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.

Posted by: Sean M. at 09:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Police in the Nanny State get creative when they write tickets.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 03:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

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?

Just fucking curious.

Posted by: Ember at 08:08 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

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. 

I'm just saying is all.

Posted by: Sean M. at 02:14 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

In an effort to keep people from drinking, the UK is banning having fun while drinking.

 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.

Posted by: Ember at 07:59 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

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.

Posted by: Sean M. at 01:30 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.