March 16, 2010

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.

Posted by: Veeshir at 03:34 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.

March 07, 2010

Compare and contrast

Two stories from the UK's Telegraph...

First, with my emphasis, Shoppers could face VAT on food:

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.

Oh, wait...

MPs demand right to travel first class:

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.

Fuck 'em all.

Posted by: Sean M. at 03:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

March 05, 2010

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?

Riiiiiight.

Posted by: Sean M. at 10:51 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

March 02, 2010

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.

Posted by: Veeshir at 10:37 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
21kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.0569 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.049 seconds, 135 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.