What's after whatever's after Fail!?
As I see these stories I keep thinking, "They can't let that happen." and I keep being wrong.
That's depressing. Via Boortz we (still the editorial "we", but we're getting closer to the Royal We) see this heartwarming story about the state of justice in Britain. Quote When a restaurant owner found two teenage yobs raiding his
beer cellar, he chased them and held them while his staff dialled 999.
Yay!, right? Quote The married father-of-five spent five hours in a police cell and had his DNA, fingerprints and police mugshot taken.
One was arrested the other apparently got off scot-free and our hero is facing charges. One threatened him the later on and the cops say they couldn't find him so oh well. The cops said he should have called his mommy the cops and then stood back and let mommythe police fuck that... his mommy take care of it.
They're encouraging criminals to be criminals as they won't allow law-abiding types to defend themselves.
From this incident we've also established a hierarchy in Britain's "victim" status. The guy looks like an Indian or Pakistani so yobs are better than brown-folk.
Hardworking immigrant grocer who has never been charged with a crime catches a thief, who has a 10 page criminal record and locks him in his van until the police arrive. They charged the thief with petty theft and the business owner with assault, kidnapping and carrying a concealed weapon.
The concealed weapon was a box cutter he carries in his pocket. Grocers have no reason to be carrying box cutters right?
I haven't even gotten to the insane part yet. The thief got his sentenced reduced to 30 days in exchange for testifying against the shop owner!!!!! WTF?
How did my 'true north strong and free' come to this?
Posted by: fozzy at March 17, 2010 02:45 PM (ccEuN)
3
It almost makes sense, you know? It's so close and yet.... so far.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 17, 2010 05:34 PM (8vBqg)
The feasibility of introducing the food tax is being raised informally between civil servants, industry bodies and retail insiders.
So politically-sensitive is the move that all the talks are occurring "under the radar", according to retail industry insiders.
Basic supermarket groceries are currently immune from VAT, along with books, newspapers and children's clothes.
However a VAT levy on food of between three and five per cent would raise billions of pounds in tax and help reduce Government borrowings, which are expected to hit £180 billion this year.
So, they're trying to keep this quiet, huh? I wonder why they'd do something like that.
They say they need the perk in order to be able to work during journeys to and from Parliament. One MP even said he needed a first class seat because of his height.
Their pleas are included in nearly 50 submissions made by MPs to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), the body charged with drawing up a new system of allowances to replace the discredited expenses system.
Documents published by the organisation show that many MPs also resent proposals by its chairman, Sir Ian Kennedy to:
* Ban them from employing relatives
* Scrap the payment of a 'Golden Goodbye' when they lose their seat
* Limit the amount they spend on running their office.
I'm not against the last thing there, though I admit that I'm not familiar as to whether or not this involves public funds.
Anyway, one Conservative MP (and the Conservatives over there seem to be just as fucked-up as the Labour Party pols) named Anne Widdecombe, had the following to say:
"If I travel first class, I can plug in my computer, not a facility that is universally available in second class. I can therefore work throughout the journey.
"The 'at seat' service means that I do not have to interrupt the work to go and queue in the train's buffet bar.
"Second class being more of a thoroughfare, interruption and engagement in conversation is a great deal more frequent."
Oh, heaven forbid that you'd have to actually have to talk to someone from the hoi polloi while you're waiting to use your computer! And, I'm absolutely sure that you're using that first class intertubes access to exclusively conduct government business. Yeah.
I'm not sure which way the influence is running, but it sure seems like there's a cross-Atlantic current between our douchebags in DC and theirs in London.
1
You know, if politicians are going to call themselves "public servants" then they should be required to wear tacky livery in the national colors. I feel that this should become an amendment to the Constitution over here and be passed as an Act of Parliament Over There.
Posted by: Wolfwood at March 07, 2010 08:07 AM (NyqJb)
Many optical shops offer special discounts on prescription sunglasses if you purchase them at the same time you buy your regular eyeglasses. Ask your optician for details.
Posted by: glasses at March 07, 2010 03:34 PM (cqUZx)
For the ultimate prescription glasses suitable for all lighting conditions, some opticians recommend eyeglasses with photochromic lenses and a frame with integrated magnetic clip-on sunglasses. The photochromic lenses provide automatic sun-sensitive light adjustments for greater comfort outdoors, and the clip-on sunglasses can be conveniently stored in your vehicle for those bright, sunny days when you need a darker driving lens. (For more information, read our article about photochromic lenses.)
As with non-prescription sunglasses, your primary concern when buying prescription sunglasses is that the lenses block 100 percent of the sun's harmful UV rays. UV protection is unrelated to the color and density of the tint in sunglass lenses, so you can choose any lens color and darkness you like, as long as your optician verifies that the lenses provide 100 percent UV protection.
For added glare protection from light bouncing back from reflective surfaces (like water, snow, sand and concrete pavement), polarized prescription sunglasses are also available. (For more information, read our article about polarized sunglasses).
Posted by: glasses at March 07, 2010 03:34 PM (cqUZx)
Prescription sunglasses are available in all lens materials, including high-index, polycarbonate, regular (CR-39) plastic, Trivex (a lightweight material similar to polycarbonate) and glass. Though glass lenses arguably provide the best optical quality, they are no longer the most popular choice for sunglasses. This is because they are much heavier than lenses made of other materials, and they can shatter easily. However, they are still available if you request them.
You don't have to sacrifice fashionable style or high-level sports performance if you want prescription sunglasses. At top are Shannon, Jess and Alyssa from the JLO by Jennifer Lopez sunglass collection. Below is Akamai by Maui Jim. All can accept prescription lenses.Another sunwear option is to purchase prescription eyeglasses lenses that have a photochromic tint. These lenses are often called "transition lenses" because the leading manufacturer of plastic photochromic lenses is a company called Transitions Optical. Photochromic lenses automatically darken in sunlight and then return to a relatively clear state indoors.
Photochromic lenses are very convenient, but they do have a drawback: UV rays are required to activate the tint. Because most car windshields block a significant amount of UV, photochromic lenses usually don't darken very well inside a car.
Posted by: glasses at March 07, 2010 03:38 PM (cqUZx)
If you have a vision problem that requires corrective prescription eyewear, you have several choices when it comes to sunglasses. Prescription sunglasses are available for virtually any lens prescription, including bifocal and progressive lens options if you are presbyopic and need lenses to help you read that magazine or book at the pool. These types of sunglasses also can help you if you need reading glasses only or if you wear contact lenses to correct only your distance vision and still need that additional boost for reading.
You might also consider prescription swimming goggles when it comes time to take a dip.
The styling of prescription sunglass frames is nearly the same as with non-prescription sunglasses. Almost all of the same fashion, designer and celebrity eyewear options apply.
One area where availability is limited is when it comes to certain wraparound sunglasses that curve around the head. Prescription sunglasses made with extreme curves typically distort vision. However, several manufacturers offer wraparound prescription sunglasses with less extreme curves. Typically these are available in a limited prescription range, so you would need to discuss options with an optician.
Posted by: glasses at March 07, 2010 03:39 PM (cqUZx)
You may sometimes find yourself driving down the road, sun shining in your eyes, as you search in vain for those clip-on or magnetically attached sun lenses that came with your prescription eyeglasses.
At times like these, you might find that prescription sunglasses are much more convenient and more than worth the additional investment.
Contact lens wearers, too, may find wearing prescription sunglasses is sometimes a far more practical alternative outdoors. For example, you may not want to wear your contact lenses on the beach where your eyes can become itchy and watery as you battle the effects of sand, sun, wind and water.
Even the non-prescription sunglasses you wear over your contact lenses may not provide enough protection. Also, wearing your contact lenses while swimming is a bad idea because of the possibility of potentially serious eye infections caused by microorganisms in the water.
But with prescription sunglasses, you have the option of wearing them anytime outdoors without the need to search for clip-on sunglasses or deal with contact lenses.
Posted by: glasses at March 07, 2010 03:39 PM (cqUZx)
Not only is government run health care gonna be awesome...
...but when it runs out of money (which we already don't have) it's not like it could become a political issue, right?
1
only goal is to make it political rather than rational.
"The Projectionist" was made in a way that was meant to make "the people" of the soviet union" as victims, ignoring the leaders who enslaved several nations. So if we waged war against the soviet union, we would be killing these poor naive people.
But anyone who thinks couldn't see the soviet union (not just stalin and beria) through the lense of "The Projectionist" as anything but oppressive in it's created form.
Read Gorkii Park, same thing, competence is punished if not modified with political intentions.
In the 80's these were reasonable expressions of oppression, because "that was then" or "this is how americans view you."
sorry, that is just a background I think most should know.
If an ideology about as old as our concept of freedom is greater than ours, then why are we the greatest nation in all things? IN ALL THINGS!
There is an argument for fortune, we do live in a rather significant area of land, but what makes us best in food (Indiana alone can feed the US, and California, Alone, can feed the world, while offering grapes and pears and fresh garlic) and we live in a "wet" continent, (look at australia, the only reason they aren't our near equals is because their population lacks a significant digit and their water supply lacks SEVERAL significant digits)
We also have a large land area that consists of 3 of the 5 largest salt sources (you will be surprised how significant salt is to ALL chemical manufacturing) We have more Coal than china, we have more natural gas (if we exploit it) in known reserves than any nation (if we can harvest the gulf) We have one of the LARGEST resource center for euranium by quite a bit(we aren't allowed to harvest it in the US, in almost EVERY place) but we cant, thus the BS uranium conspiracies about afghanistan. We are projected as having the second largest iron ore foundations, the Largest Bauxite harvesters (but we don't have the cheap energy to produce alluminum) we have more strict regulatory rules about refinement, we send our raw materials somewhere else, to be used in products before they send them back.
Hypothetically? WHY do I have to send CHEAP bauxite to france on ship, for it to be processed into alluminum, and then shipped back to the US in ingots, then sent to mexico, to be rolled, and then back to the US to be formed into whatever it is it's formed into?
The Government is the Problem.
Posted by: Douglas at March 06, 2010 04:04 AM (uU+Ss)
It's too late to be surprised
Via the Agitator, we find this story about a UK pub owner going to jail for 6 months for refusing to pay fines forallowing people to smoke in his pub.
First, Radley Balko said he was going to jail for allowing people to smoke. No, he's going to jail for not paying the fines for allowing people to smoke. There's a huge difference.
I have to admit, I'm not outraged over this. They allowed the laws to happen, this is just the logical conclusion. In NYS, where they have a similar ban, some bars "rent" ashtrays. You pay for using an ashtray and when the SS comes and demands their squeeze, the bar owner has a stash of "ashtray rental" money for paying them off. That's the law, NY doesn't really care if you smoke, they just like the extra income from the fines they collect. It's funny, but in NYC many bars would prefer you smoke pot in them than cigs. If you're smoking pot, only you get in trouble. If you smoke cigs, the bar gets in trouble.
If this gives the British subjects an impetus for reversing the Nannarchy, well that's great. But they have nobody to blame but themselves for this.
The law is the law. Unless you're a career criminal in Britain, you have to pay the consequences when you break it.
1
Actually Vee, I'm gonna disagree with you here. He refused to pay a fine levied on him for not telling people to put out their cigs. Think about this, the UK wouldn't let him defend himself against an armed thug, but EXPECTS him to prevent others from smoking in his establishment. What do they expect him to do if the customer refuses? He can't use any kind of compulsion to get them to stop. Heck, he'd probably be arrested if he told some yob to put it out and then tried to throw them out when they didn't.
He ought to fight this on the stand that if he cannot be allowed to defend himself (as he's not the police) he can't enforce any other laws they pass either.
Posted by: MikeD at March 02, 2010 12:47 PM (FkL60)
2
The worst thing in their society is that for any problems they need to
call the police, they are barred from handling problems themselves. A
law against people smoking is small beans.
He already had a chance to fight it and he lost. It's his bar so he's responsible for what happens in it. I assume he's supposed to call the police if evil smokers smoke. (interesting experiment, call the police from two, similar bars equi-distant to the same police station. Have one say someone's smoking, the other say someone's holding it up with guns. See who sees the police first)
I think he did defend himself as you said, with a "The gov't is not my mommy" defense but that article is about useless for finding anything out about his side of the story. You only hear from him once and everybody else is on the other side. His quote was about freedom, so maybe he was about keeping the gov't out.
But he's going to jail because he's refusing to pay the fine for his "crime". He pleaded "not guilty" and he was guilty. He admits it. He just claims the law he broke is wrong. It's too late when the law's the law. You need to stop them before or cancel them, you can't break them. I hate the guns laws of most states north and north-east of Virginia, I think they're against the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, but.... I don't take my handguns or "high-capacity" magazines or evil guns north though. I agitate for the laws to be changed, I don't break them. Most of my NY relatives think I'm going to go on a killing spree and are afraid of guns, they're happy with the laws. Of course, everything they know about guns and gun laws they learned from the NY Times.
Thanks though, I did find a small non-total-fail update to a previous story in responding.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 02, 2010 01:35 PM (DNnJo)
3
But that's just the problem Vee. He SHOULD have claimed, "I told them to stop but they didn't." At that point, he's done everything the law allows/requires him to do. I'm not saying what he DID was smart or even right. I'm just saying what he should have done.
I'm in favor of the legalization of drugs. But you put me on a jury and have some pothead come to court busted for carrying/using... I'm voting guilty (unless there's a reasonable doubt concerning it). Why? Because right or wrong, it's the law.
In this dude's case, what I'm saying is he should have covered his ass with the law (by saying "hey quit" while winking like a madman) and when the cops call him on it, he tells them, "how did you expect me to enforce the law when you won't let me defend myself."
Or maybe he should call the cops when someone won't stop smoking.
Posted by: MikeD at March 02, 2010 02:16 PM (FkL60)
4
I'm with you on that MikeD, I'm not really disagreeing, I just don't think it would have worked. I bet he has to call the cops or he's liable. Of course, a bar that calls cops on its patrons for smoking isn't going to have many patrons.
But they need to change the law, not break it. Don't they have any form of democracy over there? I assume town councils are elected not hereditary or appointed by the laird, but I could be wrong.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 02, 2010 02:23 PM (DNnJo)
5
Oh, and one thing, if you read the first article, he blatantly, publicly and repeatedly said he would refuse to enforce it. The article doesn't really explore his side, but I would have to wonder if he was targeted for just that reason.
So I'm thinking he tried the "You can't do this" defense, not the "I tried" defense because he was already on record saying he would refuse to enforce it. So that's another problem that's immaterial to the law itself, he was targeted for not shutting up and taking it like the prole he is.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 02, 2010 02:26 PM (DNnJo)
6"Of course, a bar that calls cops on its patrons for smoking isn't going to have many patrons."
And again, had it been me, I'd totally wait till the dude was almost done with the smoke, tell him to put it out (honest officer, I didn't see him with the cig till he was almost done!) and call the cops. Whether it was out or not. Why? Let them get called out each and every time someone lights up and they'll either quit responding or have to station a cop out there full time. Oh and when old Bobby shows up and is all "What's all this, then?" You swear you can't recall which fellow it was. And that then hits them right in their wallet. Yes, it'd get passed to the taxpayers (what doesn't?) but if they want their dumb law enforced, make them enforce it. As often as possible.
Posted by: MikeD at March 02, 2010 04:49 PM (FkL60)
The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Mr Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”
A system of professional accreditation for senior managers would be considered and the Mid Staffordshire trust might lose its foundation status.
Some NHS chief executives have received six-figure redundancy packages or moved to other trusts despite poor performance. Martin Yeates, the former chief executive at Mid Staffordshire, received pay rises that took his annual salary to £180,000, while standards at the trust deteriorated.
The Liberal Democrats claimed that he had also received a payoff of more than £400,000 after stepping down last March, though Mr Burnham said he had received “no more than his contractual entitlement”.
1
Who would have thought that anyone would really buy into implementing this in America, given the NHS & Canadian examples? Just another sign that this government is way out of touch with what people really want & need...
Posted by: Jonathan at February 25, 2010 01:48 PM (Isbas)
Nannarchy in the UK
So. Your wee spawn has a birthday and gets some birthday cash. Being a good dad, you take your kid to the mall to let him spend his cash. Boyo is on one of the little rides and, like a proud parent, you whip out your phone to take a picture.
Not to get us on another watch list, here's the shocking photo:
(Loser boy on the left is the guard) (Also that train is clown scary)
This is where we're at, ladies and gents. Take a picture of your own kid doing the most innocent thing possible and OMG PEDO. I'd say this is just Fail Brittania but I recall hearing mention of similar accusations being made here in the States. Of course, here in the States the security guard would probably have been popped one as serves him right.
I've said it before but it bears repeating: I will no longer have any interaction with a child in public and I will not be alone with a child at any point in time. If I were still a good church going girl, I would not teach Sunday School. I would not babysit during the services. I would not play with the kids at the church picnic. There's far far far too much risk with no reward.
The presumption that every adult, especially every male adult, is a budding pedophile is utterly chilling.
Posted by: Steve at February 24, 2010 02:59 PM (rpU0M)
3
Alex, it's not that far gone here in the US as it is over in Britannia. A while ago, my wife and son were at Target with me shopping. My young son, spotted a YMCA counselor that is in his trackout program. He wanted to go over and say hello to him, but when I looked back to find him, he had gone away. Just a few minutes later, we catch up with him again in another aisle and he comes over and says to me that YMCA policy forbids them to approach children until they first make contact with the parents. He couldn't say or wave hello back to my son, even though he spends about 8 hours with him every day during school trackout. Fucked up, but that's where we are today.
Posted by: EC at February 24, 2010 03:01 PM (mAhn3)
4
I checked the guy's blog, no clicky, I typed in the url direcly.
It's a bunch of posts of stuff you'll see at Hot Air, Ace, Instapundit and a couple others. The posts are mostly vids with minimal commenting, occasional h/ts. I saw 3 comments in the first 8 posts and they all "thanked" him for posting that. I think one told him to "keep up the good work" too. It gets tens of hits a day.
So it could be a bot, or it could just be a nitwit who clicks the Puppy Blender's blogroll and just sticks the same comment randomly. Eric at Classical Values said he got 47,000 hits from as far back as 2008 after searching the comment.
I'm thinking "bot-blog" with "bot-commenters" plugged by "bot-commenter" because it's been going on for over a year (at least) and the comment never changes and I've occasionally tried to engage it and it never responds, just the same inane comment.
It's an interesting approach that doesn't seem to be working. Since it's blogspot it doesn't cost much. But I don't see the point. It's not getting any of that sweet, sweet blog money on blogspot. Maybe it's an MIT project or something.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 24, 2010 03:11 PM (vJGv2)
Posted by: Veeshir at February 24, 2010 03:13 PM (vJGv2)
6
Twenty bucks that says the security guard has tenancies toward young children.
Posted by: jukin at February 24, 2010 04:46 PM (vkkNZ)
7
If they caught an actual pedo, the judge would sentence him to community service and counselling. The ideal of an ethical, professional police force started in the UK under Robert Peel. That's where the words Bobbies and Peelers came from, and many forces still use his policeman's oath. Now every story out of the UK these days seems to be about the police
harassing or arresting the citizens and staying clear of the thugs and
crooks.
Posted by: Brock Samson at February 24, 2010 07:22 PM (ccEuN)
I would punch a bitch. Seriously. Especially since we do "photoshoots" with our daughter. She wants to be just like Mommy, so she dresses up and demands pictures, and we've done some really cute, really fun pictures of her in public. I would be so angry if someone accused me or my husband of being pedophiles for doing something that my daughter loves to do, while preserving memories for the whole family.
Fuccccck that.
Posted by: Ember at February 24, 2010 07:42 PM (LdRAG)
9
How does one pronounce 'fuccccck'? I imagine it would be somewhat difficult.
Posted by: Jeff M at February 24, 2010 07:59 PM (8P3+x)
10
This thread attracted attention, but when the botnet found out it wasn't about luaP noR, it wasn't worth commenting.
No comment.
Posted by: the botnet at February 24, 2010 08:30 PM (AXvLD)
11
Oh, and by the way, End the FED, 9/11 was an inside job, Rand is nothing like his chimp-looking daddy... honest!
Posted by: the botnet at February 24, 2010 08:33 PM (AXvLD)
12
Photog should sue Paul Blart there for slander. Britain's got a very different standard for slander and libel than we do, and that mall guard accused him openly of being a pedophile. That should be actionable in the UK.
I'm really not a big fan of lawsuits to resolve problems, but given that he called the cops cause dude took pictures of his own son? Yeah, eat a dick shithead.
Posted by: MikeD at February 25, 2010 12:16 PM (FkL60)
Sire, the Peasants are Revolting.
Yes, they are. This is still Fail, but there's some Win! in there. David Fullard, 47, was prosecuted for attacking the two strangers who
forced their way into his home and threatened to rape his partner and
kill his two teenage children.
So where's the Win! you ask? Geez, let me finish why don't ya? Guy used a samurai sword he had on display. The prosecution refused to accept that his actions amounted to
lawful self-defence and argued it was 'over the top' to attack a man
armed with a knuckleduster by using a 'battlefield weapon'. The two thugs were both high on a cocktail of drink and drugs at the time, the court heard.
Ahhh, proportionality, he should have fought fair against the drunken thugs who wanted to murder and rape (possibly in that order) his family and burn down his house. Knuckle duster being brass knuckles. So since the thugs were willing to fight at arms' reach, it was rude and not very sportsmanlike for him to use a sword. Wait for the Win!, it's coming. But after a five-day trial at Hull Crown Court, Mr Fullard, a
builder, broke down in tears as he was found not guilty of unlawful
wounding.
Yay! Of course, it is still Britain so this is laced with Fail, you can't count on other juries to act sensibly. Yesterday jobless Severs, 22, and Michael Smith, 19, escaped
with a suspended prison sentence and 100 hours of community work after
admitting affray at the court.
...snip... Mr Fullard was arrested and only later did police arrest Smith and Severs, who had his ear re-attached in hospital.
They arrested him on the spot for defending his house and family and only after on went after the known assailants. They were acquaintances of his son so they knew who they were. This guy barely got off and you know he would have gone to jail, these career criminals get community service. It'll probably be something that allows them to case neighborhoods for future home-invasions.
I really wish they had a quote from an outraged prosecutor over the proles releasing this dangerous man who thinks it's okay to defend himself, but I have been trying to reduce my intake of schadenfreude so it's probably just as well.
Update: I forget who to H/T, I bookmarked it a couple days ago, so uhhhh. let's say, Wyatt Earp, even though his name should be "Latigo" if he's gonna call his blog "Support Your Local Gunfighter".
1
Of course he should have "fought fair," just like according to some people, America should allow its enemies (Iran, North Korea) to have nuclear weapons because it is "fair."
Posted by: Scott at February 15, 2010 08:48 AM (KexVx)
2
Personally, I believe he DID engage in proportionality. They used a melee weapon, and so did he. The fact that he had reach over them speaks to their poor choice of weapons, clearly not his fault. Oh, and also, they had numbers on him which necessitates needing a measure of advantage to offset.
But personally, I'd have shot them.
Posted by: MikeD at February 15, 2010 10:54 AM (FkL60)
Handy tip for the upcoming zombie apocalypse
Simple syrup can be used as a weaker form of napalm.
Ah, the things we'd learn if only we went to prison. Like how to punish someone who should have gotten the death penalty, except that the UK doesn't have the death penalty. Except, wait, he shouldn't have been in a position to end up needing a good death-imposition, because the nanny state observation of children and making sure that each child has adequate medical care through socialized medicine should have made sure that this guy was never in a position to need the death penalty applied to him, but it didn't.
1
Simple syrup has a multitude of uses. One of my favorite bits in Terminator is the whole "What are we making? Plastique". It's funny because it's true!
Posted by: alexthechick at February 14, 2010 11:14 AM (lvYSc)
2
It's nice to know that syrup has more uses in prison than the "tossed salad" use that has permeated pop culture.
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at February 14, 2010 12:45 PM (/MEFr)
3
Despite their crimes, these men have found a way to serve the public.
Three Cheers for Jailhouse Napalm!
Posted by: the botnet at February 14, 2010 03:54 PM (kZzmb)
4
Way OT but has anybody been watching the Starz series, "Spartacus: Blood and Sand"? I've liked it. The story has been pretty good and they even get a lot of Roman stuff correct. Except for a couple glaring mistakes. The worst being that they raise their thumbs to mean, "Let him live" in the arena.
The last episode was especially good.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 04:39 PM (E8ejU)
5
Napalm hell, it just makes the boiling water sticky helping the scalding to stick around. That's no jellied petroleum. Remember kids, scalding does not equal burning.
Posted by: MikeD at February 15, 2010 11:14 AM (FkL60)
6
Of course it's not real napalm, but you do what you can with what you have. You're a guy, you should understand that
Posted by: Alice H at February 15, 2010 11:20 AM (qJHYy)
7
I have a recipe for napalm from an improvised demolitions course I took years ago. Come the zombie apocalypse I am ready.
Posted by: chad98036 at February 15, 2010 11:45 AM (WNcvq)
The more nanny the state, the stupider the government, I think.
In the U.K., apparently, there are nearly 90,000 alchohol related "glass attacks" a year. That's a nice way of saying that ninety thousand drunk Brits have someone smash a glass over their head every year. Instead of attacking the source - binge drinking, which is an issue that causes the NHS an estimated £3 billion a year - the nanny state put its mind to perfecting the technology for shatterproof pint glasses.
Yep. That's right. Now, when you get into a bar fight, you can get clubbed in the head with a glass that can't break, as opposed to having someone slash your skin open with ragged glass. I bet those Brits feel safer all ready.
The government is touting the prototypes as the first significant improvement in bar glassware in decades. The plan is to introduce the new glasses for use on a voluntary basis in pubs if tests show they are durable, cost-effective and safe.
Alcohol Concern, a charity working to lessen alcohol abuse in Britain, praised the new designs.
"We're very much in favor," chief executive Don Shanker said. "There has been good local research showing this could reduce the use of glass in violent incidents."
Half of all violent assaults in Britain are alcohol-related and it has become common for drinkers to smash glasses and use them as weapons, he added.
"You are five times more likely to be involved in a violent incident if you are in or around a licensed bar," he said. "There is a clear correlation."
The government estimates that "glassing" attacks cost the National Health Service roughly 2.7 billion pounds ($4.3 billion) per year.
1
The answer is really much simpler. Start drinking in UN-LICENSED bars. No shit. They don't have any broken glass attacks there.
Posted by: neuromancer at February 04, 2010 09:09 PM (GDOa/)
2
I predicted they'd do plastic sippy cups. I guess there's egg on my face.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 04, 2010 10:03 PM (YMpQM)
3
The UK's societal trajectory is like an exponential function multiplied by -1. You think they can't go any farther down, but they just continue to accelerate towards negative infinity. They will eventually wrap the entire island in bubble wrap.
Posted by: Jeff M at February 04, 2010 10:56 PM (8P3+x)
I don't understand how the Brits were able to rule the largest empire in the world when they can't even manage to get shit like this right...
The Government’s controversial equality watchdog was last night accused of ‘rank hypocrisy’ for flouting its own policies on fair pay.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has angered business leaders by ordering a crackdown on hard-pressed companies that fail to pay the same rates to employees doing similar work.
But official figures show that more than two years after it was set up to stamp out discrimination, the commission is paying its own ethnic minority workers almost ten per cent less than white staff – an embarrassment for its black chairman Trevor Phillips.
I don't care what color he is; that ought to be an embarrassment for anyone. When you're running the government agency that's supposed to "stamp out discrimination" and you're discriminating against your own fucking employees, that's some FAIL right there.
1
I've got a rule of thumb that's never steered me wrong - whenever someone tells me how tolerant s/he is, whenever I read about an organization dedicated to "diversity" "equality" and "tolerance", I assume said person or organization is actually a bigoted, sexist, racist asshole.
I've yet to be proven wrong.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 30, 2010 09:36 PM (TtXKB)
2I assume said person or organization is actually a bigoted, sexist, racist asshole.
Shame on you Alex. You need to learn to be more tolerant, like me. :-P
Actually I apply much the same rule only I extend it to most facets of life. It's one of the reasons I dislike Glenn Beck so much. His constant preening about how committed he is to the original vision of the founders instantly triggers my "he's a fucking liar" reflex.
Shakespeare nailed it with "He doth protest too much"
Posted by: chad98036 at January 30, 2010 10:04 PM (WNcvq)
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair faced an inquiry today into the Iraq war, and, to his credit, he stuck by his guns and said he'd do it all over again to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The Iraq war was unpopular in Brittain, and as he left the inquiry today, he was booed by the audience. I give the man sincere props for sticking to his guns and saying that the world is a better, safer place without Saddam Hussein.
"This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception," he told the panel.
"It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam's history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?"
Somehow, though, it seems that the world disagrees, and would rather have a genocidal megalomaniac in charge of Iraq than to let the country try its hand at freedom. Enough so that they're saying Tony Blair could be charged with fucking war crimes for standing by its ally - the United States - to wipe a derranged, power-mad, murdering dictator off the map.
Fuck that. Fuck it with a rusty chainsaw attached to a steel dildo. Fuck it ten ways from tomorrow sideways with a baseball bat. These are the same fuckers wearing Che t-shirts like he's some sort of motherfucking saint; the same people who think that we should cut plea deals with fucking terrorists and let terrorists go free for the sake of our "image."
Fuck our image and fuck your t-shirt, you fucking buckets of fail. If it's the right-wing that's so evil, why is it that we're the ones who are deposing oppressive dictators and fighting desperately for the freedom of people to whom we owe nothing?
1
the botnet loves the Brits, at least what's left of them. The shifty cocksucking lefty commies and Marxists running the show can eat a warm bowl of coagulated fuck, however. They need Zombie Churchill to whup some commie asses.
Posted by: the botnet at January 29, 2010 08:37 PM (CJQWj)
They need Zombie Churchill to whup some commie asses.
Give the Brits Zombie Churchill and give us Zombie Reagan, and it'll be a good day for zombiekind.
Posted by: Ember at January 29, 2010 08:43 PM (LdRAG)
3
It's easy to go after the Right. We aren't knowing for decapitating our enemies.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 29, 2010 08:47 PM (TtXKB)
4
Blair was wretched in terms of domestic policy, he and Labour made Bloomberg look like a piker in terms of his Nanny Statism, but his willingness to put his political career on the line to help us and our allies to put an end to Saddam is admirable.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at January 29, 2010 08:59 PM (N/KIT)
5
Lileks put it perfectly with respect to Blair, we can discuss the direction we want our countries to go after we defend them. I probably would have liked his domestic policy less than Bush', but I hae to totally respect the man for being so articulate and well-spoken in his defense of going after Saddam.
Posted by: Veeshir at January 29, 2010 10:02 PM (KN6OL)
6
the treatment Blair is getting reminds me of something Moe Lane tweeted recently. Paraphrasing here, but since our opponents want our leaders in jail, among other insults, how can we even begin to deal with them in any semblance of good faith and courtesy?
Posted by: eddiebear at January 30, 2010 01:20 AM (wIOon)
7Fuck our image and fuck your t-shirt, you fucking buckets of fail. If it's the right-wing that's so evil, why is it that we're the ones who are deposing oppressive dictators and fighting desperately for the freedom of people to whom we owe nothing?
Um, the t-shirt is the answer.
Posted by: Sean M. at January 30, 2010 02:44 AM (rLWHv)
8
Ember, that's some high octane rantin' you've got there. I'm gonna start calling you "emberbear" from now on.
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at January 30, 2010 07:47 AM (/MEFr)
Idiocy in the UK
In some non-Scott Brown news, there's a British group called The National Association of Muslim Police who are kvetching (heh) about anti-terrorism policies being an "affront to British values."
The policies are aimed at stopping Muslims from becoming radicalised through measures such as sponsoring moderate community groups.
Ministers insisted that the strategy, which costs more than £140 million a year, had “real successes”. More than 200 people were convicted of terrorist offences in the past eight years.
But the NAMP claimed the policies had led to “hatred against Muslims” which “has grown to a level that defies all logic and is an affront to British values”.
Well, I guess they're right. I mean, it's not like anything else could ever possibly lead to an anti-radical-Islamist backlash as far as terrorism in the UK is concerned. Nothing at all. Nope, I'm sure the NAMP's contention that the British government should be focusing on "far-right extremists" instead of Islamist fanatics isn't at all ridiculous.
Hell, just ask Janet. She knows how well systems like this work, after all.
By the way, the article goes on to mention that the NAMP is concerned with the BNP, which I don't know a whole lot about, but I've read some stuff suggesting that they're a racist/nativist party. If that's true, they can fuck off. That said, I don't recall anything about BNP members blowing up subway trains or double decker buses.
1
From what I've read about the BNP, including the BNPs own stuff, they're sticking their whole foot over the line into white supremacist stuff. The really terrifying thing is that the BNP is becoming popular because there is nowhere else to go for the person who is concerned about all the Fail Brittania stuff.
There's a very creepy late 20's, early 30's vibe to UK politics.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 21, 2010 08:56 AM (8WZWv)
2
Alex pretty much has it right, BNP has been seeing modest gains, and people are becoming more open to supporting them. They are a white only party.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at January 21, 2010 09:07 AM (n4alJ)
3
White supremacists can eat my lily white ass. But until they blow something up or actually kill someone, I like them jabbering away like the howler monkeys they are. That way you know EXACTLY where they are.
But this bullshit the Brits (who are generally a wonderful people btw) keep slinging about how those TERRIBLE PEOPLE who talk about things are JUST AS BAD!!!11!1eleventyone1!! as terrorists (worse really, since those terrorists are just misunderstood poor oppressed people who have no other way to change the racist system dontchaknow)... well, they deserve what will inevitably happen to them. Feeding the lion just pushes you down the menu, it doesn't take you off it.
Posted by: MikeD at January 21, 2010 09:57 AM (FkL60)
LONDON (Reuters) - Tough new rules for pubs and clubs -- including a ban on drinking games like the infamous "dentist's chair" -- will be introduced in Britain this year in a bid to curb a heavy drinking culture that costs the country billions of a pounds a year.
Other promotions like "all you can drink for 10 pounds ($16)," speed drinking competitions and "women drink free" nights will also be prohibited.
But, controversially, bulk offers of cheap alcohol in supermarkets -- widely regarded as one of the main sources of Britain's problems with under-age and excessive drinking -- will not be affected.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he did not want to target responsible drinkers on low incomes, but that the government and the industry had a duty to act on booze-fueled promotions.
"These practices have a real impact on society, not to mention the lives of those who just want to enjoy a good night out," he said.
The dentist's chair, where drinks are poured directly into the mouth by others, was made famous by the celebrations of footballer Paul Gascoigne at Euro '96.
It will be banned from April and publicans will have to ensure free tap water is made available to revelers.
1
I've always wanted to visit the UK. Now, I don't feel the same way.
Posted by: EC at January 19, 2010 08:12 PM (iWj1i)
2
The dentist's chair is a lot older than 1996. I was in Niagara Falls in 1982 in a college bar when a friend said, "Hey, turn this way.", so I did (I learned a valuable lesson that day). The bartender grabbed my hair, pulled my head back and started pouring tequila or something in, it got real blurry after that.
Posted by: Veeshir at January 19, 2010 09:18 PM (9Bxyu)
Yeah, this makes sense
So, if I'm not reading this incorrectly, if you clear snow or ice from a sidewalk in front of your property in the UK and someone subsequently slips, you'll be liable for their injuries. If, on the other hand, you leave the snow or ice there and the fall and injure themselves, you're off the hook...
Clearing a public path “can lead to an action for damages against the company, e.g. if members of the public, assuming that the area is still clear of ice and thus safe to walk on, slip and injure themselves”.
Legal experts said home owners could fall victim to the same laws if they tried to clear an icy path but failed to do the job properly. John McQuater, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, admitted: “If you do nothing you cannot be liable. If you do something, you could be liable to a legal action.”
Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister and critic of Britain’s burgeoning “compensation culture”, said last night: “The idea you can be sued for being helpful is absolutely ludicrous.”
Um, if you hadn't noticed, you live in an increasingly ludicrous country.
When I make a POINT! But am "put into reviw" or whatever it's called.
Nevermind,
I wrote at least 3 POSTS about this, and all of them have been deleatedd.
That makes me mad.
I won't name where, just like my child doesn't name me.
But they can take that as pride, I can't post in MANY places.
Posted by: Douglas at January 10, 2010 04:09 AM (uU+Ss)
2
It's actually the same in Illinois. If you make an attempt to clear your sidewalk/parking lot/whatever and leave "unnatural accumulations" of snow and ice, you can face liability to someone who slips and injures himself. If you do nothing and the same klutz slips and breaks his arm, you're home free.
Proving once again that procrastinators aren't as stupid as they look. If I just wait for spring to shovel my walk, everything works out!
Posted by: Greg at January 11, 2010 09:08 AM (PgC12)
... but I'm pretty sure that God had something to say about stealing. Again, I'm not religious person, but I seem to remember that there are some sort of rules that were laid out in the Bible. I think there were ten of them. And, unless the knock to the head I took in that car accident last week damaged my brain more than I thought, I'd bet the entirety of my daughter's Christmas presents that one of those ten rules was something about how stealing is bad.
A priest from North Yorkshire has advised his congregation to shoplift if they find themselves in hard times.
Father Tim Jones, the parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda in York, said people should steal from big chains rather than small businesses.
He said society's attitude to those in need "leaves some people little option but crime".
However the Archdeacon of York said: "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift".
North Yorkshire Police described the sermon as "highly irresponsible".
Posted by: Tangonine at December 21, 2009 10:23 PM (C8Pcc)
2
This is the same UK that provides housing and cash to everyone under the sun.
Posted by: XBradTC at December 21, 2009 10:45 PM (y0E9v)
3
Those crazy Anglicans, breaking rules all over the place. This is what happens when you let your wimmenfolk be priests and you start marrying homaseckshuls.
Posted by: Alice H at December 22, 2009 08:23 AM (qJHYy)
4
Nah Alice, this is just what you get when you buy into this "liberation theology" and "Jesus was a communist" bullshit. Seriously. I got no problem with a starving man stealing a loaf of bread. Theft for survival (if you truly have no other option) is fine by me. The problem is, no one in the UK NEEDS to steal to live. So, yeah... fuck that guy.
Posted by: MikeD at December 22, 2009 09:48 AM (FkL60)
My pain meds have made me a little too dopey to do any serious digging for things to blog about. But even in my very loopy state, there was simply no way I could pass up this gem of a story involving global warming, cocaine, and some good old fashioned UK fail:
Law enforcement agencies destroy fragile ecosystems when they target illegal coca plantations, often dropping more chemicals on them from the air.
Environmentalists hope that images of rainforest destruction will make cocaine use as politically incorrect as wearing fur from animals caught in the wild. “Just telling young people that using cocaine is bad doesn’t work,” said John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace.
“You need to change teenage culture and point out that it has all sorts of consequences. Then they start talking about it more loudly and you could get into that fur coat situation.”
The new approach follows evidence that cocaine use is increasing among young people in the UK, partly driven by lower prices.
Some MPs believe the “save the planet” message will also appeal to environmentally conscious middle-class cocaine users.
So, the new British anti-drug campaign is that doing drugs kills the planet. Even your hybrid won't offset your cocaine footprint!
1
this is the result of the confluence of a geometrically growing, and violently radical, Muslim population in the UK with the rank stupidity and anti-Semitism of the European left.
Posted by: eddiebear at December 15, 2009 11:52 PM (DA+ea)
1
Ok. So I watched that twice and the guy with the gun got owned by some random dude that just walked up and took it away from him.
I'm not sure what the point of your post is? I'm a virulent 2d amendment guy, but that video just shows some dumbass with a gun getting owned by someone without a gun?
Unless I missed something?
Posted by: tangonine at December 09, 2009 12:02 AM (C8Pcc)
2
How long before the cops arrest the good sumaritan for assaulting the gun wielding yob?
Posted by: PDizzle at December 09, 2009 12:26 AM (R0lVr)
3
I think it's just posted as an impressive video, takes big brass balls to walk right up to someone pointing a pistol in your face and go at him like that, unarmed.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at December 09, 2009 12:28 AM (PAy8X)
The UK has a mixed economy. That means it's part free market and part government control. On the surface, you look at the average London street and see all the same kind of shops you'd see in, say, New York. The big difference is that, while here in the US, occassionally the FDA or some other regulatory body will step in and say, "Uh, dude, that toy has too much lead," or, "Yo, that diet pill is totally made of crack," in the UK, they can step in and say things like, "The snarky, funny labels on Vitamin Water are illegal because idiots might think they really can make you beat your granny in an arm wrestling match," or, "We have to limit the number of people who fly because they're killing the earth and stuff. Except Prince Charles. He can do whatever he wants in the name of global warming."
If the aviation industry continues to grow unchecked, passenger journeys would increase by 200% in the next 40 years, but that cannot be tolerated because carbon dioxide emitted by carriers in 2050 must not exceed 2005 levels.
"This is a very challenging target," said David Kennedy, the committee's chief executive. "Don't be deceived by the fact that demand can grow. It will have to grow by much less than if we didn't care about carbon dioxide."
Today's report says ministers must consider measures including: a carbon tax on passengers; limits on runway expansion; and restrictions on flights at existing airports. Passenger growth will have to be limited to 60% over the next four decades, compared with an increase of 130% since 1990, allowing the UK a maximum of around 370 million air travellers by 2050, from 230 million currently.
"Demand can increase, but only in a limited way," added Kennedy. The committee forecasts that unchecked airline growth would shatter emissions targets, increasing passenger numbers by 200% to 695 million per year.
Asked if fares will also have to increase in order to choke off demand, Kennedy said: "The price has to cut back some of the growth, so you do have to have rising prices."
[...]
Even with an anticipated carbon price of £200 per tonne passed on to fares, the creation of a high-speed rail network, and more use of video-conferencing to cut business travel, the committee warns that more action such as constraining airport use might be needed in order to stop the population from flying. The report singles out a "carbon tax" as one of the solutions, which would be levied on top of the £200 per tonne carbon price.
"The policy instruments which could achieve this restraint include a carbon tax on top of the forecast carbon price, limits on further airport expansion, and restrictions on the allocation of takeoff and landing slots even where airports have the theoretical capacity available," the report says.
1constraining airport use might be needed in order to stop the population from flying.
The French have got to be eating this shit up, all they've gotta do is expand and build new airports, and not charge stupid taxes, between the trains and the Chunnel, getting to the UK is as easy as renting a car or riding a train, and they'll make a fortune off Britain's stupidity.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at December 07, 2009 10:55 PM (PAy8X)
2
It's amazing how Global Warming gives all of these pathetic bureauweenies the perfect excuse to indulge their inner Stalinist. George Orwell was apparently a prophet, he was just off on the date by 30 years.
Posted by: Jeff M at December 07, 2009 11:27 PM (8P3+x)
