skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A news story today about Jacqui F*cking Smith caught my eye, apparently she "inadvertently" submitted an expenses claim that included two porn films. She claims that although she herself submitted the expenses claim she did not actually watch the blue movies, and that it was actually her husband who watched them. She has withdrawn that claim and apologised, but whatever. I just find it funny.
Story is here.
ETA, found this slightly different take on the matter which I found interesting.
According to the Telegraph online today a further 1700 British troops are to be deployed to Afghanistan very soon.
Now, I will say at this point that I was against the war from the outset. I am not for one second saying that the regimes in Afghanistan and also Iraq were good, quite the opposite, the atrocities carried out by the Taliban and by Saddam Hussein were utterly appalling but the actual reasons we went to war were not acceptable, and were under false pretences. We were told there were WMD's in Iraq - it has now come to light that our government had good intelligence to suggest this was not true. The war against Afghanistan was not started because the US and the UK were so aghast at the Taliban regime, which had been going on long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks but as a knee jerk response to the atrocities carried out on American soil. It is known that a large part of the Taliban is Pakistani based and Pakistan also have nuclear capabilities, but because the US has some kind of alliance with Pakistan no action is taken against them. Similarly North Korea has a terrible regime run by the crazy dictator Kim Jong-Il, and has repeatedly claimed to have nuclear power, yet so far no action has been taken. Saudi Arabia runs a totalitarian regime based around Wahhabism and sharia law which sees women being executed for "crimes" such as speaking to a man who is not their husband, or accidentally showing a flash of flesh in the 40 degree heat. Yet because the US and UK are "friends" with the Saudis again no action is taken. And of course the recent situation in Zimbabwe has seen western leaders turn a blind eye.
So while I don't agree with these kind of regimes I don't think the reasons for going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq were justified. Maybe when there are no more problems in our own country, no more homelessness, no more pensioners dying because they can't afford to put the heating on, when child abuse and forced marriages are a thing of the past maybe then we can set out and try and "liberate" other countries.
As it stands at present though our government are literally pouring millions of pounds into bombing the hell out of countries thousands of miles away, and seeing our troops being killed in their hundreds while at the same time the country is in recession and the government is having to borrow money from the IMF. Surely the common sense approach would be to withdraw our troops and spend the money on trying to sort out some of our own problems. Because I don't think we are far from seeing some serious dissent here in the UK.
I went to see my GP today as I have been getting these weird flashes in my vision and sore eyes since I was hit by the car in January and as they are still happening I was worried in case I had got some serious damage.
He had a look at my eyes and said everything seemed OK, but advised me to go and get my eyes tested at an opticians just to be sure. I also mentioned to the GP that I have been having nightmares and flashbacks since the accident/incident and that I keep getting really panicky when I cross roads and he offered to refer me to a counsellor, to which I agreed. I asked him how long he thought the waiting list was, as I envisaged waiting months before I got to speak to anyone. He checked on the computer ad said "Well, I can offer you an appointment with the practice counsellor in about 10 minutes if that suits you"! Apparently someone had just cancelled, so I got seen straight away. Hows that for service?!
I went to the optician this afternoon to get my eyes checked (at vision express, and very helpful they were too) and after a comprehensive check the optometrist (I think that's the right one) decided the weird flashes and floaters are being caused by some of the vitreous fluid in my eyeballs becoming slightly detached from my retinas, as a result of the impact of the accident. Apart from giving me the weird flashes and making me feel a bit squeamish it will not cause me any lasting problems and should clear up by itself. Still though, I keep discovering new parts of me that were injured. I am currently waiting to see if I need an arthroscopy to check out the pain in me right knee, where the car first hit me. Is it any wonder I am still feeling very nervous when I am out on the roads?
One good thing though - I no longer need glasses! In fact I apparently have perfect vision in my right eye and near perfect in my left. That's nothing to do with the accident, just because I am now fully grown and the long sightedness of my youth is no longer a problem. Woohoo!
I had to take the cat back to the vets today for his follow up appointment and fortunately everything seems to be OK with him now, which is good.
Due to my current financial situation I have had to take him to the PDSA for treatment, as I could not afford the cost of the operation he required last week. I donated as much as I could to the PDSA but the surgery and follow up visit would have cost hundreds of pounds that I simply do not have at the moment. It was with reluctance that I took him to the PDSA, because I don't like having to rely on charity, I like to sort things myself and pay my way. I intend to donate the rest of the treatment cost once I am working again. The thing that got me really riled though was that the majority of people taking their pets to the PDSA were pulling into the car park in really expensive new cars. Now to be eligible for PDSA support you have to be in receipt of council tax benefit, which you can generally only get when you are out of work. I realise that some of the people present will be in similar positions to me - they were working until recently and so still have the nice car/own home etc, but can no longer afford treatment. But I cannot believe that to be true of all the people I have seen there on the 3 visits I have made. Especially not the people with the flash cars and the pedigree puppies. It just annoys me, because I don't think you should take on an animal if you cannot afford to look after it properly, and people who abuse the benefits system are taking it away from those that really need help, like the elderly and the disabled.
I guess the only thing I can do is try to be honourable, and as soon as I am able donate the rest of the cost of treatment for my cat.
If we stop being scared then will we have won the "war on terror"?
Probably not because Jacqui F*cking Smith keeps fuelling the fears. Be afraid people, be very afraid because if the terrorists don't get you this government probably will.
Article from the Times online.
Really, is anyone else getting worried...because I certainly am. From the Daily Mail again (I know) but still rather disturbing.
Get ready to denounce your neighbours. Next self-criticism session to be held...oh yeah, that's right, we have freedom in this country, don't we. Anyone else getting seriously worried by Jacqui F*king Smith? Article from the Daily Mail.
I read a report in the independent online today stating that research has shown that babies born as a result of IVF treatment are at a higher risk of birth defects. I am surprised this has not been studied before. Maybe I am stating the obvious, but if two people who are trying to procreate together are encountering problems conceiving then just maybe it is because there is a good genetic reason why one or both of those individuals should not be passing on their genes. I don't mean this in a nasty way, I mean this as a biological mechanism to ensure that healthy offspring are produced. After all, if there is a major genetic defect present, known or otherwise even when conception does occur miscarriage often follows. I realise this may sound harsh to someone in that position, but if you think about it rationally then it does make sense. There is also the issue with IVF that it is not necessarily the strongest sperm that will be the one used to fertilise the egg - which could lead to a higher incidence of birth defects. There are also the other factors, such as the women undergoing IVF may be those with existing or previous serious medical conditions, or women who are older - it is a well known fact that the older the mother at the time of conception the higher the chance of having a child with certain disabilities or deformities.
Anyway, if you fancy a look the article is here.
This might be a strange thing to get peeved about, but it never fails to rile me...when people adhere to a strict set of religious doctrine, but don't quite follow it properly.
I realise that sounds odd, given that I would rather there were no religions since the belief in a divine creator who sits on a cloud watching and judging our every action is really rather stupid, but I get really wound up with the in-your-face religious types who fail to follow the rules which they claim they must live by. I mean surely, if the bible/koran/torah/whatever is the "word of god" then you can't just pick and choose the bits you like. But then despite the bible proclaiming that god does not like his flock to wear clothes made of mixed fibres a great deal of people calling themselves christian will wear a poly-cotton mix. Similarly I know many christians who do not fast for lent, who will eat meat on a Friday and so on. Obviously there are many more examples, but you get the gist of what I mean.
I am finding though that I am becoming increasingly annoyed at the muslim population who seem to want special or preferential treatment but fail to actually follow their own "god given" rules. A good (or bad) example is a former friend who converted to islam but had never once prayed or attended the mosque because it was "dull". She did however don a hijab and veil whenever she went out, and subjected her baby son to circumcision, despite eating sausage rolls and drinking alcopops in the privacy of her own home.
In the koran, the passage that has been interpreted as telling women to veil does not actually tell women to veil. It says they should dress modestly, not show off their "ornaments" and not strike their feet when they walk. If women do veil they are only supposed to do so after puberty (although some interpret this as after the age of 9, the age of Mohammed's child bride when he consummated their relationship for the first time. Interpret that as you will its all there if you wish to go and read it). So what I don't understand is these women who claim to be so devout, and to follow the religion so strictly who actually flout the rules laid out within the koran. I have lost track of the amount of times I have seen women wearing a full burka outfit, clip-clopping down the street with the unmistakable sound of a woman in high heels. I have seen girls still in pushchairs who are wearing a hijab. I have seen muslim (and jewish) men and women give their children jelly sweets that contain pork gelatin. I saw an elderly muslim man sitting on a bus eating a packet of frazzles bacon crisps.
I just don't understand which parts of the religions tell people to pick and choose which rules they follow. Surely it is an all or nothing thing? And if you are going to pick out only certain rules to follow, then why pick the ones that harm others, like circumcision, or veiling young girls?
I guess this rant was triggered by the woman I saw earlier wearing a leopard print burka. Go figure.
I had to take one of my cats to the vets today as he needed to have an operation on his teeth. He is quite an old cat, I have had him for a few years now and have known for a while that his teeth were not great. These last few days he had been dribbling an awful lot, and his breath smelled foul. So, thinking he may have rotten teeth (they certainly looked pretty bad) I took him to the vets. They decided to give him an anaesthetic and clean his teeth up, removing any that were really bad. I was surprised when I collected him to find that although he had a great deal of plaque and tartar build up they had not decayed, and some antibiotics and anti-inflammatories should clear the gingivitis from which he was suffering. So everybody was happy.
He has obviously been feeling much better since he got home because while I was upstairs having a rest he somehow managed to get the kitchen bin, one of these tall thin shiny metal cylindrical numbers with a pedal operated opening system and drag it off the kitchen tiles and into the pool room (technically the dining room, but being young and irresponsible we decided to do away with the formal eating area and invest in a quarter-ton slate bed full size pool table) where the floor is carpeted. He then managed to knock the bin over and open the lid, untie the bin liner from the metal hoop that supports it, tugging so hard with his teeth that the steel ring has been left deformed and discard that in the living room. He then sifted through the rubbish until he found the remains of a quiche from yesterday and devoured the lot.
I am not really sure how he managed it, but I am guessing his mouth is feeling a lot better!
I have noticed recently that many shops are being much stricter when it comes to sales of alcohol and tobacco related products, with many opting for a "if you look under 21 prove you are over 18" and in many places "if you look under 25, prove you are over 18" scheme. I am 23 and I must look about my age because recently whenever I have tried to buy tobacco or alcohol I have been asked for some form of ID which proves my age. I find this ironic really as I purchased my first cigarettes from a shop when I was about 12, and I was served in many pubs and stores for alcohol from the age of about 13 and since then I have never had a problem - until now.
As I don't drive I do not carry a licence, and I have no other form of ID with my photo and age except my passport. It seems risky to carry that around with me so I don't bother. Today took the biscuit though, when I tried to purchase a can of anti-perspirant and was asked for ID. Apparently you cannot but aerosols if you are under 18 and as I looked under 25 they wouldn't serve me in the shop. That is the first time I have ever been prevented from purchasing deodorant.
The cynic in me reckons that all this toughening up of age laws to the point that if you look up to 7 years older than an age cut-off you must prove your date of birth is just a way to get people irritated when they can't buy things so that they are more receptive to the stupid, expensive and pointless ID card scheme which this awful government is determined to roll out across the country.
Well, it would seem that Jacqui F**king Smith thinks it is acceptable to hit men. I have just been reading an article in the times which talks about some preliminary survey findings from a home office survey on violence and abuse against women.
Now, as you will know from previous posts I am all for ending violence against women, but more than that I don't think violence against anyone is acceptable. Yes, there is a great deal of abuse which affects women, FGM, forced marriage, domestic violence, rape, sexual assault - but males also suffer from these problems, and while male circumcision may not be as severe as FGM it is still inherently wrong to mutilate the genitalia of a child because a magic book tells you to. Not to mention that there is very little support for male victims of any kind of sexual or domestic abuse and that men seeking help are often not taken seriously and in some cases may even be arrested themselves.
I think it is either incredibly naive, or just plain ignorant to assume that only women suffer from these problems and to deliberately not include any strategy for helping male victims. Surely the government should be looking at ending all sexual and domestic violence, not just that aimed at women?
Smith also suggests that there should be some kind of national database of male domestic abuse offenders who have been arrested or charged so that women, on meeting a new bloke can find out if he has ever been taken in by the police regarding domestic abuse. WTF? That seems really worrying to me - how long before we need state permission to have a relationship? And again, why is it only men that can be abusers? If we have equality (which we don't) then shouldn't female abusers be regarded as seriously as male abusers?
Not that the survey is particularly well designed in any case - take a look for yourself, it is still open. The questions are unclear and misleading at times, and while age and gender are requested there is no place to confirm religious affiliation, something that I would have liked to see included especially given some of the responses (check out the results so far to see what I mean.)
Anyway, take a look for yourself and make up your own minds.
Personally it just makes me despise Ms Smith that little bit more.
A couple of animal stories I saw today which I thought were interesting, one of which is about gay ducks, and the other is a good reason for why chimps shouldn't be kept in zoos to be gawped at:
Gay ducks
Angry Chimp
Today was pretty cool. I spent 5 hours being tattooed and it looks great so far. I managed to get most of the line work done, there are a few places where we couldn't get the lines done today mainly due to time and the fact that my body was flaking out on me. Mentally I could have gone on for longer but physically I couldn't do anymore. I think my body went into a sort of mild shock response because towards the end I was shaking a lot and felt very cold. Nothing half a litre of lucozade and a couple of painkillers didn't solve, but it wasn't wise to try and do any more.
So once this has healed I can go back and get the line work finished off and then get some shading and background put in. I think I will limit my next session to just 2 or 3 hours though, as 5 was a bit too much for me. Mind you, I am told that colour and shading is not as painful as line work so it should be a bit easier. I have to say some bits were not bad at all, and I could have sat like that for hours. Other parts made my toes curl they hurt so much. And bizarrely when I was having my elbow done it was making my bottom ribs hurt as much as the bit that was being tattooed.
Anyway I am going to sign off for now and lounge around nursing my self inflicted injuries and feeling tired but happy.
I often wonder just what is wrong with people. I was in town today, waiting for the bus home when I saw a woman walking down the middle of the road. She was very unsteady on her feet and nearly fell over the kerb edge. She veered back into the road where she was very nearly hit by a bus, then a taxi. When she reached the other side of the road she nearly fell over the kerb again. As she walked past me I tried to stop her and see if she was OK, but she didn't even seem to see me, and I couldn't get her attention. As she continued down the road she walked into a lamp post, and some teenage girls started laughing at her and making rude comments, but again she didn't seem to hear the girls. I was seriously concerned but when I glanced around people were either ignoring her or laughing and poking fun at her, saying she must be high on drink or drugs. I decided to phone the local police station, because I was worried that she would get herself killed on the road. As I did so I watched the woman try, and fail to get on a bus before she staggered off and vanished round the corner. I gave the police as much information as I could, about her appearance, her behaviour and the direction she was heading in, and the police said they would send one of the local teams out to see if they could find her and check if she was OK.
I just don't understand why people not only didn't try and help her, but were openly making rude comments about her. I mean, even if she was high on drink or drugs does that mean she deserves to be killed or injured, and ridiculed in the street? And what if she wasn't on something but was diabetic and suffering a hypo? Or that she had some other medical condition that was affecting her?
I know people may think I am a busybody but how can people stand back and do nothing when someone is clearly in danger? I would rather ring the police ten times about something that turned out to be minor than not bother ringing and somebody be injured or killed when making that call could make the difference.
I saw a poster in town today advertising for people to "egg share". This is basically when a woman who is undergoing IVF treatment donates some of her eggs to reduce the cost of the IVF treatment, so that other women can use these donor eggs in their own IVF attempts. I simply don't understand the point.
I know that I don't want to have kids myself, so maybe I am coming at this from a different angle but I don't understand the urge people have to spend thousands of pounds either of their own or NHS money to try and become pregnant. Surely if you cannot conceive and you want to be a parent then adopting a child makes you as much a mother or father as creating your own biological offspring? And if people don't think they would love an adopted child as much then maybe they are not emotionally mature enough to become parents anyway.
I know people feel some kind of compulsion to pass on their own genes, and for the most part I don't take an issue with this - each to their own and all that, even in cases where I might think it really would have been better if that person didn't reproduce. I do however have an issue with IVF treatment being available on the NHS at the expense of that taxpayer. I really feel that if you cannot afford the treatment then it shouldn't be the taxpayer that pays. Especially when you have the ridiculous situation where people that do not and will not work are entitled to free IVF, so that the child can be raised at the expense of the taxpayer. It baffles me. And of course there are all the issues around people who have paid into the system all their lives being denied life extending drugs due to cost when the same hospital offers free rounds of fertility treatment. It seems like something has gone wrong when it is deemed more important to create new life when there are so many kids already languishing in care homes, when there are people dying in pain because the drugs are deemed too costly but in the next ward thousands of pounds are being hurled at fertility treatments with a very low success rate.
But I found the concept of egg sharing the weirdest of all, alongside sperm donation. If the child you are carrying is not actually your own biological child or that of your partner then why go through all the pain and expense when you are basically adopting at a very early stage? Why not adopt one of the thousands of children in this country and abroad who are desperate for someone to call Mum or Dad?
Maybe I am missing the point entirely but to me this just does not make any sense.
Posts
