You insensitive..

You insensitive motherfucker. That's possibly the lowest of the absolute fucking low.

Some people are dead, some people are in hospital, and did I mention some people are FUCKING DEAD?! There is only so much bullshit you can pull, didn't you learn from the Virginia Tech massacre where you said EXACTLY THE SAME THING and the murderer was proved to have never played a video game in recent fucking history?

This halfwit douche murderers name hasn't even been mentioned, and here you are acting like a stuffy child raping priest spouting bullshit about how it was video games that made him kill these people.

I'm trying to get over this one piece of the puzzle here. Some people are FUCKING DEAD, as in not coming back, and they were young enough to have families, girlfriends, friends, everything. All of those people need helping through this, not some misinformed cockslap to run up and shout "IT WAS GAAAMESS, IT WAS GAMES THAT KILLED YOUR LOVED ONES! SUEE SOME BODY, BECAUSE IT WAS THOSE SUPER EVIL FUCKING DISKS!"

You're an unbelievable fucker, you know that?

I hope you catch something serious, I really do. I don't wish death on anyone. Most people don't deserve it.

You, on the other hand, are an awful example of the blame game, and I hope you fucking die for it. Some peoples lives get ruined and all you can say is "It's them violent video games that the killer played. I don't know the killers name, and I know nothing about the killer, but damnit all if it wasn't those violent video games that killed your child."

You're using other peoples misery to prosper, and that makes you the lowest of the absolute fucking low. You are, without doubt, the worst kind of person. Pulling this shit out of your ass because you're so pathetically starved for 'evidence' that violent games kill that you have to use a fucking tragedy to propel your insane ideals.

It's said a lot, but Jack Thompson, get the fuck out. You're not helping anyone, at all, infact, all you're doing is pissing a whole bunch of people off. God alone knows how much I hate you for this, this incident alone.

Edit: Okay, the name was released earlier, but it doesn't change a fucking thing.

So.. What do you do?

No ranting today. No, no, I've got something far more important to do!

http://www.napalmriot.com/signup/Nirach Go there, and signup. It's a gamers website, by gamers for gamers. It's in the early stages at the moment, but by god, if you don't sign up and enjoy it, I'll come take your kneecaps.

Well, okay, I won't take your kneecaps, but I will be shocked. Shocked and upset.

Like anyone reads this anyway :B

Oh Sunday news, you suck

Should be a short one today. Should be.

Firstly. The inquiry into the CIA and their missing tapes. I'm sure we're all shocked that the most pathetic 'intelligence agency' in the world has destroyed evidence of their xenophobic employees beating holy hell out of someone because they 'might be a terrorist' because they have an Arabic last name, wear a turban, or don't believe in God the same way they do. Apparently, so the CIA claim, the tapes were destroyed to 'protect the identity of their agents'. I'm not sure I am quite willing to believe that, you know. I'd not be surprised if they were torturing people, and the tapes were swept under the rug, so to speak.

However, that does say something about the CIA. If they are torturing people, and they know their own government doesn't publically endorse the use of torture, and that no matter how hard you try the truth is going to come out, one way or another, then they'd have the sense to not record it. They may well be bound by law to record interogations. Yet, when they violate human rights, and the law, what good is going to come, for them, from recording them doing so?

The main point of this rant is, albeit not put across yet, the CIA are not particularly intelligent, and to believe they do not torture people is more stubborn, idiotic and pointless than The Sun 'news' paper. I hope someone does launch a full investigation into it, and some balding jackass gets fired and thrown in prison.

The only other thing that struck my interest when I was meandering through todays slow news was a story on the BBC website, and it's about radio. "Digital radio means more stations have the ability to broadcast extra information alongside the audio. But some experts are looking at providing some pretty controversial extra radio content - pictures."

Hold on a minute. Broadcasting images and the god-awful noise that most stations play makes them fucking television stations.Television making the radio a visual experiance makes it television, admitedly shit television, but television all the same. I should qualify that. Shittier television than the current channels.

Whoever is pushing this idea needs to be kicked off the development team, because they're just trying to take credit for what's already been done, broadcasting pictures and noise together. Any radio presenters that think it's a good idea are saying to the world "Hi! I was too stupid or ugly to get a TV show and took a fallback job on the radio hoping someone'd hear me and give me a chatshow!" and people will lose even more respect for you. What little they had in the first place.

Leave radio alone, it's not television, it's radio. Noise and no pictures, we don't need pictures. We already have the option of watching Graham Norton be a completely unfunny douchebag, or Jonathon Ross being a pathetic host, or even a collection of racist stupids on Big Brother, who mostly talk crap, with stupids too mentally devoid for convorsation watching.

Assorted ramblings

Let's start with the most common topic, shall we. The good old Iraq war. Well, okay, that's not entirely true. It's the BBC and its obsession with the war. An Irish man was stabbed, in a botched phone robbery, which makes less sense than the war, and the BBC related it, apparently with no hesitation, to the war. He wasn't stabbed because he had done a tour of Iraq, he wasn't stabbed by someone who opposes the war (If he had been, then the stabber would have been more moronic than George Bush). He was stabbed beause he didn't want to give his phone to some dickless wonder who cannot, apparently, get a job and buy their own stuff. The point of this short-ish rant is, the BBC seems to relate everything violent to the war, for no apparent reason. It's not like we've forgotten that there's a war going on, someone mentions it every thirty fucking seconds.

Another stabbing! Some stupid bastard stabbed a Polish man in Wales. I do love the uninformed retards of the world. This Polish guy is said to have 'worked assiduously and without causing any trouble for some two years.' which to me means 'he worked, drank, and did what he had to do to make a living'. Which is acceptable, surely. Well, unless you're a scum munching retard that hates immigrants because 'they took your job' when in actual fact, they took the job you were too fucking stupid to get yourself, because all you know how to do is drink, fuck, and scrounge money off the government to buy more drink, dope, and drunkenly fuck some random girl and provide the world with another sack of worthless crap.

Given the choice of the dirty, low down stupids of the UK, or the Polish? I'll take the Polish, they work, drink, and have a laugh. Strangely, they do it without trying to stab someone for looking at their woman wrong. Just because they're better at manipulating the English language than the dumbfucks that can't even dress themselves in anything but velcro shoes and zippered tracksuits, doesn't mean they need to be thrown out.

Next up. Fat people dying when giving birth. No bloody prizes for guessing why :/ So. As we know, fat can, and does, gather in the arteries. There is no dispute about that. Now. What does giving birth do to women? Let's see, from what I can tell (I'm no doctor, nor am I a father, stepfather, or even in a relationship) it puts a lot of strain on the womans body, as a whole. Specifically the heart. I assume you've seen a birth, and the vast majority of women scream like all holy hell, because (And get this) they're straining! What happens when you're straining and using muscles? Your heart has a ahrder time working! So, what does that mean? It means that fatties (Who, frankly, probably didn't know they were pregnant until it hurt to pee one day) are going to fuck their hearts up a whole lot faster than women who're in good shape. Now, my real beef with this research. This doctor has spent however long looking at this data, and most likely, ungodly amounts of money to come to this stunningly expected conclusion. What could be better done with this money? Well, let's see, all these people researching into cancer, alzheimers and other such so far uncurable diseases and whatnot, are losing money so some fuckwit can tell us what anyone with even the slightest inclination to breath could tell us. Being fat and pregnant is dangerous for your heart. I hate pointless research.

Last but not least, the video games rant.

I've been a gamer for over ten years now. Back in the early days, my gaming time was limited to an hour a day, infact, all my screen time was limited to an hour. However, game types were rarely limited in terms of age limits and such. However, for quite some years (Until it became 'uncool') I played mostly friendly games (Spyro The Dragon, for example) that, as one might expect of a young lad, progressed to more violent, and supposedly 'dangerous' games. I blame myself, now, for playing those games, because even though my parents did notice the 15/18 ratings on the box, I lied to the point where I would end up getting the game (I was probably about 13/14 when I first encountered GTA, and not much older when I came into contact with Metal Gear).

I don't think the problem lies with the retailers, as they're not to know if a parent is buying a game for their child, and a lot of people get angry when you question the intention of the purchase (I used to work with age restricted products) and often start creating a scene so you'll sell them the item to move them on and not give a bad impression to other customers. The problem, in my opinion lies with the parents and their lack of understanding. However, since a lot of parents don't have the time, or interest, to learn about these things, I think this generation is set for a pretty tough ride, especially as gaming is taking off in the mainstream so well at the moment. I don't believe, no matter how many fliers, information sites, infomercials etc, that these products will remain out of the hands of children until my generation come to be parents, as we will have been raised on games, and will have a much better understanding of game ratings and their meanings.

In other words. Fuck your research into games and their effects on children, because children are forever going to get these games, until we (The 'children') are the next generation of parents, who understand all the stupid acronyms, ratings systems, and little snippits on the back of games. Provided we're not braindead thickos, or irresponsible parents, we'll be better equipped to limit the games reaching our children.

Bisexual Paedophile

Jack Thompson. Not a name you'd instantly associate with the title of this blog. Yet, he seems to think that it would be (Is there something he's not telling us?).

I am a gamer, and I love the GTA series. So it should come as no surprise that I have a rather fine tuned hatred of anti-game lawyers that place the blame of teenage homicides squarely on the figurative shoulders of violent video games.

Now, I agree, these video games are going to have a rather dramatic affect on children. It's inevitable, children are impresionable. Which is exactly why these games are rated 18, or in some cases (Mostly when it comes to PC games) Adults Only. In my experiance these ratings all have breakdowns of what makes it a game of that rating, typicaly using phrases like 'strong violence themes' or 'mild nudity', and so on. You know, easy to understand, easy to digest, and very quick to read, unlike a full on review of the game, it lets you know what to expect when you play it.

It also serves to let parents who want to buy the game for their child what their child will experiance while playing the game. However, I don't know a single parent that has bought video games for their children (My friends/friends of friends) who has ever even looked at the age rating, let alone the breakdown of the games content that requires it have that rating.

While there are a lot of parents out there who are doubtlessly good parents, who support their children and help them with their homework, the generic good parenting. However, there is still a flaw with that parent. Most of them don't have a clue what they're buying for their child, and I'm damn sure that the children are not going to have a convorsation with their parent(s) that goes anything like this;

Child: Mum/Dad, buy me this game!
Mum/Dad: Why can't you buy it yourself, you have pocket money/a job?
Child: Well, it's rated 18 because there are violent themes and there is a lot of swearing, set in a gang environment, in which you play an odd job man.
Mum/Dad: Oh, that sounds like a reasonable game to buy our child.

It just won't happen, with good parents. They'll understand that their child is not old enough to be able to play this game and not take the values they have to play by and experiance in the game, into the real world.

Now, that's an ideal situation. A lot of children will, and I have done this myself in the past, lie, deceive and act ignorant as to the content of the game, or their knowledge of the game, in an effort to get their parent(s) to buy the game for them.

How does it work for the crappy parents that one day realised that rather than putting on weight, they were actually about to have a child? A lot of these parents have no real capability to look after their child(ren), and rather than condition said child(ren) to understand right and wrong, correct and incorrect behaviour, they will just shout at the child, and feed it(them) video games and television.

Where does that leave the child? The parent(s) have no interest, and it's being shovelled all these games, some of which are violent, others not so much (I can tell you now, as a 13 year old boy nothing sucks more than playing a video game about a freakin' purple dragon).

The child ends up immersed in what is essentially a make-believe criminal world, which in a lot of cases mimics the real world criminal organisations with incredible detail. The child has no choice but to take its life experiance from the game, where they can (Should they desire) take an assault rifle and rampage around a city and either 'die' or get 'busted', both of which result in a loss of cash and weapons. They just reload their saved game, no harm done.

In the real world, though, what happens when they get picked on, or someone pisses them off at school? Would they go to their parent? Of course not, the parent hasn't been there for said child so far, why would this be any different. The teachers/lecturers/police? In their experiance, all the enforcment bodies are bad, and you should avoid them at all costs. That leaves one option.

Crack the son of a bitch over the head with a baseball bat. Which inevitably leads to either prison or suicide and a bunch of idiotic people blaming the games that the child played.

I admit, video games have an insane ability to influence your decisions as a child, but they are not the problem. The problem lies with irresponsible retailers selling games to children, it lies with parents who cannot be bothered to raise their child, it lies with lawyers who want to make a fat pile of cash by suing every game company they can, or in one lawyers case, focus heavily on what they see as 'the biggest' contributor to teenage homicides.

The lawyers need to be taken out of the equation. They're useless and shifting focus from the real issue. Parents need to be parents, and not spoon feed their child(ren) violence and downright sadistic games (Postal 2, anyone? Good fun, that game, but damn, some of the things you can do are sadistic).

Video games affect everyone differently. Parents are affected in the sense that most of them have no interest what so ever in monitoring the games their children play, for whatever reason (God knows, there are a lot that they come out with when their child goes nuts and shoots someone). Children with no proper parental system are affected in the sense that their morals and ideas come from these games, which can be devastating to anyone who gets in their way.

Responsible parenting and sensible moderation of the amount of violence the child can see/interact with results in a teenager/adult who can enjoy these games, and at the same time, not try to crack everyone in the face with a bat.

In my case, I was brought up responsibly. I've been playing violent video games for over half my life (Eleven years if I'm not mistaken), I have a love of airsoft, I really love seeing bladed weapons. Yet, in all my years, I've never taken a weapon to someone in anger, ever. All the friends I have continued to be in contact with for the last seven or eight years are in much the same place as I, and now, we're all well rounded 20 year olds, or as near as makes no difference.

In conclusion.

Jack Thompson, you are a self important pile of fecal matter, I hope you wake up one day, and realise your focus is entirely in the wrong place, and that not everything negative about anti-game lawyers (GTA:IV, anyone?) is about you. Go back to the rock you've lived under all your life, you're boring, and no one will ever love you for your convoluted bullshit legal cases.

And now, if you got this far, you're wondering what my point was.

Sucks to be you.

Health all the while

The more advanced we get as a society, the more people want health investigations.

I heard recently that a group wants to limit TV usage to two hours for people over sixteen and nintey minutes for people under 16. How the fuck would you even begin to enforce something like that? The harder I try to work it out, the only conclusion I can come to is some additional hardware that monitors the usage, has usernames and passwords etc, for each member of the household. Which, of course, would have to be paid for by the user. Which means it would be in the region of £400 from the Government. It makes no sense to me, but whatever. Apparently the idea of people realising that most of the shit on TV is, well, shit and no longer watching it is far too easy. I should expect nothing else from a nation that can't even seem to keep people out of its own borders these days, should I.

Then today, I read about some whiney pansy group wanting an investigation into wi-fi. Now. I can't stand Wi-Fi, but I have it. It is right next to me right now. It is on 24/7. I am in this room for upwards of 18 hours a day. I still haven't needed to go to the doctor, or hospital, for a condition I didn't cause myself (Read: Mishaps with modding, dremels etc.). Wireless, in the UK, is 2.4ghz. Last I checked, that doesn't even kill pidgeons, even if you tied the pidgeon to the wireless router and fed it daily, it would probably die of old age. Of course, someone somewhere would launch an enquiry and find out it died of a mild case of obesity, as it got very little exercise.

The world has gone mad, and I blame the Americans. They decided it was not right for anyone to die of anything except extreme old age. Anything else must have an immense six month enquiry, so someone can blame some broccoli, or a malformed carrot, perhaps even that bowl of oatmeal.

When did it become the way to be, when causality was the way of everything to do with health. Some things are obvious, you eat fat, shitty food (Read: McDonalds), you get fat and fill your arteries with crap. You have a heart attack. You smoke obscene amounts of cigarettes, you get lung cancer and die.

Apparently, now, you watch TV and you die of.. Some disease that no one has ever heard of before, I think it's pronounced 'mediasensationalism', which comes with symptoms such as retardation, fear that everything is going to kill everybody, obsessive questions asked about Mrs. Jones, who died at the age of 102, incase eating broccoli killed her, and if she'd just stayed away from it for those 102 years, she might have made it to 110.

In short: Whiney health faggots need to fuck right the hell off. People will, for ever, do whatever they want, regardless of how carconagenic it is, and there is nothing at all you can do about it now, nor in the future. So please stop, you're ruining what's left in the world that is actually fun.

Reconciliation; If you will

Some of you may remember these posts of mine, and most importantly, their comments:

Larafairie - What?

And

Larafairie - What? (Continued)

I had my fun with both, I attracted a lot of people to display their opinions, and of course, their criticism.

In the past two or three days I have come to a conclusion (In co-operation with a book that shall not be named) that it is not the way to go about things, criticising other peoples work, and their mistakes, or even successes.

This is not about jealousy - I am not even remotely linked to the same field of art as her (However you see it, be that photo manipulation or photographer - I don't care anymore), so there is nothing for me to be jealous of. I get my feeling of importance, my soul food if you will, from modifying games consoles and computers - This could not be more different to photography. (If you argue, well. You might need help.).

As such, I am taking down these two blogs, because it is unfair to everyone involved (I criticised commenter's and Lara herself, in the course of some of my replies to comments, and our little chat via notes (As fun as it was)). I know it's what she wants, and I'm pretty sure that while this blog is read by few, and enjoyed by fewer, it will serve better to remove such forward criticisms of one individual and their work.

It was fun while it lasted, but it is not in anyones best interests to let this obvious flaming go on anymore.

Blogging, again?

I was going to upload a few weeks worth of blog entries. But I decided not to. I decided, instead, to re-write them all and combine them into one. And here it is, a collection of rantings based on what the BBC can throw at me before I leave to catch a suitably badly driven bus. It’s badly driven because it stops when there’s a fuckwit that wants picking up for college. Seriously, what the hell is with that?

I saw the news the other day and got somewhat uncomfortable. Not only was there a bloodless coup in Thailand (Which seems a bit odd and underhand to me, but then I’m just a paranoid maniac), but there was a small story about the spending of 25 billion pounds sterling on the trident nuclear submarines. Personally, I think that this is no bad thing, our nuclear deterrent is somewhat lacking, and could almost be considered a shambles in comparison to other countries, not just the United States. We, as a nation, cannot piggyback on the fear of the American army forever, we will have to cut loose eventually, and alone, we can barely keep a puddle ours without significant losses and complaints of treatment issues (Such as the reports that circulate every few months about treatment in the royal marines). Did anyone ever stop to wonder why soldiers are torn down and rebuilt in the Marines? Is it because the Marines as a division require the utmost obedience without question, the ability to follow orders and be as tough as possible? No, of course, no one did. That’s because people nowadays expect captured troops to be put through some mild discomfort and then sent on their merry way, because those people are stupid. A captured soldier would be put through much worse than anything that the Royal Marine training could put them through. However, back to the original point. The trident submarines. Fantastic, they’re being updated. You’ll never hear me argue with military systems getting the updates that they need to fight in the twenty first century. What I will complain about though, is some pansy fuck in purple saying the money should be spent saving children all over the world. Wait, what? Saving children from what? Children, as a definition are always in need of something. The world is over populated as it is, and a few dead children is no bad thing. You may read that and think “You heartless bastard!” but what would you do if you woke up to find some people meddling in your affairs again, and giving you even more work and even more children that will probably die before you, because they’re not tough enough to survive. It’s harsh, but survival of the fittest is the only way to progress. If that means spending 25 billion on nuclear submarines and not on some kids some where else, then so be it. I don’t think that the ‘help the world’ fuckwits will be happy until the world is all in the same level of poverty and disrepair as everywhere else. Things do need to be done, but not sacrificing our defence system. Yes, there is a ‘war against terror’ going on, and you can’t very well exact a nuclear strike on a terrorist. However, what the fucking numbskulls that use the ‘terrorist’ argument forget is, there is a future, and there will be another world war. You can’t fight a war with some children to saved, and some anti-terrorist units that are deployed in planes, you need a fully functional nuclear fleet with the strike capabilities to annihilate enemy targets by whatever means available. Waving the naughty finger of the UN doesn’t do shit, and never will do. Don’t go listening to NATO either, they’ll get you shot by bullets that they decided were dangerous. Don’t bother using British bullets anymore, because BAE are deciding that bullets are dangerous to the environment, and smoke from grenades is potentially harmful to those who inhale it. Heaven forbid that we want to kill/disable people with our weapons. Heaven forbid that we want to fire things mined out of the ground back into the ground. Fuck off, you anti-war fuckwits. You’ll probably all turn out to be pacifists and get bombed, good fucking riddance.

You want to save the children? Do it with your own money and time, not the British defence budget. Now piss off back to your candle light home full of children, and stop bothering world politics and defence with your unique stupidity.

A thought occurs, we are a democratic country, aren’t we. Who decided, then, that we should swallow the bullshit that is fired at us from the Police? I understand they are there to enforce the law, and do what is required to stop people breaking the law. It makes perfect sense, and I have no qualms with their purpose. What bugs the living shit out of me is the speed cameras. Why are they called ‘safety’ cameras? They don’t jump off their post and save people, they just take pictures of people breaking the law. So, why are they no longer called speed cameras. Surely they should be called speed cameras, and anyone who argues that they’re not compliant with human rights, or something of that nature, should be arrested for planning to break the law. It seems that the only people that complain about speed cameras are business men, people who speed and anyone who gets caught more that a few times without learning the lesson. If people complain, the Police should be authorised to issue a statement containing a version of “Shut the fuck up and stop breaking the law”. It’s not the police’s problem if you get caught by speed cameras, because you decided that you know better than the law. Just because it’s not got a police officer in it, doesn’t mean that it lacks the ability to enforce the law. It’s not a police state. It’s a state that requires you to abide by the law, and do what is asked by the government. Taking a leaf out of Australia’s book, if you don’t like it, get lost. It’s not this countries problem if you cannot handle the simple idea that you need to abide by the laws, it’s your own fault. I saw something else recently. A member of the public, an older gentleman, is taking a belief to court, because he believes that speed cameras breech human rights. The fuck do they. Your right to silence applies when you’re not breaking the fucking law. You break the law, you are a criminal. Just because you want to get out of a fine and some points on your dicking licence, you mentally retarded fuck. Get the point, you break the law you get caught and fined, it’s the way it works. Drive your faggoty car to another country and take all your shit with you, if this is how you want to treat the legal system in the UK. Fucking imbeciles.

I saw that Mr. Blair has announced his intended time to depart the labour camp. Fantastic. Twathead Brown is slated to replace him. Even better! Some aging mormonesque cunt taking the helm. He couldn’t inspire a group of three year olds to eat paint for fucks sake. How can anyone even begin to believe that he would make a good PM? Morons. The lot of them.

I got on the bus this morning. I saw something that disturbed me. Between changing albums on my iPod (I ended up going for The Ego Has Landed) I heard the chivvy girl in front of me, barely 16 she looks. She said, in a voice that could pierce the ears of someone in China, ‘look what I’ve got, ain’t I good’. Had she held up something worth it, then perhaps I could forgive her for shooting my calm. No, instead she held up an open box of Richmond Superkings. I am still trying to work out what I hate her for more, the idiocy regarding cigarettes and brandishing them like they make her cool, or the smell of make-up that is currently making me want to vomit blood all over her face. Sometimes I find myself wanting a bag of blood that is HIV positive.

I am not a bad person.

Too often.

I, unfortunately, sometimes hear the radio on the bus to college. It’s a problem I can’t seem to shake off. Sometimes, though, the thing does spout some news (read: bullshit). I heard today that that silly hooker of a woman, Paris Hilton, has been done for drunk driving. This made me happy. It also made me realise what a difference there is in news casting. The BBC probably don’t even know who Paris Hilton is, except that she’s famous for being an uninteresting spoiled white girl. This news of a drink driving incident, though, was spoken about as if a world leader had died. The news caster explained it without a shred of humour, and the presenters of the show seemed genuinely interested in it. The great unwashed want news about whores. The rest of us want news about the world and economics. The immigrants can’t read or understand much English, they just want a bed and free money.

I can’t even begin to understand this country sometimes. There should be a unit tasked to remove all the useless news from the airwaves, and if anyone complains, they can either read The Sun or be shot. I’d just shoot them on sight, but then, that wouldn’t be very democratic, would it. Absolutely have to give people a choice these days.

Spelling, how do you do motherfucker.

A friend of mine, Age (CrazyAge on the side bar) effectively linked me to this: Text through Slashdot.

I read the Slashdot piece, it was five lines long, outlining the article. I was horrified at the mere outline. Then I read the article. I think, at this very moment, I am ready to go out into the world and kill some people with my bare hands, I would rather see prison than English being slaughtered because people are so fabulously fucking stupid that they can't even spell a few words. It's a simple solution. Read a few adult orientated books, you learn pretty fast. It doesn't take long to work out that you saw a word spelt in a book, or piece of literature, a certain way. You read it often enough, you learn the spelling.

This caught my attention, specifically: ""It's a very difficult thing to get something accepted like this," acknowledges Alan Mole, president of the American Literacy Council, which favors an end to "illogical spelling." The group says English has 42 sounds spelled in a bewildering 400 ways."

Yes. Forty-two sounds spelled in 400 ways. I can't imagine why that is.

Oh, possibly, because it's a huge collection fo different fucking words?

No, that can't be it, that'd make too much damned sense wouldn't it.

This caught my eye, too: "Lurning English reqierz roet memory rather than lojic, he sed."

I don't know what in the hell they're trying to say here. Learning, English0, than, rather, and said are all that I got. The rest are so bloody idiotic that I can't decipher their meaning.

This Alan Mole character claims that children learning English do not learn as fast as German children or Spanish children. I think he is missing some key facts. The Germans, let's take them first. They are efficiency machines. They probably take predetermined bathroom breaks so as not to screw with their schedule. Thus, it would make sense that their children are drilled to this schedule and acomplish their targets day in, day out. Next up, the Spanish. Obviously he's not worked out what the Spanish day consists of, has he. Let's take a sterotypical look shall we.

Wake up. Spit. Shower, dress. Breakfast. Work. Lunch.

Lunch is more complex than the rest, so let's break it down.

At work, lunch is likely to be the same as hours, one or two hours off to eat and relax a little. Outside of work all that seems to happen is they sleep and generally avoid doing anything that involves a lot of movement, because it's too damned hot.

This means that, assuming the child has other things to do during the cooler parts of the day, he/she has two hours EVERY DAY to learn. I was in Arizona for two or three weeks, I am not in the slightest academic, and in those three weeks I nailed my times tables out. Bang on, second or two answering. If I can do that, some kids can learn to spell, no?

The rest of the article is just so stupid, I can't bring myself to do anything but cry at it. It's reletively self-explanitory, too.

This is being pushed by Americans.

Not to say all Americans are stupid, nothing of the sort, all the Americans I know have at the very least half a brain, and are competant with the language they speak. There is, however, a minority that went unchecked when America gained independance. They hacked letters out to make it 'simpler to use'. It just made more language barriers, because now people argue nearly constantly on forums as to the proper spelling of the words. I side with the English argument. We gave you the language, use it as it was intended you oafish bastards.

I hate your beliefs if you support this bullshit. I don't care who you are, if you try and tell me to spell like a lobotomised bratpack reject, I will skullfuck you until you need to be ID'd via DNA testing. If any one comes to me supporting this argument, I will violate you. That is not a threat. That is a promise. Without GOOD SOLID REASON for the support of this garbage, if you say it's good, I will desecrate everything you stand for, and your body in a blind fit of rage.

However! This said, do not ignore commenting (HAHAHAH) just because I promise to kill you and violate you in new and wonderful ways. Bring it on, I enjoy reading your comments nearly as much as you enjoy writing them.

And we're back, with real news.

Been a while since something about real world news has been posted. I was taking a walk through a few news sites today, as you do.

A few things struck me. Struck me speechless.

I read about the knife amnesty, and the desires of a police chief. Carrying a knife should mean prison. Hm. He mentioned that 17000+ knives have been handed in during the knife amnesty. Okay. Let's look at this, shall we. A lot of, if not all, of the people that handed knives in are going to be law abiding citizens, no? They heard about the amnesty and thought they best follow the rules. Makes sense, doesn't it. Now, let's think about a law breaker, a criminal. Let's say they're sat there watching the TV, and they hear about the amnesty. What, exactly, would posses them to get up and hand their knife(knives) in? They've already broken laws, let's not forget. The government seem to have forgotten than criminals will, as always, get weapons be they bladed or guns. Why the hell would making it illegal to carry knives stop a criminal? Oh, that's right, it wouldn't. Sorry, for a minute there, I was thinking like a retarded law enforcer. Breaking the law is illegal. They already partake in illegal activities. Why, oh why, would they hand their weapons in? That's right. They wouldn't. If they got confiscated, they'd just go buy another one. Because, funnily, that's what criminals do. They smuggle weapons. That's why there are pistols in the UK still, even though they were banned.

I continued to browse, and came across a nuclear power article. A Mr. Hain was claiming that to avoid needing nuclear power 'green' enthusiasts would have to display much more support for wind farms and tidal developments. There isn't enough space in the world to have windfarms that can equal the power of a few dozen nuclear power plants. It doesn't help that wind isn't exactly reliable. Tidal movement is, you might be thinking. There are only so many places to can have tidal installations, and apparently a lot of people like the beach, so you can't have them on every inch of coast line. There's hydro electric, too. But what would be the point? The best places to put them are dammed rivers, or naturally formed water falls. Most people like looking at those, too. Artificially damming a river would piss the green protesters off more, because it'd fill the flood plains and probably a bit more, killing animals, people and demolishing building space. Killing the point, really. Like the one in Brazil. Did you ever read about that? Yeah, they were pissed about that one. What're the solutions, you say? Build some bastard nuclear power plants and be done with it. If any one of you ever says they could be used as weapons, I will kill you. The biggest disaster involving a nuclear power plant was Chernobyl. That was more than likely because they tried to test something and fucked it up. It doesn't help that they were using out dated equipment. So bugger off with that idea. If you even begin to think that because it's nuclear it'll explode like Hiroshima, you're sadly mistaken, and very very stupid. Weapons grade plutonium/uranium and created with completely different manufacturing processes to what's used in nuclear power plants. Why do you think it has the pre-fix 'WEAPONS GRADE'? Because it is, in essence, something else. It is designed, and manufactured, for weaponry. So shut the fuck up and let people get you cheap reliable power.

Another nuclear related article I read was about nuclear ICBM's in a post 9/11 world. It makes sense that you can't nuke a plane out of the sky. It makes sense that you can't nuke a truck full of terrorists (Or freedom fighters, however you look at it). The article asks why we should need to keep our nuclear deterant with the Soviet collapse long gone. A fair question. I assume, as it's not long after the Somme rememberance day, you know what a world war is. I also shall assume that you know what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the second one. Now. It's as good as inevitable that there will be another world war. If we, the British, get rid of our nuclear deterant we will be sitting ducks. I can guarentee that no one else will follow suit, least of all our enemies. Yes, we still have enemies. For the love of whichever god you choose, or the country if you so desire, keep the nuclear deterent, for when we will need it in the future. Terrorism does not replace war, it goes hand in hadn with it. Removing a weapon because it doesn't suit one fight means there will, inevitably, be an occasion where it is needed, but not there, because some moron fuck was allowed to save budget by getting rid of it, and we'll all be royally fucked. If you want to die via nuking, be my guest, but I swear, if we ever get nuked and we have nothing to retaliate with, I am going to laugh until the next one lands on Birmingham and I die of radiation posioning. If that ever happens, I hope whoever said we don't need nuclear deterents dies of shame and violent reprocussions, I really do.

A lighter note! Yes, there really is a lighter note to end it all with. Exams. A-Levels, specifically. Some people think you should get marks for failing, if you have good exam results prior to them. Okay. Just stop right there. Make the exams harder, do away with A*, and get some better methods of getting the kids in the goddamn class and learning. Some better teachers, some better anti-truancy devices (I suggest chipping the motherfuckers with something that determines if they're off school with a legit reason, and if not, alerts truancy officers.), bring back the cane and beat the bastards that disrupt the class. I guarantee a can across the ass would shut them up real damn fast. Then, maybe, we'll see some better bloody graduates, and some educated people.

Points to fail? That's as retarded as anything, and if it goes through, I will be doubly glad I'm leaving.

Been a while, hasn't it

Browsing BBC, as you do, I came across a few news stories that had been commented on, but not had any depth involved before I left this morning, so I read them online. Which means you, as if anyone reads this, gets the bulk of the feedback.

First thing that I came across was an article about junkfood being banned in schools. On the whole, it makes sense. No problem with the idea what so ever, kids are turning into little fatties these days. However, I must argue with the point of banning things like junk food. In my experience, regardless of school rules, students in secondary school will always find a way to get junk food from external sources. In my experience, only the first years eat in the cafeteria, because they don't know where else to do. However, once they do know, the cafeteria becomes abandoned. And what about the lunch pass system, which I am sure exists in other schools too. Does that mean people over the age of 16 can eat what they want when they want because they're in sixth form, or college? Yeah, that makes sense. It's an idea similar to that of the drinking age. Kids will always get their hands on it, one way or another. Banning things just makes them do it more, I know, because it wasn't so long ago that I was among them.

Of course, that isn't the end of it. No no, I carried on. I came across an article regarding the UN and the US. The UN has said the US 'must end secret detentions'. Okay, human rights is an issue, and if they turn out to be innocent, they're going to be pretty fucked up for the rest of their lives. However. What if they don't turn out to be innocent? The UN seems to be trying to ban everything that might be dangerous. I think the UN should be seen as Health And Safety of the battlefield. As it's on the battlefield, the Americans can do something they're very good at. Shooting their own side. With the UN dead, hopefully Hans Blix, we can continue to shoot at people with depleted uranium bullets, and kill them, rather than be shot at with depleted uranium bullets and be killed by them. It's easy for the tree hugging, pacifist pansy hippy human rights people to sit there and shake their heads, but they didn't get blown up, shot at, or mentally raped by some Arabs. Oh, on the note of the Arabs, they're doing the same as, if not worse, than the US in terms of torture, so bug them for a while, that way you might get shot and leave the way things work alone. We're not in magic land now, you know. This is the real world, and a bullet will kill you.

Ho ho ho, more. A report about Big Brother, oh how I loath that show, and one of the house mates. Apparently he has diuretic syndrome. And the leading member/chairman of the Tourette's Association is worried about this house mate. He's worried not only for the housemate and his condition with the lack of medication (Something I'm sure would be immediately attended to if it got to a dangerous level, even Channel Four aren't that stupid), he's concerned about the effect on children who also have tourette's. Apparently the most common thing about tourettes is should twitching/clicking of the tongue, so fairly noticeable things. Apparently, young children watching Big Brother who know someone with tourette's may be pushed to mock, and tease them. Okay. It's understandable that it's not fair to the children being mocked, teased, whatever kids do these days. However. With something as noticeable as a shoulder twitch, or a click of the tongue, constantly, kids are already going to be picking on the kid with tourettes, so, sorry Roy, that argument is utter rubbish, now go away and stop bothering my news browsing.

Hmm. Apparently, police are tricking men into telling them information. Tricking? What? Sorry, no. Two men were arrested under suspicion of robbing a bank. The two men were placed in adjacent cells, apparently, which were rigged with recording tools. This wasn't known to the accused, of course. Now. While the accused were talking, they shared information which they would not normally have shared with the Police, leading to their trial for the accused crime. Now. Some people are up in arms saying that the prisoners human rights were violated by the recording without concent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same as an undercover officer wearing a wire? Shouldn't these hippies be protesting about that, too? Seeing as they apparently have nothing better to do than to abuse the police for doing their jobs. Sorry, protesters, but no. You just do not have a leg to stand on here, go the fuck away and stop moaning. You'd be fine with it if it was to catch someone who'd shot your family, so you can just fuck many miles of off.

Coming to a close on a somewhat positive note, twelve UK cities are getting huge wireless zones courtesy of BT, fucking wee! Pay as you go, or subscriber payment plans will be available. This means I no longer have to go to the Apple store to scab internet, and neitehr do you. If BT keep the costs of the subscription down, similar to those of the US, I can imagine this idea taking off just as well as it has done in America, what with the hugely internet driven younger people and students of today, not to mention business people.

Wednesdays; Arn't they fun?

Reading the BBC news, as usual, today I came across an article refering to people requesting being buried or cremated with their mobile phones.

The report claims that people want to be buried with what 'represented their life, their totem'. Is it just me that finds it sad that people cannot come up with anything to represent their lifestyle other than a mobile phone, a laptop, or bits of expensive glass?

You know, last time they did this garbage there were grave robbings. People stop being buried with things, people stop digging their cold asses up and stealing it. Think about your damned family, you selfish morons. IF you're buried with your phone or laptop, and someone knows about it, which they will, your ass is going to get robbed. Then your family is going to have to go through the heartache that amounts basically to having to bury your stupid ass all over again. Yeah. Real charming, dickhead.

The MPAA are back, again. Guess what they're after this time. Torrentspy, again. They failed, miserably, the first time around. So now they've come back to try again, with a different wording of the same reason. 'Torrentspy is aiding people infringe copyright'.

The more these idiots at the MPAA ban things the harder people are going to work to make it free. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of the artists (Movie or music) not getting any return for their work. I'd be more bothered about illegal file sharing if the artists weren't being fucked out of their money by the record labels, and the other pieces of shit that get between the artist and the consumer. While not so much so with movies, the actors get their fee and get lost, the only people that stand to lose from the sharing of movies illegally are the fat cat bastards that sit behind that great big Hollywood sign. They can get fucked, there's no need for the horrendous prices of DVD's, films that make a profit in excess of the costs, and are deemed a success, have already fucked the consumers out of their money, and then if they want to watch it again they cough out another £15-£20 for a copy of their own. When it probably costs about £1 to make, at the very most. What sucks shit are the good movies that don't sell well in the movie theaters. The ones that hit the bargin bins mere days after they release.

Lower the prices, and your fees you over paid dickheads, and people might not be so abject to paying for it.

Get a clue and stop suing everything you useless gimpy invilids.

Go home, get drunk and get laid.

Multiple update; It's that time again.

Something caught my eye on the beeb the other day. An article entitled 'Trident Replacement'. Incase you're unaware, the Trident system is the UK's nuclear weapons defense system.

It could do with updating, yes. But hey, it's not important. Holy fuck, what is this, me agreeing with politicians? Fuck no.

What pissed me off about the article was John Reid. 'We will maintain the minimum nuclear deterant'. Minimum?! What the fuck!? Seriously, for the love of god, if you only have six nuclear submarines, forty missiles and a half-arsed nuclear powered aircraft carrier, you need a kick. And we have barely more than that, and our (As in, British.) flagship is running on HALF power. What is it? A nuclear powered ship. We need MORE nuclear power, weapons, and general death inducing devices involving radiation and fucking big bombs.

The article also mentions VR testing for nuclear missiles. You know what this means, right?

No, probably not. VR training for soldiers. Soldiers trained and detached from war, the ultimate killing machine. Or as ultimate as humans can be without implants.

I want some of that stuff. That is possibly the best way that we can have the best army in the world, again.

Once more, the bird flu is back in the news. 'IMF wants more birdflu readiness'. Okay, that's the FIRST birdflu article I started reading and thought it might make sense and be somewhat worth reading. How wrong can you be?

It was another 'Oh my god, it's going to kill us all'. Not only that, but it had a picture of a guy surrounded by chickens with like.. Three teeth. You can be ignorant all you like, but he's probably lost those to the crack pipe.

When are they going to fuck off with this Birdflu garbage? Go find a cure for Ebola instead, because we're truely fucked if that gets on a plane. If birdflu gets on a plane two people die and a few million birds get shot. Screw being scared of that. It's almost as pathetic as SARS, and we all know what happened to that. That's right. Sweet fuck all.

Women; Fair pay?

"Women in Wales are still lagging behind men in the pay league, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)."

Okay, that's fair enough. Fair pay should be a standard. However. I quote from the BBC news post; "They still experience widespread discrimination and pay a high penalty for having children and other care responsibilities in terms of their career, pay and pensions."

Okay. The piece in italics is the important bit. They want to be paid to get knocked up. Excuse me?

Hypothetical situation. You own a business, not a small one, but nothing major, substantial enough to have, say, 150 employee's. One of the female employee's gets pregnant, she's a deputy manager, lets say. She buggers off, doing absolutly no work for the six months of maternity leave. You have to pay her for that. Six months. That's half her yearly wage for absolutly fuck all anything. So. Assume she earns approximately £60,000. You, the business owner, stands to pay out £30,000, there abouts, for no return, what so ever. For any company, this is a substantial loss. Unless it's a multibillion dollar company, but they'd just sack the female in question and be done with it.

If you, the female who is pregnant, and you're getting uppity because your employer won't pay you the same as a man, who can't get pregnant, for the same job. You really should consider the fact that you are A) going to need flexible hours to be able to care for your child. B) If both you and your partner/husband/whatever needed to work to keep the household afloat, what the hell are you doing getting knocked up? C) You're more than likely going to be called to take your child home when it is, inevitably, ill. Which is even more time away from the work place.

I'm sorry, ladies, but you cannot have a high flying career and a child, and have your partner working too. It's just not physically possible. Unless you earn enough to have your child cared for by a Portuguese immigrant, then they'll probably end up being a fat spoiled twat.

"Figures suggest 30,000 women are sacked from jobs each year for being pregnant, and that the part-time pay gap is stuck at around 38%."

Yeah. They're fucking pregnant. It's a health risk for the mother and the child to be doing anything hugely labour/stress intensive during the whole pregnancy thing. Part time pay gap stuck at 38%? Yeah, because half the time they're going to be buggering off to collect their snot ridden joybag of a child and doing, you guessed it, no work.

What they're asking for is not fair pay, it's to be paid for doing sweet F.A.

Sorry, that shit is never going to fly. You cannot have both. Make a choice and stick to it. If you don't like it, deal with it. Men can't get pregnant, so it's not our fault we won't be buggering off to tend to the child every ten minutes because it skinned it's knee, and ends up crying like a whiney bitch.

Don't try and pull this 'oh, but the men should care for the child' crap, because we are incapable of doing it. If I was left witha child, and the large majority of men I know, it'd be playing a games console, chatting on the internet, swearing, and doing things that are considered dangerous. Like playing with petrol go-karts. Which we'd get told off for. So, ladies, if you want a child bringing up right, you'v got to do it yourself. Men are incapable, you're the only people that can further the human race, and that Portuguese immigrant won't do it for you, because they can't speak English.

I say again. You cannot have both. Deal with it, that's life.

Muslims and comics

They want respect. Which is fair enough, I can understand that. The cartoon they're up in arms about, while not a brilliant thing to publish, is only a cartoon. Which, by definition, is a 'simple drawing showing features of its subjects in a [i]humorously exaggerated[/i] way, especially a satirical one in a newspaper or magazine.' Now. The comic depicted the Muslim prophet Muhamed with a bomb on his head. Okay. It's not politically correct. It's not something that should be taken seriously, either.

Some Muslim people are, understandably, quite upset. And some of them are voicing their feelings without being stupid. Some, however, are being completely retarded. They're parading around with signs, demanding resspect and fair treatment, while waving signs to the tune of "Osama is going to come back and bomb you all" "Begin the beheadings". Now. Something I don't understand is how they can ask for respect from people they're threatening to behead, and blow up.

I cannot even begin to fathom a response other than "You fucking well deserved it, you extremist pieces of shit. Get the fuck out." However, that's less charming than the extremists.

Until the Muslim extremists can learn to argue their points without threateening violence and burning things, they will not be respected. Ever.

Pat Robertson; Comic genius, or mindless git?

Someone linked me to a website today. All the following quotations, denoted by "" are from a charming gentleman, Pat Robertson. I couldn't help but poke some obvious holes. and I felt like ranting.

"The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers."

Erm. See here, genius, you used them as slaves too. Take a look back a few hundred years in your own countries history, and you'll see what I mean. So.. Hate to break it, but your country is a slaver too.

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different...More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

They're gassing Evangelical Christians, murdering them, doing sickening experiments on them, generally treating them like the scum on shit on the bottom of a boot?

Didn't think so. sorry, buster, you're going to have to try harder.

"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together."

For starters, it's Adolf. Second off, when did you invent the time machine? Seriously, did you ask them or did you just play too much Return To Castle Wolfenstein? As for them being homosexual.. Erm.. I guess this might have escaped your notice, but they kinda tried to make a master race, I wasn't aware men could give birth. Try again.

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

Oh? Funny, that, I was under the impression that only radical feminist groups were even slightly inclined towards lesbianism. I suppose I must be missing all these witchcraft related, child killing, capitalism destroying lesbian femminist movements these days.. Do they only happen somewhere where there's no news coverage, like in the middle of Ethiopia?

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

Wait.. What? Who's the anti-christ? I guess I missed that one. Try harder. Or at least back your thoughts up with something other than a book that was supposedly written a few thousand years ago.

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

I wasn't aware that Christ had a family of his own. Of course, parents, but I was under the impression that he died before he could father any children. I guess someone had some artificial insemination clinic running back then.

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."

Of all the homosexuals I know, I don't know one that A: has AIDS, b: wants to bleed on Church goers, c: wants to spit on ministers. I guess all those nutters weren't found by the news coverage team either.

"[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism – everything that the Bible condemns."

Oh.. So.. You're advocating some people meeting up, and just having children, then having the wonderous custody case?

Sorry, but that statement is so bloody mindless I can't even become to formulate a response that dosn't involve laughter, the words 'fuck' 'you' and 'dumbshit'.

I'll give it some more thought when I stop crying with laughter.

Iran; Nuclear threat?

Iran's kicking up again. This time about some uranium enrichment programme.

Russian and Iranian nuclear specialists are meeting to discuss the idea of Iran enriching nuclear material on Russian soil to 'ease controversy'. The biggest thing that can possily happen is Iran makes some nuclear power plants.

Of course, westerners (Europe) are shitting themselves at the idea of allowing Iran access to material that might be used to make nuclear weapons. Oh, right, let me get this straight. Western countries have more nuclear weapons than Iran has sand. And we in the west are quite vocally against the rulling method of the Iranian government. Because they might believe something different to us.

So.. We're allowed nuclear weapons, and lots of them, and Iran isn't allowed to have access to the materials to make weapons, and power plants, without us getting all pissed off. If they were making a nuclear arsenal to destroy the world, they sure as hell wouldn't let the UN in on it. Hans Blix is very, very against nuclear war, and he'd wag his naughty finger at Iran. They might be making nuclear warheads. Might. Oh no, it's not like Europe doesn't have more than it knows what to do with anyway.

Have you ever wondered why they're always so bloody pissed off over in the Arabic states?

I suggest you do wonder, one day.

I take it you won't, so let me give you an idea of what might be pissing them off. We, the west, keep sticking our great big, rich, well powered noses into their business, telling them they can't do things, because they might want to wage war on us. It's not our nation to control. It's theirs. The BBC has a news article about four Iranian nuclear sites. Only two of them are useful (and even then only maybe) for making nuclear weapons.

I doubt it occured to people that they, the Iranians, are trying to get some power to their highly under powered slums. Oh no, they might be making their people happy! Shit, we can't let that happen. We must have them being all pissed off so when they step out of line we can declare war and feel rightous and great because we kicked an underequiped nations ass. And we can then blame everything on them, like we have done for the past bloody century.

What the west really needs to do is to get their bloody noses out of the Arabic states business and deal with the fact that not everyone works the same way we do, shock horror, and they might want to get on with their own dealings without half the planet breathing down their neck hitting them with a cane, or having Mr. Blix wave his naughty finger at them.

Unfortunatly, governments need a scapegoat. So they spend money on trying to be 'peace keepers' in the Arabic states.

I have an idea, however. How about, instead of spending so much money on the 'peace keepers' we stop being invasive morons, and spend money on having a government that isn't as useless as the present one. Perhaps, while we're at it, we could buy the half a million baby incubators that everyone seems so ratty about, and then we can do things constructively, rather than fanny about, screw things up, blame the Arabs, beat them up, then go home feeling as if we're guilt free and superior.

Fucking western countries. I wouldn't leave them for the world, but I will rant about them.

Media Hype

A few things cropped up in the news over the last two or three days. Of course, at least one piece of it was about bird flu. That deadly disease that has killed less than a thousand in six years of being known about, probably seven since first mutation. Twenty odd thousand elderly people a year die because of the generic strain of flu. Not only is this bird flu remarkably useless when it comes to humans, it's absolutly nothing. The large majority of reported deaths because of it are in poor countries where medical care is next to none. While this is not to say don't care about them, because they're not us, my point is, we, us British people, live in a country with one of the best health care systems on the face of the planet. Both the NHS and private services are bloody brilliant, yes I have used both. The chance of Bird flu getting into this country and being able to get past the almost inevitable quarentine with enough force to do any damage, please bare in mind it is remarkably pathetic, there will not be the huge, monsterous death toll that the BBC is broadcasting there could be, as informed by 'medical experts'. Medical experts who, probably, have the same mentality as Health and Safety officers. The mentality that anything, and everything else, is a danger, and may kill you.

Breathing may well kill you. Are you going to tell us not to breath, lest we die a horrible death?

Get a life, you sad people. Honestly, who wakes up, goes to work, and sits around inventing new things to get the population hysterical about?
Last I checked, only people looking to over throw governments wanted to cause mass hysteria. Heath and Safety officers would never do that, though, it's far too dangerous.

The BBC did a web post about spy gadgets. Of course this has all stemmed from the russians being paranoid and claiming we're spying on them with a rock. Why the heck would anyone spy on Russia?
For a start, it's cold a lot of the year around. It has little to no value to the planet, except the oil fields. It breeds people that drink far too much, and then freeze to death when they pass out in the snow. It's full of rebelling factions, and frankly, it was communist for the ebst part of fifty years. The country as a whole is as technological as your elderly grandmother, and she might well die of the flu, so where's the problem?
As Peter the Great proved, Russia has no access to a sea that isn't frozen nine months of the year, and between it and the sea is a collection of suicidal Chechnyan activists (They like to make impossible names to spell names of places where the most rebels come from, too. At least Afghanistan was easy to spell.) and some former 'buffer' states that're incapable of doing much other than existing these days. Stalin managed to prove that it's practically impossible to rule a country that size without problems. So did Tzar Nicholas II. Peter the Great did, too.
They do, however, have a large collection of poorly guarded nuclear missiles. Not that they'd do much except get cold and stutter like an old metro.

So. Why, exactly, would there be any point in Britain spying on them?

Stupid, isn't it. However. The article will also serve another purpose. Self important business men and nerds alike will now be carrying 'bug detectors' just incase, no matter how unimportant they actually are, Mi5 are spying on them. Now. I'm sure anyone of the age range 13-40 could tell you that there is a mirriad of gadgets available that make your average joe James bond. Yeah, right. I put it to you, as if anyone reads this, that if we're able to buy these things as generic consumers, why would Mi5 be playing with this amateurish, out dated, junk?

They wouldn't. Your personal life is not about to be intruded by a rock, or a shoe, as the BBC's article suggests. Get over yourself, you're not that important. Neither am I.

Something else caught my eye, too.

Some bones were discovered in Leicester. Funnily, in the same place that John Lewis wants to build a store. Now, I'm all for delaying installation of more mindless crap that people will undoubtably go into and spend horrible amounts of money, but some bones is just not a good enough reason.

They weren't marked. They'd been built over already. They're, most importantly, so dead the church they were buried at was torn down 'centuries ago'. No one alive is going to know them, not that you can positively ID a pile of bones anyway.

To top it all, some bloody idiots are about to embark on a two year study of the bones. The bones that are so important they weren't marked.

If there was gold dust lining the damn things, okay, fine, clean and be rich. But studying the dead, the over five hundred years dead, is so pointless it's untrue. They're scientists. Surely they should be doing something useful, like, I don't know, creating a vaccine for this 'bird flu' that's going to appear from some Asian countries and kill us all next week. Perhaps they should be designing some better bug detectors for the discerning business man. Whatever they're doing, studying some bones is not going to help us understand the idea of traveling at lightspeed, the idea of curing cancer, the idea that man might be able to be cryogenically frozen and have mental correction to societies norms, if they were a criminal, or even that way inclined.

The past is the past. Get over it, and move on. Join us in the future, we have computers and gadgets, not brushes and paper.

Nuclear Power

First off. It's safe. You cannot argue that it isn't. The only major nuclear disaster after the second world war was Chenobyl. Or however the Russians want to spell that. That was only because it was Russian, anyway.

'Green' people, people who think that we're killing the planet by living (I don't think they'll be happy until we're living in caves screaming 'ug' at each other), claim there are green alternatives to nuclear power.

Let's take a look, shall we, at what they suggest.

Wind farms. All well and good, works perfectly on paper. However, in practice, it is of little use at all. There is no where near enough space to have windfarms enough to power London, let alone a country. They say put them at sea. Yeah. Then comes the problem of maintaining them, without killing people. Or animals, because hey, that's bad too. So the sea, and the land, are gone. Unless France becomes a windy place, the French move out and England happens to do what they were trying back in the middle ages, and comes into ownership of France.

Hydroelectric dams. Please, please, don't make me laugh. You cannot be an environmentalist and even begin to suggest these things. I suppose, in the name of convienience, the environmentalists have forgotten that bloody great big one in Brazil. There was more damage caused to one area of the environment that building a nuclear power plant and having to dispose of the low grade radioactive waste.

Tidal based power sources are somewhat more plausible, but again, they are flawed. In any scenario, they only work when there is tidal motion, which as any geography student can tell you, only occurs twice a day. Nice idea, but far to pathetic to power a city the size of Lichfield, let alone somewhere important.

Solar power. Again, don't make me laugh. You'd need somewhere with the amount of sunshine that is seen rarely but countries around the equator. And I don't think they'd be happy if you tore down their forests to make way for some huge solar panels. There is little to no ability to use them in the UK, it's just far too dull here. We'd be without power for several months of the year if we used these things.

Completely by accident there I've trodden on the 'green' argument. It's a terrible shame, isn't it.

Power plants that burn fosil fuels such as coal, and the like, that produce a few million tonnes of Co2 to power cities are bad, apparently. Nuclear power stations provide the environment with significantly less CO2. Oh well, I guess we'll all be eating grass and clubbing each other if these 'green' people ever get a position of influence.

I don't think they're green, though. I think they're yellow.

British Newspapers; Idiots?

"The Guardian is troubled and says the two defendants were so poorly educated that they did not seem to understand the court decision. "

They could understand enough to operate a piece of electronics to watch pornography, they could operate a boat. They could rape and kill someone, then drag her out and leave her to drown. They don't need to understand that they don't deserve life., and frankly. The Guardian is always wrong.

"The Daily Express believes Britain could learn from Thailand's system of "high speed justice"."

Too bloody right we could. Our judicial systems can spend close on a month with a mere drink driving case. Although, not every case calls for the death penalty.

The Telegraph's report came with the following quote;

"I feel sorry for what I have done," whispered Bualoi immediately after sentence was passed. Asked if he thought the punishment was fair, he nodded and quietly said: "I accept it."

He waited untill after the sentence was passed. Would he not be sorry if he got away with it? Probably. The two went back to their boat and boasted that they had raped and killed a foreigner. They boasted about it. As if they would gain respect for doing it.

The only remorse comes after they've been sentenced to death. He doesn't have any, he's just bullshitting.

Thai fishermen

I heard, today, for the second time that a girl from Cardiff was murdered by two Thai fishermen.

Perhaps you're not familier with the story. The BBC have been reporting on it, I am not about to enter their entire report series, bar this; "Two Thai fishermen have been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of 21-year-old Miss Horton, from Cardiff."

The two perpetraitors of this crime, two fishermen, were reportedly watching pornography before they ended up raping, and beating Miss Horton. Not satisfied with violating her, and beating her, she was then dragged out to sea. Where she drowned.

She was violated, beaten and drowned. I don't think I, even with my over active imagination, could imagine a more humiliating, dispicable means of death. However. This is not the point, in a sense.

The two fishermen are allowed to appeal against the judgement. The judgement of death by lethal injection. I understand that people should be allowed to fight for their life. I agree with it. Do these two fishermen deserve the right to appeal against the sentence? They brutalised, humilated and killed a girl of twenty one years. They did this without being intoxicated. They were smiling when they were taken from the bus. They smiled for the cameras. Where is the remorse in smiles, where is the reason to allow them their appeal?

Why should murderers, who murdered a young, innoccent girl be allowed this right?

Should they be granted the same rights as everyone else, after they've demonstrated no remorse, no apparent sorrow, nothing.

I cannot come up with a good reason. Not one.