Or The Very British Dude will punish you
Monday, 31 July 2006
Thursday, 27 July 2006
The CAP and American farm Subsidies are responsible for the collapse of the Doha round of the world trade talks. Basically the west was unwilling to give up subsidising farmers. The resultant dumping and consequent low-world prices for agricultural products are responsible for this:
Free trade works for everyone, but if poor countries are expected to open their developing industrial and service sectors, then they must be able to benefit from the West's agricultural markets in return. In short, they must be allowed to do what they do best and cheapest, just as we in the affluent West are. That way trade is fair and poor countries' citizens benefit from cheaper goods and access to markets for their primary goods, allowing organic investment in infrastructure, eventually consigning famine to history. Unfortunately in their charge that the west abuses free trade to the detriment of the world's poor, the green-haired rock-chuckers are bang-on.
The Europeans are insecure, socialist wankers who don't beleive in free trade and cannot be expected to grasp this. At least the EU position is consistent. The Americans do know better and therefore are killing Africans for mere domestic electoral gain - pork barrel politics paid for by millions of Africans' lives. Something which will go down in history as the worst piece of cynical hypocricy since the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
Wednesday, 26 July 2006
As the famous sketch in "Yes Minister" almost said, each of the UK papers has their own peculiar genius. The Grauniad, for example has brilliant sports and arts coverage. The Daily Mail manages to get Diana, Princess of Wales into every day's copy. (The Times is resting on its laurels - I can't think of anything its particularly good at any more). The Telegraph has a particular genius for obituaries. I love reading the exploits of some bonkers old aristo who armed only with a magnificent double-barreled name, charged a machine-gun at anzio to win his MC and went on to devlop a profound knowlege of passerine evolution, becoming a world authority on songbirds after the war.
This one caught my eye. Who would think that the owner of Britian's last Boxing booth demanded a mention in a paper of record? But he does, as his sad passing call to mind the end of so much in life that's fun and dangerous, to be replaced by a world of the Health and Safety executive, who would seek to deny the right of local toughs to measure themselves against the champ. Perhaps he represents the passing of a world where local youths feel a good kicking was "all in good sport". I know what it feels like - my boxing record is three fights, three losses, two by knockout - but I would still get in the ring and have a go, and take my black eye in the spirit in which it is intended. No doubt the insurance is too high these days. Pehaps what used to be called the working class, softened by welfare dependency would rather beat up an old-lady rather than actually test their manhood in the ring.
Perhaps, like all Telegraph readers, I have a hankering for bygone times. I don't know.
Tuesday, 25 July 2006
For those of you who think that your donation goes to those nice people in uniform who rescue animals from abuse, think again.
The RSPCA spent £50,000 chasing through the courts a policman who, seeing a badly injured cat, did the decent thing and put the unfortunate creature out of its misery. The RSPCA, instead of appologising for wasting court time, and begging the officer's forgiveness, went all the way to the high court, where they were told to FUCK OFF.
They pointed to the "change in procedures" at the force in question rather than say sorry. Fuckers. Useless animal-rights twats. Why can't they deal with cruelty and neglect rather than harassing those who try to do the right thing and involving themselves in political campaigns? Bastards.
I am buying a flat. As far as I can gather, the lawyers have written 5 letters. Otherwise they singularly fail to raise a finger to help get the process moving along, or show any motivation to do so. I would feel sick if I charged people a lot of money for so lacklustre service. Clearly the first thing they teach at law school is "this is a cartel - charge what you like, it's not as if they can go anywhere else"
Let's Kill all the Lawyers
From William Shakespeare's Henry VI
Monday, 24 July 2006
Or Where is the market going?
As a global trading nation, our main market is unusually international. It contains Kazakstani and Indian Copper miners, African beer conglomerates and american online gaming comapnies for example. Thus when Ben Bernanke speaks loosely to a pretty jounalist, it affects the UK.
Ever since the market hit 6,000, I have been a bear (not this sort), and when interest rate fears kicked off an unusually vicious bout of selling after Bernanke's Gaffe, there was a lot of talk about the end of the bull market which has been in place since March 2003. Only I'm not convinced that the market has peaked. The uptrend in the could easily resume in September, with a new stable interest rate paradigm, or we could have wider Middle-Eastern war, sending oil to $100 per barrell. Not being in posession of a crystal ball or telepathic links to Mr. Bernanke - we can have a look at what the charts tell us.
Unfortunately they say "The market could go up, down, or stay the same. Of that we can be sure".
- The market is above the rising 200 day moving average
- and above the long-term trendline
- Interest rate fears are receding
- Corporate earnigns are strong
- The Trailing PE is 15 times on the FTSE 100: not bad, following 3 years of shareprice growth.
- Most commentators seem to think the market is pointing down (indicating a reversal)
- Most commentators seem to think the market is pointing down (they could be right)
- New lows were made following the market's first rally in early June.
- Oil is at £74 per barrell
- The 90-day moving average has turned down
- This is the first time in since 2003 that the long-tem support line has been breached.
- The market has fallen by less than equivalent corrections in the 80's and 90's, indicating that there is more profit to be taken before buying begins again in earnest.
- In this envoronment, few will risk much in the low-volume crazy days of summer.
- Market is trading between rising 200-day and falling 90-day moving averages, and seems unwilling to break out of this range for the time being.
Oh for the Wisdom of Crowds...
Well done Tiger Woods - a masterful display of presicion Golf. But what really struck me as I dozed contentedly in front of the Telly on Sunday was the sheer horror of Sergio Garcia's ill-advised outfit, which plumbed new depths in a sport notable for horrid wardrobes. Were are trinny and Suzannah when you need them?
Thursday, 20 July 2006
If there is a political issue where left and right divide, it is the Levant. Leftwingers identify themselves with the palestinians and their Arab supporters, and rightwingers support the Israelis. Exceptions are to be found on the Antisemitic far right, and there is an undeniable but bizzare alliance between radical Islam and the western Far-Left. This is an interesting psychological self-identification issue between weak and strong, and the rights and wrongs are dealt with accordingly by commentators in one of three ways:
- The Palesitians are terrorists and deserve what Israel gives them. It's all their leaders fault. (right wing).
- The Israelis are Zionist murderers and have no right to Israel. (Left wing) or must retreat to the '68 borders. (Soft left)
- Moral Equivalence: they are both as bad as each other, it's none of our busienss (trying to be reasonable from either wing of politics).
As I see it, Israel's responce to kindapping is understandable, but probably a bit careless of colateral damage and therefore counterproductive. Nevertheless Hamas' and later Hezbollah's kidnap of soldiers has no moral equivalence to the holding of terrorists by a legitimate recognised state according to the norms of law. Therefore Israel is right to reject out of hand, the idea that Palestinian terrrorists (even if female) should be handed over in return for the three soldiers and a cease fire.
No-one but the most extreme Islamists denies Israel's right to exist and to defend herself against terrrorism, but what the left of the political argument - Kofi Annan included - is suggesting for Israel, is to offer a ceasefire before the quite legitimate aims of their military offensive have been met. Bush n' his biach Yo! Blair are therefore right to offer Israel support, whilst urging restraint where possible to avoid the civilian casualties that are lamentably charicterising this war.
Most 2s and 3s would see this as mealy-mouthed condoning of aggression. It is not. Given that Israel under an untested war leader cannot be seen to give in to terrorism, there must be a defeat of the Hezbollah and a destruction of their arsenal and a return of the soldiers (or their killers if that is what is going to happen) before Israel will be leant upon by the US to stop.
There is an understandable pacifist tendency in the Left which says "all war is bad therefore it must stop" - and there is a logical consistency in that. But a surrender by the Israelis will lead to more violence and sufferning in the long term. Now the chips are down, the Israelis and the international community must try to build a lasting peace in the Lebanon out of the ruins. The Lebanese Government's remit must run all the way to the Israeli border and an armed Iranian proxy militia cannot be tolerated any longer. The Israelis are smashing Hezbollah, and it is up to the international community, after the war to see that the Lebanese are no longer held hostage by such an organisation. This will only be possible if the Israelis are allowed to succeed, horrible though it is to watch.
Unfortunately the situation in the south is more complicated, because the terrorist "State within a state" as far as the Palestinan issue is concerned is now the Hamas Government. How can the Israelis deal with people who deny their right to exist? I see no solution short of finding a Palestinian Mandela to call a halt to the Intafada and commence a negotiation. As one commentator put it "there is common ground to be found between Iraeli and Palestinian. The Problem is it's East Jerusalem"
The Lebannon will probably benefit in the long term from this action (international rebuilding, and an end to terrorist/foreign control over some of its territory). I fear the Palestinians will not be so lucky.
Wednesday, 19 July 2006
Yesterday, I went to see Bob Marshall Andrews and Ken Clarke debate civil liberties with the Bow Group. Debate is perhaps the wrong word - they struggled to disagree sufficiently for that. Both agree that the Lords has been instrumental in defending civil liberties in an increasingly populist atmosphere. Both Agree that Nu Labour drafts laws carelessly. Both agree on the difficulties of creating a written constitution.
I asked Mr Marshall Andrews "Most labour people would regard themselves as "liberal". How can the most illiberal government in history spring from this tradition?"
He replied that populism - the desire for positive tabloid headlines - combined with a fear for their seats, led politicians to support draconian legislation to combat the fear of the week. That is what checks and balances are for, and led to his changing his mind on the usefulness of the Lords.
We must always be vigilant about the threat to civil liberties from Government.
The cause is not lost. The Regulatory and reform bill is being ammended to limit it to the task (deregulation) for which it was intended, and much inadequately drafted legislation is not making it through parliament.
Bob Marshall Andrews indicated his admiration for members of the Tory front bench, notably David Davis for their staunch support of basic freedoms.
Lamentably they had to go and vote, before I could ask the one about the Natwest 3, Mr Caruthers of BetOnSports.com and others and how American Extraterritorial jurisitction affected our civil liberties - still a very enjoyable evening in the palace of Westminster. (Sorry about the photo - Phone cams are not the best!)
Tuesday, 18 July 2006
Corporations have no sense of humour, and are at least as bad as the state in destroying human libery. So another Blair, Eric was wrong in the end. It won't be state induced thought-crime legislation that finally destroys democracy (though Tony will try); but the idea that corporations can fire employees for freely held opinion. Perhaps this is why La Toynbee wants bloggers to use their real names. Lefties tend to "work" for the state and can't or won't be fired for expressing a self serving political orthodoxy. Righties tend to work in the private sector and have to hide any vaguely controversial opinions from an opressive corporate machine
Whence comes the fear of opinion? And why is the fear greatest when expressed online?
Spare a thought for La Petite Anglais.
Monday, 17 July 2006
There is so much to get worked up about in the world, and in doing so, it is tempting to lose sight of whatever disaster this government does to this country, and other governments do to the world, there are islands of gentility and civilisation.
One of these yesterday was Lords. Mohammad Yousuf was finally dismissed by Harmison for 202, a magnificent innings lasting two days. As he lead the players off the pitch, to a standing ovation from a huge crowd, every English player went and congratulated him. In cricket, this is unremarkable.
Friday, 14 July 2006
I Haven't been waatching this years big brother - mostly due to homelessness, but I've just seen this evening's eviction. Even by the standards of this show, This is low. I've just watched a very immature girl undergo a triple dignity bypass operation.
In my previous post on transport, I gave the impression of being a tub-thumper for the car. I'm not, I merely regard the car as a practical nessesity where I live.
The Bycicle is the most efficient machine ever developed. The benefits to society which would accrue by its widspread use as a means of transport in our congested cities are incalculable. The benefits to human health and happiness are likewise huge.
- Jouney times accross London and other cities would fall. The city would be quieter and more pleasant.
- People would be healthier.
- Excitement and excersise generate endorphins, making people happier.
- Happy people work better, boosting the economy.
- and cut the Health service bill (broken wrists are cheaper than type II diabetes).
- By not buying cars, paying Ken's tax, and Gordon's petrol tax, and not needing extortionate insurance, people would have more money to spend, further boosting the economy.
- Supermarkets would become less attractive, regenerating the local shop - further reducing the nessesity for using a car.
At present the cycle is a solution for the brave. Join us.
Ranted by Jackart at 7/14/2006 09:36:00 a.m.
Thursday, 13 July 2006
The British Constitution is Unwritten. It has worked, up till 1997 because parties have not abused the system. Parliamentary conventions - the election of Speakers* from alternating parties, for example - exist and have ususally been obeyed by the Conservatives and previous Labour administrations.
This governement is uniquely awful precisely because it feels that, unless a rule is written down, it is to be ignored. This has required nonsense like the committee on standards in public life being required to look into party political funding, a task it was not asked to cover by John Major in 1994. In doing so, the Labour party created a rod for its own back. In principle based systems - such as the British constitution, an adjudicating committee can say "this stinks". If there are detailed rules, then all they can say is "This stinks, but no rules were broken". I would point to the relative suceess of the British and later IFRS Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which is principle-based, compared to the rule-based American GAAP system in combatting fraud. Enron was allowed to get away with what it did for so long because Auditiors had to say "this is within the rules" not "this is a true and accurate reflection".
Party Funding is a murky issue and always will be. When there is a fount of power, then money will flow to it, seeking favour. Trying to stop this is as pointless as trying to stem the tide or to stop drugs coming in. It may be desirable, but in doing so, you have to trample over peoples' freedoms, and this is exactly what the Labour party has done. Not just in who can give what to whom, but in almost every area of life. Rules have multiplied like plague germs under this administration because New Labour cannot trust itself, and cannot believe anyone else can be trusted to "play Cricket" that is to obey principle rather than rules.
Some people are rich. These people should be allowed to fund parties with their legally aquired loot. Parties should be allowed to reward rich donors , who are often sucessful people, openly with peerages and knighthoods. Perhaps the Queen could set a price tarriff - a £1m donation gets you a Peerage at the rank of Baron, £2m gets you a Viscountcy and so on. If this was open and honest, then there should be no problem, after all it's been going on for centuries, until labour tried to rule against it.
The UK is unique in having such baubles to give away - and at so little cost to the state. You might argue that a peerage grants you a chance to influence the laws of the UK simply by dint of being rich. I counter by saying that is the case already - and always has been. If you buy peerages, at least your position and interest is recorded in Hansard. In any case, parliament is already subject to the whims of corrupt, unaccountable people in the form of the EU commission. I'd rather have corrupt business people who have at least demonstrated managerial competence than the bunch of failures and has-beens who populate the commisson.
This spat of self flagellation was in part motivated by the Labour Party activists distaste for wealth, and the feeling that disengagement was due to the feeling that politicians were corrupt. As if rules were going to change that. What they should have done is encouraged openness and honesty. Not attempt to remove money from politics - an excersise in futility if ever there was one!
So Lord Levy is the first victim of the Labour Government's rule fetish. Because Loans were anonymous, they became popular. Clearly the loans were never meant to be repaid. They are therefore gifts - that were designed dishonestly to slip under the radar of the rules. He failed, and I hope he brings the whole discredited government down with him.
*Glasgow Mick, in my opinion has been an excellent speaker - whatever disagreements I have over the chippy reasons for his election - they reflect worse on the Labour party than him.
Wednesday, 12 July 2006
Over the summer, I have been without permenant abode. This is fine, whilst the weather is good and even when it isn't I quite like the pitter-patter of rain on a poncho. Obviously I haven't been spending every night in the woods, and have taken the freedom from rent to splash out a bit on seeing friends around the country.
Fucking hell. British Roads are SHIT
For the most savagely taxed and harrassed motorist in the world, we get a sorry return. "Public Transport" scream the lefties. Well great, but lets look at whether this is actually going to work. Lets compare 2 journeys I have recently completed: Hitchin to Hampstead for an evening appointment: one by Car and one by Public Transport.
- Depreciation: £2 (whole day)
- Insurance: 99p
- Fuel £7.30
- Parking £1.20 (£10 for a whole day)
- Total: £11.49 or £20.29
- Time: 40 minutes
- Costs: Day RailCard to London £12.50 (includes tube, £20 if you want to be there during the day)
- Walk to station: 10 mins
- Train: 35 minutes
- Delay: 5 minutes
- Tube 1: 10 minutes
- Tube 2: 7 minutes
- Walk to destination: 3 minutes
- Total: 1 Hour 10 minutes
The car is faster, cheaper (OK 29p more expensive if you stay the whole day) and more convenient - even at peak times. Convenince is especially marked if you have luggage. It is more comfortable, air conditioned and the Radio plays what I want. During rush hour, commuter trains would appal animal rights activists with their overcrowding. The only advantage is that you can read when on the train, and you can have a beer at the other end if you like.
So what about the environmental costs: Well - I'm living in the woods and I have to say, the British Envionment looks pretty good. Many species are making comebacks and deciduous woodland cover is increasing. What about global warming? - well I'm agnostic about whether this is a wholly bad thing - there are benefits as well as problems that will be caused. I'm also not convinced that man is entirely to blame either. Partially yes, but perhaps not entirely.
In any case the Train, except on busy commuter routes, produces more carbon per passenger per mile than a car. Unless the UK switches to Nuclear power, this is unlikely to change. Busses often run empty and when they do, are more polluting than cars - especially in particulates. They have deisel engines you see.
A car gives freedom. Public transport ties you to the time-table. All other things being equal therefore, people will chose the car.
Government policy is so wrong-headed in this area I don't know where to begin.
They are ostensibly encouraging use of a slower means of transport by massive subsidy to the rail industry. This is paid for by a massively contributory road industry - whose tax more than pays the subsidy to railtrack and the Train Operating Companies. Despite this subsidy. Trains are more expensive than cars for the passenger. Despite this - they are massively overcrowded during rush hour. Because of this, the TOCs are pushing up fares - to drive people back onto the roads.
I know the TOCs are private, but Network rail is public and the public sector ethos permiates the whole industry. That's why it's so shit. So what the government is doing, is shovelling money from an efficient, private technology and giving it to a slow, inefficient public one. This serves to decrease investment in the roads, reducing quality of life for everyone. All for an environmental benefit, which is at best marginal.
Why can't we stop subsidising the fucking rail industry. Dismantle the whole damn edifice except where proifitable - in and out of the major cities, where a big increase in investment will be justified. We should also build more light rail projects. This also tallies with where the environmental benefit would be greatest and the quality of life - improving congestion in cities would benefit most. For everywhere else - we need more and better roads.
I suspect the reason that the car is so hated by the left is not because it polutes (it doesn't, much), but because it is out of the bien pensent's control. But you don't need me to tell you that lefties want to control every aspect of our lives, do you? Any argument will do to get the state to control your actions as far as those cunts are concerned. The environment's merely the last in a long line of reasons to interfere in people's lives.
Make the world a better place, punch a lefty in the face. It'll probably only cost you £500* - which equates to little more than parking in the wrong spot 5 times. Cheap at twice the price.
*and a criminal record for assault.
Tuesday, 11 July 2006
The Daily Telegraph has an open letter to the Home Secretary concerning the one-sided extradition arrangements with the U.S.A.
You can sign it here
Monday, 10 July 2006
Friday, 7 July 2006
These are trivial matters next to this government's gross dereliction of duty where this country's vital interests are concerned. There is a duty of the British state to protect its citizens from an overweening foreign legal code - and its politically motivated prosecution to secure favourable headlines. This government has failed in its most basic duty.
Three men, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby, are alleged to have invested in an Enron subsidiary, by means of selling Swap Sub, a vehicle to hedge Enron's interest in a third-party investment, at a knockdown price back to Enron, and thereby defrauded the investors of Greenwich NatWest, a Connecticut-based subsidiary and orriginator of Swap Sub. The money in question is $7.4 million. Chum-change in the grand scheme of things.
looking at the charge sheet, the transactions listed stink, but then you could make any set of complex SPV transactions look fraudulent. The problem is that three British Subjects are going to be carted off to try their luck under a foreign legal code and the US attourny-General doesn't even have to prove that there's a case to answer. The US's legal reach therefore extends to the UK, whilst the US refuses to extradite known Irish Republican terrorists.
These three are not the first to face trial in the US. Ian Norris, former chief executive of Morgan Crucible was also extradited to face charges of price-fixing. These extradition powers were meant for terrorist suspects. Given the US's treatment of such people, ironically the Human-rights act will probably ensure that muslims with excessive facial hair and a stash of P4 are the only people who will not face extradition under these powers.
How could any government do this to it citizens? I'm filled with spitting rage at the idea that British subjects could be spirited away to face trial in one of America's adolescent witch-hunts - without the British legal system getting its paws on Irish Terrorists in return, who have been hiding under the wing of the Irish Lobby in the 'states for decades.
What's just as bad: The Americans are doing great disservice to the principles of free trade that made them rich. In an attempt to remove dodgy-dealing from the system, they are destroying the greatest capital market in the world. Already you see "not for distribution in the US" on flotation documents. Companies refuse to settle through Crest in case they gain an American shareholder and thereby come under the purview of the SEC and sarbanes-oxley. This is even true of companies based in the US! The damage this will do to America and the world is huge. This poses more of a risk to Globalisation, surely the greatest force for peace, than any number of green-haired rock chuckers.
But the failure of the British Government to stand up for its interests and those of Her Majesty's subjects is what really excersises me. Just like the surrender over the rebate, Tony is so desperate to be loved that he'll give up any British advantage to secure "an lightly proffered laurel, the easy ungrudged praise". It indicates that this Government has a poor grasp of history and a weak attention to detail - all Britain needed to do was to insist that the treaty only came into effect on ratification by the U.S. Legislature. The United States is our friend and a powerful one. It is also a bully and needs standing up to from time to time. The Americans need to be reminded that wars they enter without us, they lose, unless the enemy is really, really small. They need to be reminded that they have few friends in the world. A warning to America - we are your Friend, but not uncritically. Britons are starting to really dislike the American state. How long before this descends into French-Style anti americanism? You may try these three Gentlemen, but at what a cost!
A warning to Tony. You are a venal twat and if I had my way, you'd be tried as a traitor and Hanged.
Thursday, 6 July 2006
Anyway as we went into the main gate at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club yesterday, I was handed a Flyer by an elderly Gentleman.
"Did you know that I invented the electronic computer in 1942? I was born on 1940, the second son of the 10th Duke of Northumberland with a uniquely prodigious intellectual ability, which my particular circumstances enabled to be rapidly developed. It is difficult to believe that, at an age when very few people can even read the title of Thomas the Tank Engine, I was into, amongst other things, advanced mathematics, because there is no precident for this performance, but I had the Idea to use binary algebra with the so called Boolean algebra to enable the prcess of digital computation by electronic means. The means had been available since 1904, but the brightest and best iun Europe and America were unable to make the conceptual breakthrough I was able to do. The immediate result was the world's first electronic computer, colossus, used at Bletchly to crack the Germans Enigma electro-mechanical coding system. Contrary to prevailing publicity, Bletchly was devised as a means of Hiding Colossus. It was the Revolutionary computing speed, of which the Germans had no suspicion, that made feasable the solution of the Atomic equations which engendered the Manhatten Porject. This basic secrecy has continued since the war for similar reasons - to conceal the existence of copyright and thus enable those people to manipulate that enormous advantage t their greater benefit. The royalties have provided for the privatisation of the Utilities as has occurred and at teh same time funded the Dome, The Royal Opera House, Cardiff Arms Park and numerous other projects under carious disguises, such as the National Heritage Lottery Fund. Together with the income from my myriad music copyrights )also concealed by false attribution), continually invested since the Early 1940's the revenues are well in excess of £10bn a year and Growing, yet there is nowhere mention of this huge reservoir of available private finance, especially in the political arena.
This is a public infomation leaflet issued on my own behalf.
5 July 2006
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
Henry percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland died in 1995, which is a shame, because I'd have liked there to be a bit more behind this wonderfully English eccentric "public information leaflet". It was certainly more intersting than the flyers for Credit cards that were being handed out.
Has anyone else seen this nutter?
Tuesday, 4 July 2006
He has positioned himself to be wrong on almost every level on almost every issue - except Europe (he was against it, until he discovered that it was antipathic to British interests). He continues to argue in favour of utterly discredited half-baked economic theory. He's a knee jerk pacifist who was willing to indulge a brutal dictator as obsequiously as Gorgeous George. He supported the Miners' strike, was against the recapture of the Falklands (no principled stand for the principle of self-determination there). Despite his pacifism, he supported Sinn Fein at the hight of the IRA's bombing campaign - clearly in his world view, only the United Kingdom's enemies are allowed force.
This cataloge of opinions - and his rejection of his personal and family heritage - indicate more than simple economic fallacy of socialism. This is a deeper self-loathing. He hates his aristocratic past, he hates the country he represents to the point at which he cannot bring himself to support the use of his country's forces in his country's interest. He dislikes eveything Britain stands for, except for drab municipal socialism and poor labour relations. There are words for people who think like him - at best a fifth columnist for Socialist, Irish and Later Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. At worst - Traitor. Thankfully his lot lost, and we don't have to string him up. Never the less, I wish the BBC would stop indulging him - he's not a wise old man, he's a silly old champagne socialist git who should be ignored as he slips into genteel senility.
Monday, 3 July 2006
I may not know much about football. (There's no Southgate on the Team, I Meant Neville). I do know that International football is usually a draw. 1-1 or ocasionally 0-0 (gripping). You'll never lose money if you bet that England will go out, on penalties in the Quarter finals.
And That Christian Ronaldo is still not a very likeable individual, no matter how good his technique....