment for a bite wound.
The feral attack was launched after the officers asked a teenager to pick up some litter she had dropped.
One of the policemen required hospital treatment after the attack in Northend, Croydon, South London on Wednesday afternoon.
North End, Croydon, south London: Two officers were set on by a mob, some wearing school uniform, after they asked a teenage girl to pick up a fast-food wrapper she had droppedPolice said that when patrolling officers asked the girl to pick up a piece of litter she did so - but then immediately dropped it.
When they asked her to pick it up again, a friend with the girl reacted aggressively.
A group of up to 30 teenagers and adults gathered around the officers and attacked them. One officer was bitten.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the officers, aged 34 and 29, were now on sick leave suffering from bruising and knee injuries.
A 15-year-old girl was arrested at the scene on suspicion of assault. She has been released on police bail.
Two men aged 34 and 38, both from nearby South Norwood, were arrested yesterday on suspicion of assault and violent disorder.
Shopkeepers in the area told today of their horror at the level of violence used against the officers.
T-Mobile phone store manager Shil Mehta said that just before turning on the police the two girls had been fighting each other.
Trouble spot: Shopkeepers in the area told today of their horror at the level of violence used against the officer
‘The attack happened right outside our shop,’ he said. ‘I saw two girls fighting. The officers tried to stop the girls, who were about 15 years old and both were wearing school uniforms, but then they turned on the police.
‘When one of the policemen tried to restrain one of the girls a crowd started to develop around them. I think he was trying to put handcuffs on the girl.
‘There were about 30 people in the crowd at this stage, of all ages. A couple of men aged in their 30s were screaming at the police to let go of the girls.
‘I don’t think they knew the girls, but just saw the police wrestling with them and had a go at the police because they thought they were being heavy-handed.
‘Then one of these men lunged at the officer holding the girl, from behind. I think he tried to punch him in the head - he definitely took a swing. Then the girl tried to run away.
‘At that point the other policeman got his baton out and pepper spray. They managed to get hold of the girl again but by this stage the crowd was huge. I would say about 70 or 80 people were now in the street watching.
‘One of the policemen pinned the girl on the ground because she was maniacally trying to fight him.
‘That’s when the police back-up arrived. There were three or four riot vans, three police cars and two unmarked cars.’
Mr Mehta added: ‘Using batons and pepper spray they managed to disperse the crowd but I have never seen anything like it.
‘I don’t know what happened just before the two girls started fighting. It seemed like the police were already talking to them before they started fighting each other.
‘Then as the police were dealing with them, two blokes waded in and made things a hundred times worse.
‘It really is a sad state of affairs when police are being attacked in a shopping high street in broad daylight. No one is safe, it seems.’
Inspector Simon Ellingham said officers were examining CCTV footage.
Posted by Drew458
on 07/18/2008 at 10:30 AM
Filed Under: • Crime • UK •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Schoolgirl, 12, questioned by police for trying on nail polish (hey. she was wrong but)
Is it me because I’m now an old goat so far over the hill he can’t even see where he’s been?
Or are kids today really dumber in spite of the tech age?
First, I really do think the cops and manager and guard were a bit over the top. Wouldn’t one have been enuff? The kid wasn’t a criminal really she wasn’t.
Simply non thinking and maybe yeah, a bit stupid. Honestly people, I really do not think that she thought what she did was wrong. And that’s a different problem altogether IMHO.
And least you think it’s just Brit kids, no-no. My wife used to work as a supervisor in K-Mart many,many yrs ago. Boy did she bring home stories of what customers used to do. Not just the shoplifters and baddies. But folks who thought there was nothing wrong in tearing open packages in spite of open displays, and women opening a lipstick package and putting a smear on their lips to see what the color might look like, and then if not liking it simply putting it on the counter and picking up another they found that they did like. And these weren’t usually teens, surprising
So here finally is the story.
By Caroline Gammell
Last Updated: 11:40AM BST 18/07/2008A 12-year grammar school girl was held by police for more than an hour and questioned on suspicion of shoplifting after trying on nail polish on one finger in a shop.
Hannah Gilbert painted one fingernail in the peach coloured Revlon varnish at a branch of Boots in Folkestone, Kent, after failing to find a suitable tester.She was caught by a security guard, questioned by three police officers who checked for criminal records and detained until her parents came to collect her and pay for the polish.
Barry and Cheryl Gilbert said they were read their rights and told their daughter could be forcibly restrained because she was over the age of 10 - even though she had made no attempt to escape.
They criticised the treatment as “heavy-handed” and demanded that the police apologise.
Mrs Gilbert said: “Hannah was scared and crying. The whole approach was very heavy handed.
“I find it incredibly hard to believe this was the most serious incident going on for the police.
“Frankly, this country has gone crazy. This is the sort of thing that just makes me want to pack our bags and leave as soon as Hannah’s finishing her schooling.”
The incident happened earlier this month during a trip to the town centre. Miss Gilbert, who lives 10 miles away in St Mary’s Bay, had only been allowed shopping on her own once before.
The Folkestone School for Girls’ pupil said: “I went into the shop and saw a nail polish which I thought looked alright.
“There were no testers so I put a tiny bit on my thumbnail. The security guard walked up behind me and said I had to pay for it or it would be theft.
“I was really scared. I had no money on me so he said I had to come into the office. “
Mrs Gilbert, a 46-year-old nurse, said: “She was kept for an hour in a small office with the security guard and a manager and the police were called.
“The security guard who caught her was grinning like he had caught a big fish. It was ridiculous.
“At first there were three officers there and when we got there it was just one. The officer told us our rights and that they had the power to forcibly restrain Hannah as she was over the age of 10 - it was completely over the top.
“One officer even told me that if I didn’t pay they would take Hannah in a police van to Folkestone Police station and charge her with theft.
“She’s not the kind of child to do something like that. And who was looking after the shop if the security guard was with my daughter? I would have thought that left them more open to crime.”
Mr and Mrs Gilbert paid the £6.29 price of the polish and pledged never to return to the shop.
A Boots spokesman said: “During the recent event at our Folkestone store we worked with Miss Gilbert and subsequent local law enforcement to ensure an effective resolution was met.
“Mrs Gilbert’s daughter remained on the premises until she was able to be released safely into the care of her parents.
“These safety measures are in place to ensure our customers have a continued safe shopping environment.”
A Kent police spokeswoman said: “Police were called to a store on Sandgate Road in Folkestone by the mother of a 12-year-old girl who had been stopped by shop security.
“No crime was reported and no further action has been taken.”
Posted by Drew458
on 07/18/2008 at 09:36 AM
Filed Under: • Crime • UK •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - July 16, 2008
All Dolled Up
Because, you know, the folks in Britain don’t have anything else to worry about, so they go after a doll that comes with a “naughty outfit”. Not that their own daughters don’t wear nearly the same outfit out to clubs or anything. Or that Posh and the rest of the Spice Gurrlz pushed this look years ago. Barbie has always reflected the current times and trends, not lead them. That’s why she stays popular. And I guess they don’t sell Bratztm or any of those other totally oversexed dolls over there? The ones that only have hooker outfits available for them?
BARBIE’S new S&M look has whipped up a storm – with protesters dubbing it “filth”.
The doll’s image is transformed with kinky fishnets, motorcycle jacket, black gloves and boots.
Makers Mattel say Black Canary Barbie, out in September, is based on a DC comic superhero of the same name.
But religious group Christian Voice said: “Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far.
A children’s doll in sexually suggestive clothing is irresponsible – it’s filth.”
Of course it’s the Christians who object in print. The muslims just set the toy store on fire. Ken Doll was not available for comment, although he was spotted at a local garden center happily buying large rolls of duct tape and some garden hose.
Personally, I don’t see how this is any worse than Catwoman Barbie or Elecktra Barbie, both part of the movie idols series / Marvel Comics series of outfits. Besides, it could be worse!
PS - If you go and look it up, it turns out that the Black Canary comic book character, while being some sort of super-heroine, is really all about snagging a husband (Green Arrow), fretting over his proposal, and figuring out what to wear to the wedding. How much more classically Barbie can you get than that?
Posted by Drew458
on 07/16/2008 at 12:05 PM
Filed Under: • Stoopid-People • UK •
• Comments (0)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Tuesday - July 15, 2008
Firms must promote union membership to win government contracts
Excellent strategy Comradeski. Today England, tomorrow ? Who knows. Looks like more union bs. They failed to totally ruin the country in the past. (but came close enuff) Well you know the old saying, if at first you don’t swindle, cajole, threaten and succeed ... lie and browbeat some more til ya do.
By Rupert Neate
Last Updated: 7:42AM BST 15/07/2008Companies will be told they must promote trade union membership if they want to win government contracts.
Businesses will today be told that they must demonstrate how they will “build good relations” with unions if they are to win a share of the £115 billion worth of public service contracts on offer.
Employees working on government projects in the private sector must also be given literacy and numeracy training if they lack basic skills. The new rules will apply to public-service delivery contracts awarded by central government but not to suppliers of equipment or other goods.
The announcement comes after Unite, Britain’s biggest union, gave guarantees underwriting Labour’s accounts.
Tom Watson, Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Cabinet office, will outline the rules in joint statement between ministers, trade unions and business leaders at Downing Street this morning, before submitting a written statement to parliament.
Mr Watson said: “We all have a challenge to increase the skills of British workers.
“This will help us to improve the employability of British workers in organisations that receive government contracts and deliver on the government’s skills agenda.”
(No Comrade fish breath. It’ll allow unions to force ppl to become members even if they don’t want to. The usual union ploy.)
Public-sector contracts account for nearly 6 per cent of the gross domestic product and employ more than 1.2 million people.Union membership has halved over the past 25 years. Many large firms that undertake government contracts do deal with unions but the staff of smaller contractors, such as those who operate care homes, are not unionised.
The new rules come as Britain faces a summer of strikes over below-inflation pay increases. Thousands of schools are set to close tomorrow and up to 600,000 council workers will go on strike for 48 hours.
Gordon Brown insisted the government was not bowing to union pressure. The Prime Minister said. “I have made it absolutely clear we are not returning to the 70s or the 80s, we are not returning to the days of secondary picketing, we are not returning to trade union legislation which is written by trade unions themselves.”
Posted by Drew458
on 07/15/2008 at 01:33 PM
Filed Under: • Commies • UK • Unions-Labor •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - July 10, 2008
Osama Bin Laden’s right-hand man, shopping in London.
Brits must be hard pressed keeping civil about this pond scum.
Abu Qatada, Osama Bin Laden’s right-hand man, shopping in London
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:32PM BST 10/07/2008Abu Qatada, the man once described as Osama bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe, was pictured out walking the streets on the third anniversary of the 7/7 terror bombings.
This photograph shows Qatada doing the family shopping in London.
It was taken on Monday, the anniversary of the July 7 attacks, and can now be published after a court order banning recent pictures of the preacher was lifted.
Qatada managed to carry a pack of heavy bottles of Diet Coke, even though he has in the past claimed incapacity benefits for a bad back.
Under his other arm was a family pack of toilet rolls and on his back was a green rucksack for other items.
Earlier he smiled in the summer sunshine as he exchanged a joke about his prayer beads with a woman in the street.
His thinning hair, after nearly six years in jail, was covered by a white Islamic prayer cap, but round his right ankle, covered by a white sock, was the electronic tag which ensures he returns home.
Qatada, 47, is allowed out of his house for two hours a day – one in the morning and one in the afternoon- under the strict terms of his bail.
He was released from Long Lartin high security jail in Worcestershire jail last month after the Government failed to have him deported to Jordan where he is wanted for terrorism offences.
The Appeal Court ruled that Qatada would not get a fair trial in Jordan because statements against him may have been extracted by torture.
The case is being taken to the House of Lords but in the mean time Qatada’s family is understood to be claiming around £47,000 a year in benefits - £500 a week in child benefits for the four of his five children under 18, £210 for income support, £150 for incapacity benefit, £45 in council tax benefit – along with a council home worth around £800,000.
(DOUBLE ALL THE MONEY FIGURES AND YOU’LL GET USA DOLLARS. isn’t there anyone who can rid the world of his shadow? apologies to Sir Winston)Qatada has been described by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, as a “truly dangerous individual” who was “heavily involved, indeed at the centre of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa’eda.”
They took the view that he had given religious authority to numerous high profile terrorists across the world, including the leaders of the September 11 attacks.
His bail conditions say he is specifically banned from receiving visits or communicating with a long list of individuals including Osama bin laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the preacher Abu Hamza.
He is also banned from attending a mosque or providing religious instruction to anyone other than his wife and children, and may not publish any statement without prior approval.
Posted by Drew458
on 07/10/2008 at 12:51 PM
Filed Under: • RoPMA • Terrorists • UK •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • FUNDING FOR THE ARTS BUT FIRST, SHOW US YOUR BISEXUALS, HOMOSEXUALS, LESBIANS OR ‘NOT KNOWNS’
BMEWS readers, it just doesn’t get any crazier then this. Maybe.
A couple of days ago I think I said something similar, except that I also qualified things by saying every time I claimed to have found the dumbest item worthy of a Moonbat award, darn if something else didn’t come up to challenge that opinion and so the last post I did on a dumb story I left open. That is, I refrained from saying yet again, this is the stupidest thing so far.
Well, being as how the Brits continually come up with things that outdo themselves, I can’t say it won’t get dumber then this either. Who knows what politically correct lunacy they’ll follow this with. But I’m certain they’ll come up with something. They have so far.
OK first, I have a url >>> http://www.mediauk.com/magazines/344246/compass-wessex, but it was no help at all in supplying a proper link to the story.
I am doing a word for word copy here. I suppose I could have tried to do a scan, but my software isn’t good enuff to do a readable copy justice.
So finally, here we go.
SHAME on the ARTS COUNCIL
Actors Ian Mckellen, Ralph Fiennes and Kevin Spacy are outraged by the Arts Council’s new rules for obtaining funding.
The council now REQUIRES all arts organizations to state how many board members are Bisexual, Homosexual, Heterosexual, Lesbian or ‘Not Known.’
It says it’s necessary to see if the applicants are representative. “We see diversity as broader then race, ethnicity, faith, and disability,” says Audrey Roy, the director of grants.
So then. This week we have been treated to, a study that proves babies can be racist if they make a face at spicy food, and a call again for sex ed. for 5 years olds. What next? Stay Tuned!
Drew sticks his nose in:
Morning Peiper. I think these are the links you’re looking for?
The Arts Council has encountered ridicule and anger over attempts to force theatre and museum trustees to disclose their sexuality to obtain funding.
New grant forms require arts organisations to state how many board members are bisexual, gay, heterosexual, lesbian or “not known”.
Sir Ian McKellen and Vanessa Redgrave are among leading figures of the stage who have condemned the move, which appears to discriminate against mainstream venues.
Oscar-nominated Sir Ian, who is gay, said: “It sounds extraordinary. It shouldn’t be on a form. It’s quite inappropriate.”
Redgrave said: “Everyone should put down ‘trisexual’, whoever you are.
Britain has become the world’s leading population of trisexuals.”
They were joined in their condemnation by Christopher Hampton, whose adaptation of God of Carnage, starring Ralph Fiennes, has just opened at the Gielgud Theatre. He said: “It’s bureaucracy and political correctness gone mad.”
The application form notes that the question is for government purposes only and will not enter into the grant decision, but that claim was contradicted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Its spokesman said: “We appreciate that, as a responsible public body they need to monitor their overall grant-making programmes. But it is absolutely not the case that sexual orientation monitoring is a government requirement.”
Condemnation of the question spanned the arts. Julian Spalding, the former director of galleries and museums in Sheffield, Manchester and Glasgow, said: “I can’t see what relevance it’s got. It’s a horrible invasion into one’s personal and private life.” He added: “What they like to do in bed is not the Arts Council’s business.”
The Arts Council has defended its decision to ask grant applicants to state their sexuality on application forms after the policy was ridiculed by stars such as Sir Ian McKellen and Vanessa Redgrave.
Yes, this is major moonbattery. Hello, it’s the thee-ate-ah ... where the percentage of “other than hetero” is roughly 5 times greater than almost all other occupational groups. No kidding. So who cares? Shows can be good or bad whether written/produced/choreographed/acted in by people of any sexual orientation. I don’t think that aspect matters a whit.
Posted by Drew458
on 07/10/2008 at 09:00 AM
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Stoopid-People • Typical White People: Stupid AND Evil • UK •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Monday - July 07, 2008
MEANWHILE, MUSLIM FOLLIES HERE IN UK AS, Relatives of July 7 bomber hold PARTY at his grave !
THIS SHOULD PISS OFF ALL AMERICANS AS WELL. THIS IS THE ENEMY FOLKS. THIS IS HOW THEY THINK. THIS IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE. AND THEY ARE GIVEN RIGHTS AND ALLOWED TO LIVE AMONG US AS THO THEY ARE REAL HUMANS.
ONE DAY THE REST OF THE WEST WILL GROW TO REGRET THE WELCOME GIVEN THESE SUB-HUMANS. I WON’T SEE IT. BUT YOUR GRANDCHILDREN MIGHT.
I HOPE YOU ALL READ EVERY LINE HERE.
Please check out the link below for photos
Relatives of July 7 bomber hold PARTY at his grave to ‘celebrate his life’
Bombing victims and famlies outraged!
By Rebecca Camber
Last updated at 6:11 PM on 07th July 2008A banquet fit for a ‘martyr’, this is how one of the July 7 suicide bombers was remembered today.
On the third anniversary of the terror attacks which killed 52 people and injured many more, the family of Shehzad Tanweer held a party to ‘celebrate his life’ and ‘remember him as a martyr’.
Today the families of those murdered in the attacks reacted with outrage to the secret ceremony held at a village in Pakistan where 70 guests gathered to offer prayers and blessings for the suicide bomber whose grave is considered to be a ‘shrine of a big saint’
When Tanweer detonated his bomb at Aldgate station on July 7, 2005 he killed seven innocent people as well as himself.
Together with Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, Hasib Hussain,18, and 19-year-old Jermaine Lindsay, the four bombers blew up three Underground trains and a bus killing 52 people.
As thousands mourned in Britain, in Pakistan there were prayers uttered for his soul and verses of the Koran were read out.
At the commemorative dinner held by Tanweer’s uncle, 42-year-old property developer Tahir Pervez at his home in Samundari, guests were treated to two courses of sweet rice and salted rice with curry and beef prepared by a renowned local chef.
And to mark the occasion, rice was distributed amongst villagers.
For the last two years, the family gathering has been held in secret at his grave, but this year police urged the family not to hold a memorial at the site.
His headstone- the largest in the cemetery of the village- bears the phrase ‘La ilaha il Mohammed dur rasool Allah’ which means ‘There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.’
Local police officer, Zafar Iqbal said: ‘At least 60 to 70 guests, who included villagers and close relatives were invited.
‘They recited the holy Koran inside Tahir’s home and prayed for his soul.
‘We told them not to celebrate the anniversary of his death publicly and call many guests.
‘We also told them to avoid going to the graveyard.
‘During the last two years there was a big celebration and people in the area have accepted his grave as a shrine of a big saint.
‘That is why this time we told his uncle to avoid a big celebration.’
But despite police requests, some villagers insisted on laying flowers at Tanweer’s grave today.
The celebration happened on the same day that hundreds of mourners gathered at the four sites, Russell Square, Aldgate and Edgware Road Tube stations, and Tavistock Square where bombs ripped through London’s public transport network.
Today relatives of the victims condemned the celebration.
Pamela Bond, whose son Jamie Gordon, 30, died in the Tavistock Square blast said: ‘It’s so bad I can’t take it in.
‘To celebrate a “martyr”? It’s just too horrible.
‘But we can’t do anything about it.
‘If his family lived in England they would see the hurt it does to celebrate something like this, but in Pakistan they obviously have a different view of things.’
Sean Cassidy, whose 22-year-old son Ciaran died in the King’s Cross bombing, said: ‘This is glorifying terrorism no matter how you look at it.
‘It is encouraging other people to carry out attacks and it’s not right, especially on a day like today.
‘It is insensitive and inappropriate to hold this on the third anniversary. The government should not even have done him the courtesy of returning [Tanweer’s] remains to Pakistan.’
His daughter Lisa added: ‘It’s really upsetting.
‘At a time when Muslim people are trying to gain people’s respect and put an end to prejudice, it doesn’t paint them in a positive light.
‘I feel it is extremely insensitive what’s going on in Pakistan.
‘They are obviously not thinking about those 52 who were murdered or what this man actually did.’
Stacey Beer, who lost her brother Phil, 22, in the King’s Cross explosion said: ‘It’s disgusting.
‘I really can’t believe it, although nothing surprises me anymore about these people.
‘It hurts even more today. I can’t really take it in, I’m so disgusted that they could do this.’
Today a low-key ceremony was held at the railway station where the four suicide bombers set out on their mission of terror.
London Mayor Boris Johnson joined Tessa Jowell and transport chiefs to lay flowers outside King’s Cross station at 8.50am, the time when the first three bombs went off.
There was also a number of private meetings for survivors and victims’ families.
Andrew Dismore, Labour MP for Hendon said: ‘It is absolutely appalling that his family are choosing to mark the date in this way. What are the Pakistan government doing about this?
‘Five people from five different ethnic and religious groups died from my constituency on 7 July7 2005 and this is a damning insult to their memory and their family members.
‘Most Muslims would be absolutely horrified, as I am, that Shehzad Tanweer is being remembered by some people as a martyr.’
Andrew Dismore, MP for Hendon, added: ‘I think it’s one of the most appalling things I have ever heard of.
‘It’s absolutely sick. What does that say to the relatives of the victims who are still suffering?
‘And what about those who are injured too?
‘To hold a celebratory party. That’s just appalling.’
Posted by Drew458
on 07/07/2008 at 02:12 PM
Filed Under: • Outrageous • RoPMA • Terrorists • UK •
• Comments (6)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Sunday - July 06, 2008
Police sniffer dogs may wear bootees to avoid offending Muslims
I JUST THIS VERY SECOND MINUTE TRIPPED OVER THIS STORY. JUST WHEN I THOUGHT LAST WEEKS POST ABOUT DOGS AND MUSLIMS WAS AS DUMB AS IT COULD POSSIBLY GET .............
ALONG COMES THIS!
SO HERE WE GD GO AGAIN. DAMN IT. ARE THE AUTHORITIES OUT THERE LOOKING FOR ANY TINY LITTLE THING THAT IS GOING TO OFFEND SOME MINORITY THAT SHOULDN’T BE HERE ANYWAY? AND CAN I BE ARRESTED FOR SUGGESTING THAT? JEEEEEZZZZ. THIS PLACE IS STARK RAVING FREEKIN MAD. MAD I TELL YA.
note to Drew. Can we keep this on top for Monday somehow? Unless there something even more stupidly bizarre out there. But surely there can’t be. This HAS to be the ultimate. Right?
POLICE SNIFFER DOGS MAY WEAR BOOTEES TO AVOID OFFENDING MUSLIMS
Last Updated: 3:00PM BST 06/07/2008Police sniffer dogs may be forced to wear bootees when entering mosques and Muslims’ homes to avoid causing offence.
In a bid to respect cultural sensitivities, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is considering the move while drawing up new guidelines on the use of police dogs.
Many Muslims refuse to have direct contact with the animals, which are considered “unclean” in Islamic culture.
An ACPO spokeswoman said current guidelines were being re-drafted, but the suggestion that police dogs wear bootees had not been ruled in or out.
“Where possible the police will take cultural sensitivities into account, providing this does not interfere with effective operational policing,” she said.
The suggestion comes after a police force apologised to Islamic leaders after a police advert featured a puppy sitting in an officer’s hat.
Posted by Drew458
on 07/06/2008 at 09:04 AM
Filed Under: • Animals • Insanity • RoPMA • Stoopid-People • Typical White People: Stupid AND Evil • UK •
• Comments (10)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - July 05, 2008
sex education from age four, And it’s gonna be compulsory.
Age four? I know kids are sharper and more advanced then my age group in our younger days. But FOUR? How can a four year old relate to this stuff?
How would a teacher approach the subject?
Children ‘to be given compulsory sex education from age four’
By Sarah Harris
Last updated at 12:40 AM on 05th July 2008
Children as young as four are set to be given compulsory sex education in primary school.They will be taught the names of body parts and basic ideas about different relationships.
Government advisers claim that ‘gradual education’ from such a young age would help to stop children from rushing into sex when they are older.They argue that the sex education that children receive in science classes does not go far enough.
But the recommendations caused a storm of protest yesterday, with family campaigners claiming that the views of parents and teachers are being ignored.
Norman Wells, director of the pressure group Family and Youth Concern, said: ‘What this is really all about is the sex education establishment trying to force schools to do something many parents - and many teachers - are uncomfortable with.’
At present, primary heads and governors decide whether or not to provide sex education and what it should involve beyond the compulsory science requirements laid down by the national curriculum.
They must have a policy on whether or not they provide sex education. If they do provide it, usually in personal, social and health education (PSHE) classes, parents have the right to withdraw their children.
But the fpa - formerly the Family Planning Association - the sexual health advice service Brook and the Sex Education Forum are recommending the introduction of compulsory lessons. They are taking part in a Government review of Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) in primary and secondary schools.
The charities sit on a panel, which is currently examining ‘the right age to begin teaching what the key messages are and content that young people should receive at each key stage’.
They have pre-empted publication of their final report later this month and publicly announced their recommendation for statutory sex education from primary school onwards. This would bring sex and relationship education on to the curriculum alongside other compulsory subjects such as maths and English.
Brook chief executive Simon Blake said: ‘All the evidence shows that if you start sex and relationships education early - before children start puberty, before they feel sexual attraction - they start having sex later.
‘They are much more likely to use contraception and practise safe sex.’
Anna Martinez, head of the Sex Education Forum, confirmed they are recommending making PSHE statutory to give it ‘the high status it deserves as an essential part of all children’s education’.
As the mother of a 12-year-old girl, I feel helpless rage at morally bankrupt ‘sex education’ that just encourages under-age flings
But Mr Wells said there is no evidence to suggest that starting sex education at the age of four would reduce sexually transmitted infections and abortion rates among teenagers.
He added: ‘It’s quite extraordinary that the fpa and Brook should be calling on the Government to impose something on every child in every school that has no proven benefit whatsoever.
‘Schools already have to have a sex education policy, but that policy must be developed in close consultation with parents, and schools must be sensitive to the wishes of parents.
‘But the fpa want to take parents out of the equation and remove discretion from schools.
‘It’s vital that parents’ views should continue to be respected and that schools should remain sensitive to parental concerns on such a controversial issue.’
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families insisted that no final decision has been made by ministers on the subject yet.
He said: ‘Effective sex and relationships education is essential for young people to make safe and healthy choices about their lives and prevent early pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
‘That is why Government is currently reviewing the delivery of SRE in schools to improve the quality and consistency of provision to young people.
‘The steering group, jointly chaired by Schools Minister Jim Knight and a member of the UK Youth Parliament, will make recommendations to Government later this month.’
http://tinyurl.com/5qjv6b
Posted by Drew458
on 07/05/2008 at 11:07 AM
Filed Under: • Education • Sex • UK •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • EYE CANDY AT AGE ELEVEN? AS IN, 11? KINDA YOUNG NO? WHAT’S WRONG WITH MOM HERE?
OK, I know there’s gonna be those who say this little girl might be “more mature” then the average 11 yr old. Uh huh. I really don’t buy that at all.
I think mommy dearest is living her life thru her kid and robbing her of a normal girlhood. But what do I know. I’m not a parent. Neither am I a prude.
This kid looks awesome! That’s the problem. She shouldn’t.
And what does the little girl have to say? here ya go.
Ask Sasha how she sees herself and she replies: ‘Blonde, pretty, dumb - I don’t need brains.’ Her mum laughs her head off at this, proud that the child is so like her.
Drew is gonna hafta come up with a special catagory for stuff like this. I mean, stoopid ppl isn’t enuff. I just couldn’t bring myself to file this under ‘sex’ and you can understand I hope.
Mummy’s little Lolita: The 11-year-old girl whose beauty treatments cost £300 a month to make her look like Barbie
By Jenny Johnston
Last updated at 12:27 AM on 05th July 2008She wore her first set of false eyelashes at eight, and her beauty treatments cost £300 a month. A sick abuse of an 11-year-old? ‘No’, insists Sasha’s mother, ‘I just want her to be famous...’
At 11, Sasha Bennington is too young to remember the days when Jordan was just a country and being branded ‘fake’ was something to be ashamed of.But maybe the youngster’s biggest tragedy is that her mother, Jayne, 31, is in no hurry to paint a picture of how it used to be.
Jayne is talking breezily about how Sasha had her first set of false nails glued on at eight, and now enjoys the sort of rigorous beauty regime - hair extensions, fake tans, pedicures - that was once the preserve of porn stars and Dolly Parton, not school children from Burnley in Lancashire.Still, times have changed. ‘All the kids are at it now,’ insists Jayne. ‘We spend about £300 a month on beauty treatments for her.
‘Sasha’s friends are the same. All girls their age are. Of course they are! Why else would you be able to buy make-up for pre-teens at Boots?
‘Perhaps it’s different in country areas, where they don’t need to grow up so fast. But, around big cities, girls have got to be more forward and act older than they are. That’s just the way it is.
‘I don’t understand why people get so upset about it. None of it is permanent. Tans wash off. Hair extensions come out. Why all the fuss?’
Just over a year ago, there was fuss galore when Jayne entered Sasha (then ten) in the junior Miss British Isles competition - Britain’s first adult-style beauty pageant for children.
THERE’S LOTS MORE HERE >>> http://tinyurl.com/6q4hnm
Posted by Drew458
on 07/05/2008 at 10:30 AM
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous • UK •
• Comments (8)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Five Most Recent Trackbacks:
LAAR She Blows! Part One
(2 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Planes Ideas Blog
[...] CABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEB [...]
On: 07/12/11 01:57
The Tactical Cowboy
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Sights Service Blog
[...] E LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE [...]
On: 07/10/11 08:30
Nasty Dirty Money
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Money Reviews Blog
[...] ONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLES [...]
On: 06/17/11 08:31
Amazing aerial images taken by daring Allied pilots on secret missions during WW 2
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Hookers and Booze
peiper over at Barking Moonbat EWS found some absolutely kickass aerial photos from WWII. I grabbed this one because I’m a big fan of the movie A Bridge Too Far.…
On: 11/23/09 04:14
Clear Thinking and Straight Talk
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at baldilocks
Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home Read all of it--and tell every American you know to do so. (Thanks to BMEWS) UPDATE: The author of the above blog is…
On: 10/02/09 09:29
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:
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.
- Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
- Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
- Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
- Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
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
Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
RSS 2.0 
Atom 
