Site Search


Tuesday, 31 July 2007

Good grief.

And STILL they prattle on.

When is it going to dawn on scientists that all these natural, and the important word here is natural, things affecting the weather, sea temperatures etc etc are phenomena that no-one can control?

Temperatures are raising and have been rising for over a century. Sure, man has a little to do with it but that little is so miniscule as to make no real difference whatsoever.

Yes, our world is changing, as it has done many many times before down the years. Time and time again the weather temperatures have changed. It changed before we had 'industry'. It changed before we had 'motorised vehicles'. It changed before we had 'electrical goods'. It changed. Time and again. It changed. It went warm, cold, very warm, very cold, colder still etc etc. Over and over again it changed.

Rivers and seas where created during some of these temperature changes. Rivers and seas have been created and disappeared because of these natural changes. Whole swaths of mountain ranges have been created etc etc Our world was not formed in a day and is in fact constantly changing.

That cannot be denied.

So, why do these scientists, who really should know better, constantly harp on about these changes and how man has affected it all and how 'Climate Change' is all because of man himself? I will tell you why I think they do it. They do it because they need funding. To get funding they must have something worth pursuing. Something worth pursuing does not need to be real or even tangible as long as you can fabricate the truth and scare people.

Our world is changing. That cannot be denied. Our world is changing as it has done since the dawn of time. That too cannot be denied.

And yet, there is report fter report after report claiming that the changes we are seeing are not natural but are in fact the after affects of what man has done during the last 100 or so years. What a load of utter rubbish.

Monday, 30 July 2007

Drink Driving.

Yes, it is illegal in the U.K. and rightly so. However, the laws governing such things are weak at best and next to useless at worst.

Upfront I will tell you that I had my license taken away due to restricted, sometimes no, movement in my right, and increasingly, left leg. At the time this was dictated to me I was not a happy person. However, time, as always, has made me see sense and through that gaining of commonsense I now agree with the decision. Back when the decision was first imposed I went against it and drove. This going against medical advice lasted for approximately 6 months during which time nothing untoward happened until one day late at night right out of the blue my legs stopped functioning. Whilst this was nothing unusual in my general day to day activities it was unusual for it to happen whilst driving. Driving at 50MPH on an open road and having no control over the cars pedals was a scarey experience. It lasted for around 5 minutes during which time I hit nothing and managed to keep the car straight. Also, there were no other cars around which no doubt helped with the fact that I hit nothing nor anyone else hit me.

That incident hit home. I never drove again.

What has this to do with drink driving? Well, I am trying to hit the point home that if you are incapable of driving you should not do it. I never had a alcoholic drink when I knew I needed to drive. I drank in moderation the previous night if I knew I had to drive the next morning. It really is not rocket science. Do not drink and drive and remember that the drinks you had the night before are still in your system the following morning and to a lesser extent, but still prevalent, the following afternoon.

Here now are my strongly held views on how drink drivers should be treated by our Law system here in U.K.

I strongly believe that the time is right, actually any time is a good time, to bring in a policy of 'zero tolerance' towards drink drivers in the U.K.

Heavy fines of 2,500 UKP for those over the limit which in a zero tolerance arena means none at all whilst driving. For every 0.1g per litre (g/l) of blood over the 0 (zero) baseline add an extra 100 UKP. So, if you are found to have alcohol in your system measured at 0.5g per litre (g/l) of blood then you would get a fine of 2,500 plus 5x100 UKP which equals 5,000 UKP. This is for the first offense only.

On being arrested a second time for driving whilst having alcohol in your system would find the person fined 5,000 plus 100 UKP for every 0.1g per litre (g/l) of blood over the limit of 0 (zero) plus an automatic 6 month ban from driving.

On being arrested a third time then 7,500 plus 100 UKP per 0.1g per litre (g/l) of blood over the limit of 0 (zero) and an automatic life time ban from driving.

If you are involved, not just caused, an accident and found to have alcohol in your system then 3 months in jail would follow plus a fine of 1,000 UKP for every 0.1g per litre (g/l) of blood over the limit of 0 (zero) plus an automatic 6 month ban from driving.

If this happens a second time then a 1 year jail sentence would follow plus a fine of 5,000 plus 100 UKP for every 0.1g per litre (g/l) of blood plus a ban for life from driving.

If you someone is killed, whether of not the drink driver caused it, whilst driving with alcohol in your system, no matter how small an amount, would see this person automatically banned for life from driving any vehicle but would also have a 5 year jail sentence attached plus a fine of 10,000 plus 100 UKP per 0.1g per litre (g/l) of blood over the limit of 0 (zero).

Failure to pay any fine would see an additional 1 month per 1,000 UKP of the fine converted to a jail sentence. If the person already has a custodial sentence then this wil be added to the end of it. If the person does not have a custodial sentence then they will have.

These Laws would be just for car drivers. They would include any form of transport ranging from the basic bicycle to 60tonne lorries.

This absolute zero tolerance to drink driving would soon get the message home to those who drink and drive as a way of life and would I suspect within a year see drink related car accidents cancelled completely.

The chances of seeing such laws enacted in the U.K. or anywhere else in the world for that matter, are almost zero but one can dream that one day perhaps those who govern this country will see some sense and enact something very similar into the Law of the Land. Then and only then will we see a massive drop in drink driving related accidents. Then and only then will our roads be safe again for our children to play not on the roads but on the pavements beside them.

Saturday, 28 July 2007


As humans speak, dogs bark.

Dogs bark for all sorts of reasons. As a way to communicate with other dogs and their human handlers. As a way to signify their excitement. As a way of warning other humans not to get too close. As a way to signify to other humans that the dog does not like you. As a way of warning their handlers that something or someone is encroaching their on their space. As a way to communicate. They will bark out a greeting to other dogs. They bark out to ask
"Hello, is any other dog out there able to hear me?". They bark to
answer another dog barking that question. They bark as a way of
communicating with other dogs. In fact, dogs bark for a lot of things!

As an example. Our dogs are trained to sit at a family members feet and bark twice if they need to go outside. They are trained to sit at one of the family members feet and bark once if they want feeding. They are also trained to bring us their food bowls or water bowl if they want feeding or a drink etc etc. They are trained to whimper and bark for a wide variety of things so we know what they want.

The fact they bark, and the deeper that bark is the more other humans fear the sound, should be seen as a good thing as it gives their handlers time to act on whatever it is the dog is barking at or for. The bark also gives out a clear warning to would be intruders. The fact that a dog barks not only protects their handlers and families but also protects near neighbours as well. Plus of course their are the trained barks that help them communicate what it is they are wanting.

So, why do people hate a dog or dogs because they bark? It is no different to humans talking. Granted a dogs bark can be loud but so can a pensioners television that is on way too loud because their hearing is going.

The next time you think about moaning because a dog nearby is barking consider this. A dog cannot talk like us humans but they are intelligent and need to communicate so they bark.

So, don't look down your nose at the barking dog they are just trying to communicate with other dogs and with humans.

Englands youth

Here we see once again England's youth in action. Thankfully not all England's youth act in this manner. It can be said though that England's youth of today are spiraling out of control. Our youth have always been a little on the wild side but reports like that above do nothing, nothing at all, to foster any form of goodwill from other sections of society towards them.

Sadly, while incidents like that above are few and far between they do get seen as being done by all youth when in point of fact youths who commit acts like that  are in  a very tiny minority.

Youths are youths are the same the world over in that they seek excitement which in turn makes them seek out ways to get that excitement. Unfortunately, getting ones kicks should not involve breaking the law nor should it manifest by doing something that could hurt, even kill, others. More and more in this day and age are we reading reports such as that above.

The questions that need asking are:

What makes them do it?
What makes a modern youth differ from previous generations?
Why does a modern youth seem to take more risks?
Why does a modern youth seek to hurt their peers?
Why does modern youth seem to have no respect at all for anyone?

These questions are not easily answered and if they are answered then doing something meaningful with the answers and bringing about change wuld be difficult at best and downright impossible at worse.

Not all of modern youth are the same of course. Just the same as all pensioners are not the same but but as with all things in life the very very tiny minority reflects badly on the huge majority.

I think that the only people who have any chance of stopping our youth from spiraling out of control is youth itself and until those in power realise that those who cause incidents like that above do not care what some doddering old man or woman sat in their comfortable ivory tower says about anything and instead give power to other youths who do care from our inner cities and estates then the status quo will remain and our youth will get worse in what they do to get their kicks.

Wednesday, 25 July 2007

Carbon foot print.

So, those who have a hidden agenda want all sorts of things banned because "they emit to much CO2". So, here is how it looks from a layman's point of view.

Anyone who knows a little about how life itself is sustained knows life needs CO2 to survive. No-one is disputing the fact we humans are outputting more and more CO2. Whether that is having anything above a marginal affect on the global CO2 output, and therefore the so labeled Climate Change, map is highly debatable.

Let us consider for a moment that everyone, everywhere on this earth stopped using and doing things that emit CO2. Plant life would die, trees would die, eventually, within a very short time scale in the big scheme of things life itself would die out.

Back before humans had food packaging, as we know it now, heating, computers, refrigerators any and almost all modern appliances man created lots and lots of fires. Fires that they cooked by, fires that kept them warm. Fires to see off the dead. Fires to 'see off' the dead. Fires that the farmers created to burn off their crops. Even street lamps where via fire, granted gas but flame nonetheless. All of those fires gave off massive amounts of CO2.

Nowadays we do not create as many fires, instead we burn off CO2 via other means like computers, heaters and other such none essential things.

Now, take those two together and they cancel each other out regarding CO2 emitions.

Man made climate change is a myth perpetrated by those with an agenda to fulfill and the cash-cow it provides.

Monday, 23 July 2007

Cor blimey!

Was it ever this bad? That, is the question.

Back in my youth and early 20's in 1960-1985 it seemed that whenever you rang the police they would turn up within minutes or at worse within the hour.

The other night around 1am I and my wife heard a noise. We looked out of our back bedroom window and saw some ne'er do wells breaking into a neighbours house. They had already broken the outer backdoor and were in the process of breaking into the house. Being good neighbours as we are we knew no-one was at home so we rang the police.

By now you could hear the house alarm, which is very very loud, at a distance of at least 1000 yards.

We rang the police with the sound of the house alarm ringing in our  ears. It was quite audible to the person on the other end of the telephone.

After spending around 15 minutes answering details on who we are, where we lived, where was ringing from, what colour were our  pajamas etc etc Okay that last one I made up as both my wife and I sleep naked, but some of the questions they asked seemed totally irrelevant to why we had rung in the first place.

By now the ne'er do wells had not only broken into our neigbours house but were carrying stuff from the house to their waiting van. In my younger and fitter days i would have gone out and faced these ne'er do wells but alas these days my disability prevents me from doing such things.

We told the police person on the telephone this but unabashed she continued with her inane questions. After around 15 minutes the questioning had finally stopped and she said "Someone would be there as soon as a car is available".

After about an hour, no police person in a car or otherwise had shown up. The ne'er do wells had by now taken a lot of items out of our neighbours house and planted said items into the van I mentioned earlier, which they had waiting outside on the road. We noted the vans registration number and once again rang the police with the intent of giving them the newly discovered van registration number and the descriptions of 2 of the 4 ne'er do wells. We quoted the number the police person had given us first time around and this time we were spared the inane questions.

"A car will be there as soon as one is available." Hadn't we heard that one already? You know, about and hour and 20 minutes ago? Where was the bloody car I asked in desperation. "All our cars are at other reports at this time Sir" she said. Right, says I, so now the ne'er do wells have driven away I am going to bed and your police people had better not wake me up when/if they ever arrive, I screamed down the telephone at her. Very impolite of me but after that exchange I slammed the telephone down in disgust at what our once great police force had obviously become and that is a total waste of time.

3 days have passed since the above turn of events and still no police have been. Not to speak to me. Not to look at the damage the ne'er do wells caused. Nothing. No telephone call to follow things up.

I have since rung our neighbours to tell them the bad news. I also told them about how the police simply seemed not to care. Quite understandably he was not a happy man. Not with the fact his house had been broken into nor with the fact the police seemed not to care. He requested of me that I reset the alarm (he gave me the number sequence) and get the the doors fixed which the ne'er do wells had broken. "However you can do it, just make them secure again" he said. I have since done as he asked of me. He also said he was not going to return to England until his and his wifes holiday was over which is a week next Friday (12 days from now). As he said "There is little point in returning home now the damage has been done."

I do not believe that the above turn of events concerning the police only happens in my city and is in fact endemic all over England.

Welcome to policing in the year 2007 in England.

Saturday, 21 July 2007

Harry Potter

What a crock of rubbish this whole series of books and films this are.

I have read every book (I got them for my children) and have seen every available film at the cinema (I took my children) and not once did I see or read anything that stands out as being remarkable.

The books themselves are mediocre at best and at worse just a pile of text that happens to make sense.

Seriously, the series of Harry Potter books have been massively over hyped.  Why oh why have the British public fallen for such a poor piece  of literature is beyond my comprehension.

If I can see through the junk how come many others cannot? I fail to see what makes these works stand out.

The great North-South divide

In all its perverse glory can be witnessed right now on the anti Northern BBC web site.

Its reporting of floods hold so much bias towards the southern end of this little island we called England is so brash, bold and in your face it makes a mockery of everything the BBC used to stand for.

The North of England suffered far far worse flooding than almost 99% of the Southern end and yet the BBC is fawning all of those little puddles in the south while the north end got next to no reporting whatsoever. What little was reported was quickly pushed under the corporate carpet

No flooding anywhere to anyone is a good thing but please this reporting is so bias its a joke.

Friday, 20 July 2007

Leave our children alone!

Once again in the news is Ofsted and any and all loosely connected organisations saying our children need to study this and that without a single regard for the children they discuss.

In the UK is it fairly well known that our children start school at an earlier age than the vast majority of our neighbours in Europe and Scandinavia. Not only that but the summer holidays are much shorter. We force our children to learn. From starting school aged 3 1/2 until finishing at 16 or 18 we do not teach our children anything instead we force feed them information so that at various stages along the way the schools themselves are able to claim this and that and that they are better than all the others.

It is not about our children. It is about schools sitting pretty on the top of some table that bares no relevance whatsoever to the children they teach.

It is not about our children. It is all about organisations like Ofsted who like the government force our schools to do this and that without any regard for the children under their remit.

It is not about our children. It is all about a government concerned purely with statistics.

The list is almost endless. It is not about the children but it is about anything but. There is a clear picture of how we compare to our European and Scandinavian neighbours that says there is proof that forcing our children to start school earlier and that forcing our children to have a longer school year does noting at all for the strength of our childrens education. In point of fact the exact opposite is true. Our children, at all ages, languish behind their European and Scandinavian peers.

Our children are our future. While it would be nice to have one on one tutoring that is unlikely ever to happen. The next best thing is to have our teachers, who try and do a magnificent job in very very trying circumstances, realise those children who are not quite as bright as other pupils then offering that child something extra.

There is a lot wrong within our education system and not a lot right. Putting everything wrong will be a long arduous task if indeed it could ever be put right. Putting our children first instead of some purely contrived league tables would go a long way in the effort to correct all the wrongs.

I know, I know. None of this, especially the part about putting children first is never likely to happen whilst too many organisation have vested interests in the education system. Still, a parent such as I, can dream.

Thursday, 19 July 2007

It never hurt us.

I am currently 47 years of age. I grew up during a time when children had freedoms and parents knew other adults would look out for any child and where applicable scold said child for doing wrong. This did not lead to a lawsuit but often would lead to getting a slap of your own parents for getting a scolding frome someone else. It seems odd that sort of thing in this modern "we must be scared of everything" world.

I cannot remember where I got the follow text from but it sums up thing perfectly.

When We Were Kids

According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were Kids
in the 50's, 60's, 70's and early 80's probably shouldn't have survived,
because... Our baby cots were covered with brightly coloured lead-based
paint, which was promptly chewed and licked.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, or latches on doors or cabinets and it was fine to play with pans.

When we rode our bikes, we wore no helmets, just flip flops and fluorescent
'clackers' on our wheels.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.

Riding in the passenger seat was a treat. We drank water from the garden
hose and not from a bottle.

We ate dripping sandwiches, bread and butter pudding and drank fizzy pop
with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing.

We shared one drink with four friends, from one bottle or can and no one
actually died from this.

We would spend hours building go-carts out of scraps and then went top speed
down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes, After running into stinging nettles a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back
before it got dark.

No one was able to reach us all day and no one minded.

We did not have Playstations or X-Boxes, no video games at all. No 99
channels on TV, no videotape movies, no surround sound, no mobile phones,
any personal computers.

No Internet chat rooms. We had friends - we went outside and found them.
We played elastics and street rounders, and sometimes that ball really hurt.
We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no

If they were accidents. We learnt not to do the same thing again.

We had fights, punched each other hard and got black and blue - we learned
to get over it.

We walked to friend's homes.

We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate live stuff, and although we were told what would happen, We did not! Have very many eyes out, nor did the live stuff live inside us forever.

We rode bikes in packs of 7 and wore our coats by only the hood.

Our actions were our own. Consequences, we expected The idea of a parent
bailing us out if we broke a law was, they actually sided with the law. Imagine that!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem
solvers and inventors, ever.

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had
freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.

And you're one of them. Congratulations! Pass this on to others who have had
the luck to grow up as real kids, before lawyers and government regulate our
lives, for our own good.

Tuesday, 17 July 2007


I am sure that the vast majority of people born, raised and living in the UK abhor the violence and devastation left by extremist. car bombs, burning cars etc are all bad things that nobody should have to endure.

But, there is one burning question that has been in my head for a long time and I have asked many people who should know the answer but as yet have not been given a reply that makes any sense. Nor an answer that has an ounce of truth in it.

I will state categorically, I abhor any violence. Terrorist activity or wars. I am in no way condoning these actions nor the groups involved.

The I.R.A who during the 70's and early 80's raged terrorist activities against mainland Britain caused much worse damage then the current terrorist activity and yet today there is billions of pounds being spent on infiltrating, getting to know and hopefully stopping todays terrorists. This money is more, much much more than what was spent on doing the same back in the 70's and 80's. Why?

The carnage and devastation caused by terrorists back then was much worse than anything we have seen in recent years and yet we have spent much more money on curbing these recent atrocities. Why?

I will say it again.

In terrorist terms recent events have no been a patch on those of the 70's and 80's in terms of devastation and carnage so, why the sudden raise in monies?

I can make assumptions but they are probably way off base and could be seen as being from someone who is paranoid. Neither of which are true or correct.

The question is simple and yet no one who should be able to offer an answer does so which makes it look like they are building up defenses on the back of something that is really, in terrorist terms, no threat but in the name of safety of our citizens we shall remove a few freedoms.

And that is what I think all this boils down to. Curtailing freedoms. Not anti-terrorism.

How I escaped from torture in Iran - rubbish?

In this article on the bbc web site (a 3 parter no less) there is a guy who recounts his experiences after being deported to Iran.

Does anyone else read the above article and think to themselves it is so contrived as to be nothing more than a story made up?

Read it thoroughly. It smacks of a tale one might tell friends in an effort to curry favour.

I am in no way saying what he claimshappened did not happen. What I amsaying is the way the story reads it reads as exactly that, a story.

Friday, 13 July 2007


Everywhere one goes in England there is a lack of police presence, on the streets or in cars. One can walk around for hours and never see a policeman or policewomen either walking the beat or sat idling in police cars. In my home City they have in the last year or so built many new police stations but very very few of these are open to the public 24/7.

I recently returned from a trip to America, Atlanta Ohio to be precise, where police are everywhere and if not immediately within one sights they are almost guaranteed to be one, usually two, within 100 yards of wherever you may be stood or walking.

These two description could not differ more widely.

In England we need more police. many, many more. We need them walking the beats. We need them in cars or vans. We quite simply need more so that we the general public know they are within 100 yards of wherever we may be and we know that they will be passing our houses at regular, measured in minutes, intervals.

Crime is getting worse in England. It is filtering every aspect of ones lives. Even those who never do anything wrong are affected. It needs sorting and it needs a strong, dedicated to the public cause Goverment to start the ball rolling. It needs to be started now before the police lose all control of those who wish to harm others through whatever illegal endeavour they pursue.

A lot more money needs to filter down to local police administators from central Government so that we at least approach the situation in America. Then, and only then, will people feel save within their own homes.

Thursday, 12 July 2007

Size of people.

When are those who can and should make a differemce going to realise then the English as a race of people have never, ever, been thin? Rarely has its population been what is currently considered normal size either.

Look at pictures from the 1800's and all you see is what is now considered oversized females. If a woman was plump back then she was considered beautiful.

Now they are claiming we as a nation are fat, overweight and other such silliness.

We as a nation of people have never been what is currently considered normal sized. We have always been a bit on the plump, thickset size.

We as a nation have always eaten what we have always eaten so why are they now trying to force people to change because of some flawed measurement (BMI)? Granted there are some cases of people who are unrealistically overweight and fat but they too are utterly normal as they have always been there.

It seems to me that these people who are moaning about the size of people that they are poking their collective noses into something they most certainly do not fully appreciate.

I`ll say it again. Look at pictures from the 1800's and early 1900's and all you will see is people who do not fit into what is now claimed to be the ideal state.

Leave us alone and find something else to wibble on about because us lot as a nation couldn't give a damn what you have to say on the matter as we are normal. Get it? Normal sized. We have always been a collection of slightly above what weight we should be.

Oh and by the way. I am 47 years old, eat what the hell I like, mostly fatty foodstuffs. I love a fry up done in proper animal fat etc etc and I am still the same skinny, 13st 3lbs 5ft 11in person now as I was when aged 18. I eat everything they are now claiming to bad for us and yet here I am the same size and weight as i have always been.

It is not what one eats that makes the difference it is their inbuilt metabolism taht makes us what we are.

Fat Tax?

Whatever next! A thinktank, and I use the term vey lightly, from Oxford has suggested that VAT (Value Added Tax) of 17.5%.

They claim 7.5% rise on fatty, sugary or salty food would cut heart and stroke deaths by 1.7% and that 3,000 lives could, possibly, be saved.

Consider, if you will, the methods they used to come to the conclusion 3,000 lives would be 'saved'.

First they used economic data to work out how demand would fall as the price of unhealthy foods increased, and which foods people might turn to instead - then used these results to predict the benefit on the health of the population.

Dairy products, that most staple of English foodstuffs, which contained high levels of saturated fats, such as butter and cheese, was attacked.

This however proved ineffective to their ends as they, somehow, worked out that people would simply switch to other 'unhealthy' foodstuffs containing high levels of salt. Quite how they worked this out is astounding because high salt content is utterly different from high fat content. But, I digress.

After they did not get the results they wanted to prove their point they switch to something called the SSCg3d score. This attributes points to to certain nutrients per 100g of food.

By taxing all products which scored poorly on this scale lives could be saved with approximately 2,300 fewer deaths each year from stroke and heart disease.

And here is the good bit.

They tweaked the range of taxed products to include foods that might score poorly but may be used as alternatives if so called 'unhealthy' foods. Not surprisingly, this approach yielded the most apparently striking results, with as many as 3,200 deaths prevented.

Now, call me cynical but anything like this study that has 'tweaked' things to suit their own aims smacks of misleading information. Also, how can they project what people eat when by our very nature we are fickle food eaters? Further, if some foodstuffs were taxed as they suggest you will immediately have a two tier situation as those who can afford it will carry on eating so labled 'unhealthy' foods while those who cannot afford it will not, as this study suggests, lead to 'healthy' food eating but will infact result in people who either will seek alternatives (as in similar products) or get themselves into further debt trying to give their children what the children want.

This study with its skewed methodology and by extention flawed results should be thrown away without a second thought.

Wednesday, 11 July 2007

The Hull Rubgy League Derby

I was there and saw the atrocities at the end. This is how I saw it unfold.

Due to the fact that the East Stand of the ground (Craven Park which is an awful ground but that is another argument for another day) made it hard for youngsters to see the pitch they allowed said youngster to sit between the advertising hoardings and the terraces. When the Hull Kingston Rovers (HKR) fans encroached onto the pitch they appeared to head straight for the youngsters who were made up mainly of Hull FC fans. The parents and family friends of these youngsters saw what was unfolding and then they encroached onto the pitch in an effort to stop what they could see was happening.

During the minor fracas that happened it looked like, from where I was stood, as if Yeaman (one of Hull FC's players) was struck by a HKR fan.

I did not see any Hull FC fan strike out at anyone unless they had been struck themselves. I.E. Self defense.

So, we have fans not on the terraces due to ground issues. 1 to HKR.

We have HKR fans encroaching onto the pitch and running in a threatening fashion towards young children 2 to HKR.

We have an HKR fan striking a Hull FC player 3 to HKR.

We have Hull FC fans encroaching onto the pitch trying to stop what they saw was going to happen 1 to Hull FC (for encroachment).

I make that 3 to 1 HKR.

No pitch encroachment can be defended in light of current rules about such but if blame is to be appointed then in my humble opinion it should be appointed on HKR.

What should be levied on either club? That is difficult to say. However, it should be noted that HKR themselves can be seen to have initiated this fracas by letting some fans over the terrace barrier. I would say 8 points deducted from HKR and 2 from Hull FC and fines for both clubs. Finally, I would order the closure of Craven Park until such a time as it is fit for Super League which currently it is not.

Tuesday, 10 July 2007

Flood Aid (Hull)

So, someone has decided to setup a rock gig to help those who need help after the floods that ravaged the city. They are saying they only want Hull bands to play at this gig but lets be honest here how many local to Hull bands are known even by the locals? Not many I would wager.

Chris Cornell (ex Soundgarden and Audioslave lead singer) and Ernest and Stonesthrow (Big scottish band) want to play for Hull's Concert after the organisers pleaded for help but what did the council do? They turned them down because of the stupidest of stupid rules that they only want local to Hull bands playing at the Rock gig.

If that is not stupid I do not know what is.

People will probably turn up and pay good money to see whatever bands they have on display but surely some decent names would bring in more people? I would think so. But the organisers have shot themselves in the foot by not allowing bands who have asked to play because of that stupid rule above.

It beggers believe. It really does.

The above not with standing I urge everyone able to go to go because the situation for a lot of people here is desperate.

Sunday, 8 July 2007

New seven wonders.

So, they have finally come up with a list for the New Seven Wonders of the World and what a crock of shit it turned out to be.

There is no doubting that those 'wonders' chosen are indeed wondrous but there remains many better, more suitable, wonders around this globe we know as Earth.

I voted as did apparently millions of others but one has to wonder what the hidden agenda behind it all was. Oh yes, there was definitely a hidden agenda as can be seen from those 'wonders, chosen.

I am not going to waste my time typing out all the much better 'wonders' that can be found but suffice it to say there are many, many many many, much better 'wonders' to be seen.

As I opened with. What a crock of shit the New seven Wonders of the World turned out be.

Sunday, 1 July 2007

Smoking Ban.

So, the ban on smoking in enclosed spaces is now part of the UK statute. This ban is yet another clear sign that the 'nanny state' is upon us.

It hasn't escaped notice that the Houses of Parliament of this little island is exempt but that is something of a degression.

In many ways, as a smoker and on a personal level, I support this ban. However, I do think it is unfair in many ways. People nowadays, including young kids and teenagers, are well aware of the so claimed dangers of smoking and passive smoking so they and millions of older people who have taken a conscious decision to carry on smoking regardless should in this land of the fair and free have been taken into consideration.

I have never smoked in many places where it used to be allowed. On buses, on trains, in restaurants, even at football or rugby league matches, other peoples houses when children were present or if the other party were none smokers, even if others around me did, at home once our children were born, in the school playground or the perimeter immediately surrounding it, in taxis or other peoples cars. This list of self imposed none smoking places is longer than this but I reckon you get the idea on self regulation. The only places I do smoke my pipe is in the backyard, in open spaces like the street or park and of course in the pubs and clubs I frequent.

Where I do feel this law is unfair is in places where it was totally possible to setup for smokers and none smokers alike. Pubs are one instance that springs to mind. Employ only those who smoke and get them to sign an agreement stating they are aware of the issues claimed to surround smoking. Opposite these smoking allowed pubs and clubs would be places where smoking is banned. In wide open spaces like football or rugby stadiums they could segregate smokers and none smokers.

Back in my youth I well remember 'smokers bars' in pubs which as the name suggests was for those who smoked. Granted the main bars still allowed smoking but the nucleus of an idea is there to be reborn, regurgitated and unleashed on a waiting public.

Oh I know those opposed to any form of smoking anywhere in this country are vocal and have infiltrated many decision making places and the fight has been all but lost for us that enjoy choice and freedom to do as we want but, the fight has now been taken to the courts of this land. I, personally, don't see them winning so much as a single consession but there is a chance to have some parts of this law repelled and I say bloody good luck to them in their quest.

It is only a matter of time before they place smoking bans in the streets and in ones houses. You wait and see.