Sheffield Wednesday has finally obtained a court order forcing the fan site Owlstalk’s Owner Neil Hargreaves to reveal the e-mail addresses of three fans who made comments on the site.
The ‘club’ had gone after 13 fans all told feeling sensitive after questions were raised on the site concerning greed, selfishness, trustworthiness and honesty there.
This might be interpreted by some, as a case of the pot calling the kettle black, given some of comments about certain groups of fans made by Sheffield Wednesday’s Chairman that found their way on to You Tube.
Most of the cases were ‘thrown out of court’ and the club has had to cough up £9,000 in costs.
Not having seen the comments it is difficult to form an opinion as to weather they were over the top, or not - and if so how, but the whole matter has echoes of the ‘silence of the blogs’ incident involving Alisher Usmanov and Schillings, who appear to have gone after sites that commented on allegations published by Craig Murray, but not to the best of my knowledge sued the author.
Still it would be good to have a reliable indication as to what is and is not acceptable to post and comment.
People say some pretty heated stuff about politicians for instance. Especially when what the politicians say, or promise, turns out to have a negative correlation with reality.
Then terms like pork pie salesperson may be bandied about and comments often touch upon truthfulness and honesty - at least.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Rubbish Tax. Coming to a bin near you - As soon as they can get away with it…
It looks like Nu-Lab are going for the same technique in rolling out the rubbish tax as they used to avoid stirring up the sheeple too much with HIPs. Doing it as quietly as possible in stages while putting out as much of a smoke screen as possible.
They are quietly rolling out powers to ‘pilot’ the charges in the Climate Change Bill.
Now, keep in mind folks, we not only already pay handsomely for this service in the form of massively inflated Council Tax that has galloped so far ahead of inflation it’s lapped it, but most of us have already had the service cut back to once a fortnight.
What is the root cause of all this? Why the good old EU. The Government are concerned the UK could face fines of up to £180m a year imposed by the European Commission if it does not cut the amount of waste dumped in landfill.
So this is actually social engineering to force you to ‘recycle’ via the State’s firm grip on tender parts of your wallet, being imposed on you because of EU dictat, with the added benefit of an increased tax crop.
Presumably fly tipping and bonfires will not count. One also wonders if bins with combination locks will be issued, to avoid someone else’s rubbish being secretly slipped into a bin just prior to collection - Some poor suckers are bound to be caught out when the first thin they know about it is when they get a massive bill.
Nu-Lab’s ‘Waste Minister’ (too obvious to use) Joan Ruddock helps emphasise the way the wind is blowing with the comment: "We all know we can't go on putting rubbish in holes in the ground. We need to find new ways and these sorts of schemes and incentives may be part of that,".
So no avoiding it no matter what – there’s good old British democracy in action for you.
They are quietly rolling out powers to ‘pilot’ the charges in the Climate Change Bill.
Now, keep in mind folks, we not only already pay handsomely for this service in the form of massively inflated Council Tax that has galloped so far ahead of inflation it’s lapped it, but most of us have already had the service cut back to once a fortnight.
What is the root cause of all this? Why the good old EU. The Government are concerned the UK could face fines of up to £180m a year imposed by the European Commission if it does not cut the amount of waste dumped in landfill.
So this is actually social engineering to force you to ‘recycle’ via the State’s firm grip on tender parts of your wallet, being imposed on you because of EU dictat, with the added benefit of an increased tax crop.
Presumably fly tipping and bonfires will not count. One also wonders if bins with combination locks will be issued, to avoid someone else’s rubbish being secretly slipped into a bin just prior to collection - Some poor suckers are bound to be caught out when the first thin they know about it is when they get a massive bill.
Nu-Lab’s ‘Waste Minister’ (too obvious to use) Joan Ruddock helps emphasise the way the wind is blowing with the comment: "We all know we can't go on putting rubbish in holes in the ground. We need to find new ways and these sorts of schemes and incentives may be part of that,".
So no avoiding it no matter what – there’s good old British democracy in action for you.
Monday, 29 October 2007
New Labour's Benn Barking up wrong tree
Nu-Lab’s Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, son of Anthony starey eyed Wedgewood Benn is planning to put forward what he describes as a ‘tougher, more effective and more transparent bill to help tackle climate change’.
There is much talk of various environ-mentalist measures that will probably do the economy no good and will probably involve stealth taxes.
Yet again Nu-Lab unerringly gallop off in the direction of controls, regulation, social engineering and punitive taxation.
Assuming that climate change is in fact down to Manmade CO2 rather than say variation in solar output. If the Governemnet are really serious about reducing CO2 emissions then they should be encouraging the building of new generation nuclear power plants. It is estimated that, in total in 2003, the UK produced 786 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
If all of the UK’s power needs were taken care of by nuclear, wind, tide, etc. then this could be reduced to close to nothing
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen.
But touching on the subject of things nuclear – Remember the threat of the nuclear winter? Or the depression of global temperatures, as a result of major volcanic events?
Just a thought, but if climate change is indeed a threat, down to CO2 or not, maybe someone should be looking into the possibility of duplicating the effect of a nuclear winter on a non toxic controllable scale?
There is much talk of various environ-mentalist measures that will probably do the economy no good and will probably involve stealth taxes.
Yet again Nu-Lab unerringly gallop off in the direction of controls, regulation, social engineering and punitive taxation.
Assuming that climate change is in fact down to Manmade CO2 rather than say variation in solar output. If the Governemnet are really serious about reducing CO2 emissions then they should be encouraging the building of new generation nuclear power plants. It is estimated that, in total in 2003, the UK produced 786 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
If all of the UK’s power needs were taken care of by nuclear, wind, tide, etc. then this could be reduced to close to nothing
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen.
But touching on the subject of things nuclear – Remember the threat of the nuclear winter? Or the depression of global temperatures, as a result of major volcanic events?
Just a thought, but if climate change is indeed a threat, down to CO2 or not, maybe someone should be looking into the possibility of duplicating the effect of a nuclear winter on a non toxic controllable scale?
Lectures on Terrorism from Saudi Ruler
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's is planning a state visit to the UK, that formally begins on Tuesday. When interviewed by the BBC ahead of the visit he claimed could have prevented 7/11 "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy."
The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) diplomatically state they have found no evidence that any intelligence passed by the Saudis could have prevented the bombings.
The king also suggested most countries were not taking the issue seriously, "including, unfortunately, Great Britain".
This is interesting coming from the man in charge of the country that has spread Wahabism (followers of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi) on the world. A country that promotes and spreads it with its vast oil revenues. A country that gifted the world with Osama bin Laden and consequently al-Qaeda.
A man who’s regime pathetically tried to blame terrorist attacks on ‘Western alcohol smuggling rings’ and tortured confessions out of random westerners, rather than face reality.
It would be good if his own regime took the matter more seriously and stemmed the vast flow of ‘charitable’ support, that somehow ends up in the terrorists’ coffers. That promotes intolerant religious schools, teachings and teachers. That spreads the disease of terrorism.
Still his Majesty would probably rather see some of his problems exported abroad rather than surface too often in his own kingdom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Serendipity, or tongue in cheek comment? When king Abdullah turned up at the palace they played him a march in his honour. See this report from Channel 4.
“You don’t need to see his identification … These aren’t the droids you’re looking for … He can go about his business … Move along.”
The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) diplomatically state they have found no evidence that any intelligence passed by the Saudis could have prevented the bombings.
The king also suggested most countries were not taking the issue seriously, "including, unfortunately, Great Britain".
This is interesting coming from the man in charge of the country that has spread Wahabism (followers of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi) on the world. A country that promotes and spreads it with its vast oil revenues. A country that gifted the world with Osama bin Laden and consequently al-Qaeda.
A man who’s regime pathetically tried to blame terrorist attacks on ‘Western alcohol smuggling rings’ and tortured confessions out of random westerners, rather than face reality.
It would be good if his own regime took the matter more seriously and stemmed the vast flow of ‘charitable’ support, that somehow ends up in the terrorists’ coffers. That promotes intolerant religious schools, teachings and teachers. That spreads the disease of terrorism.
Still his Majesty would probably rather see some of his problems exported abroad rather than surface too often in his own kingdom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Serendipity, or tongue in cheek comment? When king Abdullah turned up at the palace they played him a march in his honour. See this report from Channel 4.
“You don’t need to see his identification … These aren’t the droids you’re looking for … He can go about his business … Move along.”
Friday, 26 October 2007
Gordon Brown ‘Concerned’ about Liberty
It seems that Gordon Brown has become sufficiently concerned that the public has finally noticed Nu-Lab’s Big Brother/Fascist-Lite tendencies, to try a little spin to cover them up.
He is apparently concerned about Liberty – One suspects more normally Taking Liberties, in the literal sense.
Of course he would also like to distract the sheeple from such things as: His shilly shallying around over and election and then pathetically trying to claim it was not because he thought he might come off badly that he bottled it. His broken promises over the EU Constitution that is taking another step towards making parliament an irrelevance. Dave and ‘the party formerly known as the Conservatives’ overtaking him in the polls.
Of course he is trying to suggest it was all down to that nasty Blair person’s Government, that was nothing to do with him and things will be different now he is in charge. Trusssst in meeeee Mowglie…..
He of course justifies much of his move towards a total surveillance society, identity cards, DNA testing, etc. on the need to keep us all safe from terrorists. Leaving aside the question of what by the time he has finished will be left of the relatively free society we once enjoyed. The terrorists are winning, even when they fail, by changing or way of life and making our society more like their societies.
Showing rather more of his true colours he insisted he would not compromise the security of the nation. There would be tougher counter-terrorism laws before Christmas. Thanks! Just what we always wanted :-(
He is even threatening us with a debate about a British Bill of Rights and the possibility of a written constitution.
The direction they have been going in one fears that any Constitution Nu-Lab had a hand in writing would be a fascists charter. Still he could always call it something else and argue it wasn’t really a constitution after all ;-) The fact is that any British constitution may be about as relevant as a Town Council’s policies, being subservient to the real EU “Not a Constitution, honest Guv’”.
He also seems to have conveniently forgotten that we already have a perfectly good Bill of Rights - and have done since 16 December 1689 when it became statutory law. But maybe it contains ;-) the wrong sort of rights, by Gordon’s standards…
Maybe he also forgets that Constitutions and Bills of rights are not normally graciously handed down to the citizens by the likes of him and almost certainly wouldn’t be worth the paper they were written of in they were.
Mind you – If he is interested in Constitutions and Bills of Rights then there is plenty of discussion out there on the subject.
He is apparently concerned about Liberty – One suspects more normally Taking Liberties, in the literal sense.
Of course he would also like to distract the sheeple from such things as: His shilly shallying around over and election and then pathetically trying to claim it was not because he thought he might come off badly that he bottled it. His broken promises over the EU Constitution that is taking another step towards making parliament an irrelevance. Dave and ‘the party formerly known as the Conservatives’ overtaking him in the polls.
Of course he is trying to suggest it was all down to that nasty Blair person’s Government, that was nothing to do with him and things will be different now he is in charge. Trusssst in meeeee Mowglie…..
He of course justifies much of his move towards a total surveillance society, identity cards, DNA testing, etc. on the need to keep us all safe from terrorists. Leaving aside the question of what by the time he has finished will be left of the relatively free society we once enjoyed. The terrorists are winning, even when they fail, by changing or way of life and making our society more like their societies.
Showing rather more of his true colours he insisted he would not compromise the security of the nation. There would be tougher counter-terrorism laws before Christmas. Thanks! Just what we always wanted :-(
He is even threatening us with a debate about a British Bill of Rights and the possibility of a written constitution.
The direction they have been going in one fears that any Constitution Nu-Lab had a hand in writing would be a fascists charter. Still he could always call it something else and argue it wasn’t really a constitution after all ;-) The fact is that any British constitution may be about as relevant as a Town Council’s policies, being subservient to the real EU “Not a Constitution, honest Guv’”.
He also seems to have conveniently forgotten that we already have a perfectly good Bill of Rights - and have done since 16 December 1689 when it became statutory law. But maybe it contains ;-) the wrong sort of rights, by Gordon’s standards…
Maybe he also forgets that Constitutions and Bills of rights are not normally graciously handed down to the citizens by the likes of him and almost certainly wouldn’t be worth the paper they were written of in they were.
Mind you – If he is interested in Constitutions and Bills of Rights then there is plenty of discussion out there on the subject.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Site Stats
I have been looking at the CFG’s stats. Here are some of them:
Language Groups: 92% English, 2% Welsh.
Continents: 53% North America, 40% Europe, 5% Asia.
Countries: 47% US, 38% UK, 6% Canada.
Browsers: 53% Firefox, 24% IE6, 17% IE7, 4% Safari.
I have left out any categories showing 1%.
It is curious that there are more visits from North America than Europe. I note use of Firefox browsers is the same percentage as North American visitors, though I doubt all the former are from the latter. It is interesting to note the Firefox users are in the majority of visitors at the moment.
Language Groups: 92% English, 2% Welsh.
Continents: 53% North America, 40% Europe, 5% Asia.
Countries: 47% US, 38% UK, 6% Canada.
Browsers: 53% Firefox, 24% IE6, 17% IE7, 4% Safari.
I have left out any categories showing 1%.
It is curious that there are more visits from North America than Europe. I note use of Firefox browsers is the same percentage as North American visitors, though I doubt all the former are from the latter. It is interesting to note the Firefox users are in the majority of visitors at the moment.
Soil Association - Organic means what we say it means
When is organic not organic? When the Soil association says so.
The soil association, one suspects having been ‘got at’ by environ-mentalists has arbitrarily decided that they will no longer count foreign organically grown produce as ‘organic’ if it is imported air freighted – unless it passes their new ‘ethical’ standards.
They have been gradually working towards this for some time.
If one didn’t know better one would assume the policy was deliberately designed to harm poorer countries. Their policy director Peter Melchett freely admits that some (poorer) overseas (Africa?) producers would find it impossible to meet the new standards they had set . Very few overseas producers meet the planned new standards at the moment and the policy was expected to reduce the use of air freight.
So it’s all in the name of attacking the environ-mentalists CO2 bête noire, air travel/freight. One wonders how else these produces can get their products to the shops before they spoil.
The chairwoman of the Soil Association's standards board, Anna Bradley, stated: "It is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight but we recognise that building alternative markets that offer the same social and economic benefits as organic exports will take time." They plan to bring the new measures in from January 2009.
How coldly patronising can you get? They sound like colonial administrators. We all have to make sacrifices for the good of Gaia. The soil Association are willing to make the sacrifice of having to do without African ‘organic’ produce, the African farmer will just have to do without his livelihood.
Executive director of the Geneva-based International Trade Centre (ITC), Patricia Francis, warned that: ”African companies and cooperatives want to trade internationally.
To get value-added organic foods on to retail shelves, they have an overwhelming amount of standards to meet.
Meeting these standards costs money - laboratories, audits and more. Too many standards will hurt African farmers, which is just the opposite of what British consumers want.”
Why should the Soil Association be allowed to co-opt and distort the meaning of a word that ’belongs’ to us all. We are not French speakers, to have the meanings of our words imposed upon us by an elite cognoscenti. We are speaking of English words, that even now, in the newspeak UK, are still not quite so amenable to imposition by fiat - or should that be Nu-Speak ;-)
No matter what the Soil association says - if the food is produced organically, it will be just as pesticide and chemical free as it was before. It will still actually be organic in the normal sense of the word. Are they just getting a little too big for their boots?
The soil association, one suspects having been ‘got at’ by environ-mentalists has arbitrarily decided that they will no longer count foreign organically grown produce as ‘organic’ if it is imported air freighted – unless it passes their new ‘ethical’ standards.
They have been gradually working towards this for some time.
If one didn’t know better one would assume the policy was deliberately designed to harm poorer countries. Their policy director Peter Melchett freely admits that some (poorer) overseas (Africa?) producers would find it impossible to meet the new standards they had set . Very few overseas producers meet the planned new standards at the moment and the policy was expected to reduce the use of air freight.
So it’s all in the name of attacking the environ-mentalists CO2 bête noire, air travel/freight. One wonders how else these produces can get their products to the shops before they spoil.
The chairwoman of the Soil Association's standards board, Anna Bradley, stated: "It is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight but we recognise that building alternative markets that offer the same social and economic benefits as organic exports will take time." They plan to bring the new measures in from January 2009.
How coldly patronising can you get? They sound like colonial administrators. We all have to make sacrifices for the good of Gaia. The soil Association are willing to make the sacrifice of having to do without African ‘organic’ produce, the African farmer will just have to do without his livelihood.
Executive director of the Geneva-based International Trade Centre (ITC), Patricia Francis, warned that: ”African companies and cooperatives want to trade internationally.
To get value-added organic foods on to retail shelves, they have an overwhelming amount of standards to meet.
Meeting these standards costs money - laboratories, audits and more. Too many standards will hurt African farmers, which is just the opposite of what British consumers want.”
Why should the Soil Association be allowed to co-opt and distort the meaning of a word that ’belongs’ to us all. We are not French speakers, to have the meanings of our words imposed upon us by an elite cognoscenti. We are speaking of English words, that even now, in the newspeak UK, are still not quite so amenable to imposition by fiat - or should that be Nu-Speak ;-)
No matter what the Soil association says - if the food is produced organically, it will be just as pesticide and chemical free as it was before. It will still actually be organic in the normal sense of the word. Are they just getting a little too big for their boots?
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
How strong is Cameron’s commitment to a Referendum?
Is Dave the Chameleon 'soft at the edges' on the EU Constitutional treaty referendum issue?
It almost looks like one of those conspiracy theories. You know – where the newly sworn in president is informed we were taken over by aliens in 1963 and although everything looks like business as usual, there are certain things he is not allowed to do…
I am just trying to come up with one for the ‘European Project’ that forces any politicians to back the European Project, or be pushed out of power by those who have already been taken over. I wonder if Dave got a visit from some MIBs recently…
Note to tin foil hat wearers and best selling authors: Try something involving the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, descendants of Jesus, obscure sects and secret societies. Don't forget the hat tip.
It seems he came under some pressure at the first of his alternative press conferences to Broon’s Breeks Briefings, to give a clear indication that an incoming 'Conservative' government would ensure the voters were allowed a referendum. Curiously he avoided doing so saying that now was the time for a referendum on what is the old EU constitution in all but name.
True enough, he does have a point in that it is far better done now and in fact should have already been done. However it might ramp the pressure up to promise (a real promise as opposed to a NU-Lab manifesto type promise) one.
He is probably conscious of what a political can of worms it would open, if in two years time a referendum produced a no result – that, plus he doesn’t want to suffer the same fate as Maggie, or more significantly JFK…
It almost looks like one of those conspiracy theories. You know – where the newly sworn in president is informed we were taken over by aliens in 1963 and although everything looks like business as usual, there are certain things he is not allowed to do…
I am just trying to come up with one for the ‘European Project’ that forces any politicians to back the European Project, or be pushed out of power by those who have already been taken over. I wonder if Dave got a visit from some MIBs recently…
Note to tin foil hat wearers and best selling authors: Try something involving the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, descendants of Jesus, obscure sects and secret societies. Don't forget the hat tip.
It seems he came under some pressure at the first of his alternative press conferences to Broon’s Breeks Briefings, to give a clear indication that an incoming 'Conservative' government would ensure the voters were allowed a referendum. Curiously he avoided doing so saying that now was the time for a referendum on what is the old EU constitution in all but name.
True enough, he does have a point in that it is far better done now and in fact should have already been done. However it might ramp the pressure up to promise (a real promise as opposed to a NU-Lab manifesto type promise) one.
He is probably conscious of what a political can of worms it would open, if in two years time a referendum produced a no result – that, plus he doesn’t want to suffer the same fate as Maggie, or more significantly JFK…
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Nuclear Power, Good for the Economy, Good for the environment, Good for the UK
So if everyone is so concerned about reducing the UK’s carbon footprint - then how come close to half of the UK’s Nuclear power stations are out of action on the run up to winter? Apparently a lack of funding...
Nuclear power stations are capable of producing realistic amounts of electricity, unlike many other so-called renewable energy sources, moreover if more were built we could not only make a serious dent in out carbon footprint we could reduce our exposure to gas supply problems and the impact of Gazprom’s muscle flexing.
France, known for looking out for their own interests, get 79% of their electricity from Nuclear energy, they have 59 plants. They don’t seem to have much problem keeping them running either. We by comparison have a pathetic 16 plants that produce (when they are working) around 18% of our power.
If UK greens/environ-mentalists had spent less time bleating about nuclear power in the 80s and 90s then they might not have shot themselves in the foot over carbon emissions.
The French have a realistic attitude to nuclear power. The French launched a properly funded, comprehensive nuclear program, after the 1973 ‘oil shock’, when OPEC toyed with the west by ramping up oil prices, sensibly vowing never again to be dependent on the whim of others for power. Unlike the UK, in France, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular.
Even James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) thinks that nuclear power is the only real green solution to reducing carbon emissions.
It makes sense for economic reasons, as we wouldn’t have to cripple the economy to save a ha’penny’s worth of power here and there and spend billions changing our housing stock.
It makes sense, because it would protect us from much of the impact of oil and gas price fluctuation and scarcity.
It makes sense, from the point of view of the environment, massively reduced carbon emissions and avoiding the threat of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs.
It took the French around 15 years. The UK could do the same. If anyone is worried about where to store the waste, we have some very deep ex-coal mines that would do nicely.
Nuclear power stations are capable of producing realistic amounts of electricity, unlike many other so-called renewable energy sources, moreover if more were built we could not only make a serious dent in out carbon footprint we could reduce our exposure to gas supply problems and the impact of Gazprom’s muscle flexing.
France, known for looking out for their own interests, get 79% of their electricity from Nuclear energy, they have 59 plants. They don’t seem to have much problem keeping them running either. We by comparison have a pathetic 16 plants that produce (when they are working) around 18% of our power.
If UK greens/environ-mentalists had spent less time bleating about nuclear power in the 80s and 90s then they might not have shot themselves in the foot over carbon emissions.
The French have a realistic attitude to nuclear power. The French launched a properly funded, comprehensive nuclear program, after the 1973 ‘oil shock’, when OPEC toyed with the west by ramping up oil prices, sensibly vowing never again to be dependent on the whim of others for power. Unlike the UK, in France, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular.
Even James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) thinks that nuclear power is the only real green solution to reducing carbon emissions.
It makes sense for economic reasons, as we wouldn’t have to cripple the economy to save a ha’penny’s worth of power here and there and spend billions changing our housing stock.
It makes sense, because it would protect us from much of the impact of oil and gas price fluctuation and scarcity.
It makes sense, from the point of view of the environment, massively reduced carbon emissions and avoiding the threat of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs.
It took the French around 15 years. The UK could do the same. If anyone is worried about where to store the waste, we have some very deep ex-coal mines that would do nicely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)