I find it rather odd that the EU have just fined Microsoft £630 million for breaking EU competition law (from the people who refuse to let dissent be shown in the Parliament...).
Today's penalty was for breaches of EU competition policy dating back to March 2004. The company was fined for charging "unreasonable" prices for access to crucial software information to enable its rivals to operate in a market dominated by Microsoft.
When I worked in Brussels, and even before I changed my computer here to a Mac the only software we were allowed to use was Microsoft. It does rather confuse me. If it's so bad, why do they spend millions and millions on their products? And their fines to the EU, I presume (even though it's people across the EU who would have suffered but what do they get back, eh? fuck all, just their money spend on EU propaganda so the EU can have more money) that they would at least use some of it buying microsoft products.
I've just popped over to the House of Commons and of course this lovely protest by people who never need to use Heathrow Airport. I use it a lot, and live very close to the airport and I want a third runway. Heathrow is a hub and if we don't get extra capacity then the hub will move to somewhere like Charles de Gaulle and lots and lots of people will lose their jobs.
Not that the communist greens care about that. When they came to give a lecture at my school, they made it clear that it was all about rich people paying other people not to work, and people who worked in factories making cars and the such would be paid to sit at home and knit knickers.
It's quite clear that they were let in to the Houses of Parliament by a passholder as the lift they needed to use to get on that part of the roof requires a badge. Also the banners were so long that they couldn't have just got through by themselves as security would have stopped them.
What amused me about the whole thing was a policeman saying to someone 'If you hear a loud thud, we've shot them.'
This attitude was quite popular amongst the people I spoke to, particularly those whose view was being blocked by the banners. Alas, the windows up there don't open so yanking them down was not an option.
Why don't they go get a job and contribute to the economy, instead of trying to ruin it and take us back to the dark ages?
Speaker Michael Martin, it's time for you to go.
Your wife spends our money on taxi fares to supermarkets when you clearly don't need more food, and people like me walk. You use our money to get free flights. And you can't do your job properly.
You are supposed to be independent yet such is your slavish devotion to the Labour Party you are overriding the wishes of the people who put you in your job.
We voted for parties who promised us a referendum, and you will not even allow amendments mentioning any r word to be debated and voted, and yet this is the biggest issue surrounding this Constitutional Treaty. For an entire political party to leave the chamber rather illustrates how irritated you have made any MPs who aren't in the government.
Do your job properly, or fuck off.
As you probably know, I look on the EU as the USSR budged a bit west. Here is an article by UKIP leader Nigel Farage which may convince a few of you who still think the EU is a jolly good idea, that it really isn't.
'When the Nice Treaty was passed in 2001, UKIP noted that Article 191 would lead to EU funding for political parties. More importantly, we said that once the state funds parties, it begins to have power to approve their existence or not. When I pointed out that this could lead to parties like UKIP disappearing, I was told, 'It couldn't happen here'.
IN Portugal, UKIP has a good relationship with a Eurosceptic party called PND, led by Manuel Montiero, a former MP and MEP for the Portuguese Conservative Party. It is fiercely opposed to the EU Constitution and, like us, wants to regain control of fishing waters from the EU.
The PND has already achieved some success with an MP in the regional parliament of Madeira and, in the absence of a referendum in Portugal, expects to win MEP seats in 20090. But in a couple of months' time it might not exist.
A new law comes into force in Portugal in March 2008 that states that political parties must have 5,000 registered members or they will be declared illegal. The names and addresses of the members must be given to the Portuguese authorities.
Of the 14 political parties that exist in Portugal alone, only four will be allowed to exist after March 2008.
This situation is truly incredible. It allows existing parties to stay in place forever and to prevent new parties and new ideas from ever being born.
We are in a political union with Portugal as EU members. I have seen the new mood of intolerance towards opposition to the EU in Brussels and Strasbourg. Could it ever happen here?'
I can, alas, see it happening here. It's one of the reasons I am so massively against the state funding of political parties, because it just hinders entrance to the market, as it were, which isn't on in a democracy.
However, democracy appears to be a dirty word these days in the eyes of our leaders.
Cameron says he will vote for the abortion limit to be reduced to 21 weeks.
MPs, particularly odious ones such as Mad Nad, want to limit the rights of women to be in charge of their own bodies.
Mr Cameron told the Daily Mail today: "I would like to see a reduction in the current limit, as it is clear that, due to medical advancement, many babies are surviving at 24 weeks.
"If there is an opportunity in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I will be voting to bring this limit down from 24 weeks."
The government, on the other hand, aren't planning to reduce the limit because, as Gordon Brown's spokesman says,
""At the moment, the key organisations in the medical profession are not pressing for a review in this area.
"For example, both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have said they do not believe there is a case for changing the time limits for abortion."
Mad Nad has previously said of the Abortion Bill:
The Abortion Act of 1967 was based on lies and more lies. It was an appallingly drafted piece of legislation which, under intense pressure from the abortion rights lobby, allowed the present day situation of abortion used as a form of contraception to occur.
Some people do get pregnant and don't want to be. And that's not because they're sluts and whores who are going to hell, it's because they are fertile. Contraception fails, regularly. I have a few friends now who have fallen pregnant when they were using contraception. Some now have children, some don't.
Who are you, Ms Dorries, to decide over the future of their bodies? Decide over your own, please, but not mine, not my sister's, my friends' or anyone Else. Just bugger off with your sanctimonious religious clap trap and let the rest of us live our lives.
As the Telegraph reported this morning, there is a bit of a to-do with regards to MEP finances because the whole thing is a fucking sham.
The parliament have sent out a statement saying that they are looking at reform, but they are not letting the anti fraud body, OLAF, see the secret report.
Just a few moments ago, the nasty president of the european parliament, Herr Pottering, set out an e-mail:
Dear colleague,
May I remind you of the notice of 19 November 2007 in which I invited you to update, pursuant to Rule 9 of and Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, your declaration of financial interests for 2007.
Since that declaration has not yet reached the competent Secretariat service, please allow me to draw your attention to the fifth paragraph of Article 2 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, which states:
‘If after the appropriate request a Member does not fulfil his obligation to submit a declaration pursuant to (a) and (b), the President shall remind him once again to submit the declaration within two months. If the declaration has not been submitted within the time-limit, the name of the Member together with an indication of the infringement shall be published in the minutes for the first day of each part-session after expiry of the time-limit. If the Member continues to refuse to submit the declaration after the infringement has been published the President shall take action in accordance with Rule 147 to suspend the Member concerned’.
Accordingly, please forward your declaration of financial interests, within two months starting from today, to the following address:
Members’ Activities Unit
PHS 2A19/Brussels - tel. 44052
LOW H00.057/Strasbourg - tel. 74622
I would also remind you that, following the Bureau decision of 4 April 2001 concerning the publication on the Internet of the register of Members’ financial interests, an electronic registration and publication system have been introduced with the aim of facilitating the submission of your declaration. You will find the relevant form at the following web address:
http://www.europarl.ep.ec/inside/members/financial/dif_en.htm
The Members’ Activities Unit will be happy to provide any further information you may require.
Hans-Gert PÖTTERING
Strikes me that Mr Pottering is panicking and wants to make sure that no one can tar him with the same brush as naughty MEPs...
When UKIP found someone who had done something wrong they got rid of him. Most UKIP MEPs have a chartered accountant to deal with their finances.
I suspect that when this report does finally come out it will be fraud on a scale you can't believe.
Firmly believes that, since the choice involved will have a profound impact on the future, a European treaty should be ratified in all the Member States by means of a referendum, following a pluralist debate on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake
A few years ago I was pounced on by 5 security guards from the European Parliament for daring to protest at the EU Constitution vote in Strasbourg.
This year, as the EU Constitution is being voted upon, I was only roughly shoved by one person. I quite clearly told him to "keep his hands off me and don't lay a finger on me" which was caught on camera, and his senior jobsworths told him to get off me, but they are so quick to use violence. IT's the natural language they understand against people who don't agree with them.
The reason they decided to get rough with me was because I was wearing a jumper with this logo on it:
And I was leading three large chickens along towards the hemicycle.
It's a simple message to grasp: politicians are too chicken to let the people have a referendum as they will say NO, and then they have to go through the inconvenience of asking them again until they say yes or writing it up in different font and pretending that it's different.
Last month the Green group were allowed people dressed up on the bridges to the hemicycle. They were wearing tomato costumes and other assorted vegetables. If they're protesting at nuclear power they can wear death masks, but if you're asking for democracy, then you are forbidden from doing anything.
The Head of Security even tried to convince us that it was clearly written in the Rules and Regs that 'No person is allowed to wear a chicken outfit in the European Parlaiment'. When asked to show this regulation they declined.
There were about 15 security guards for three chickens and a few members of staff in chicken jumpers.
I was told I had to leave the European Parliament building and when they got around that one by me calling people and telling them they said if I wanted to walk anywhere else I would have to take off my jumper. I said I was quite happy to, but since I was wearing nothing underneath I am sure that would certainly break the rules. They weren't too bothered about that one.
Most of the British press weren't there as Brown is going to be in Brussels tomorrow to have a tête a tête with Barosso. I can only presume Brown will take a notepad so he can write down what he's going to do next. I am sure the timing of it was just a coincidence to make sure that this Constitutional Treaty is kept out of the media
I hate them, I really hate them.
As pro democracy figher Vladimir Bukovsky said to Nigel Farage
"I have seen your future and I don't like it."
Having seen yet again the actions today by the European Parliament and their hypocrisy and double standards, I really do fear for people who don't want to be part of the EU. Pro EU MEPs are allowed to call people who support a referendum 'like Adolf Hitler', 'mentally ill' and 'idiots' but anyone who is in favour of people sticking to their election promises and actually asking the people in a free and fair referendum rather than waffling on about 'getting closer to the people' and then completely ignoring them can just fuck right off.
They're being suspended anmd fined because they aren't in favour of the Treaty. That's the simple answer. And when you vote in general elections for Labour, Tory or Lib Dems, that is what you are voting in favour of.
On your own head be it.
UPDATE:
Team Chicken
The head of the European Parliament security refusing to let the peaceful protest anywhere near the hemicycle
The Three Little Chicks
Democracy is not worth a bean in the European Parliament, but the President of the Parliament, Hans Gert Pottering has just told MEPs who voted for more transparency on the EU Constitution which has just been approved by MEPs that their parents should be ashamed of them.
Well, I'd rather a child of mine was a traffic warden than a Pro EU, anti democracy MEP.
Anyway, further to moans and whining from MEPs like Archbishop Richard Corbett, smuggly sitting in the hemicycle at the moment having played his part in handing over yet more of our sovereignty, here is why Roll Call Votes cost money:
1. Figures provided by the Printing Unit (printing of provisional version in hard copy):
Cost of paper plus cost of printing (one double-sided sheet (= two pages)):
€15.02 / 1000 sheets, i.e. €0.015 for a single copy
Printing: 935 copies
Total per roll-call vote: €0.015 x 935 = €14.025
2. Figures provided by the Official Journal Unit (publication in the OJ):
Total publishing costs (CD ROM, EurLex database, etc.)
1 page: €12
1 roll-call vote: 12 x 1.5 = €18 / 12 x 2 = €24. Reasonable average: €20
In 22 languages: 20 x 22, i.e. €440 per roll-call vote
3. Approximate total cost of a roll-call vote:
€440 + €14 = ± €454
So the cost, as I said before, comes from bits of paper being printed when they don't need to be. Just another excuse to avoid the people at home knowing what you're up to, eh, Richard? And by 'home' I mean where you are elected from, not where you actually live.
Well it had to happen soner or later, but Dan Hannan, the Telegraph columnist and Tory MEP has today been kicked out of the EPP and he said it was like removing the stone from a shoe and good for both parties. So now Dan won't be funding the 'Yes' campaign unlike his Tory colleagues. Who is left alphabetically? Heaton-Harris or perhaps Malcolm Harbour?
Another thought about the Northern Rock balls up. Not only are the Government now the lender of last resort - although one could say that was now brought into question - but they're also taking over mortgages, so what will happen when homes are repossesed?
Well, they become the possession of the Government, then they sell it, and the cash is a teeny drop in the ocean to be wasted on some latest IT system. Aren't you all so happy that our MPs are slavishly devoted to the economics of ignorance?
As I have written before, I do not think that the government's handling of the Northern Rock crisis is any good for this country.
We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has never had a job in the city and who clearly, along with the shadow Chancellor, has no real grasp of fiscal policy. Why else would they put forward these ridiculous proposals for charging non doms when they bring so much money into the country and the city of London provides a quarter of UK GDP. Really.
But to nationalise Northern Rock is, in the words of Professor Tim Congdon the UKIP economics spokesman, "robbery under the law."
Banks have liquidity ratios which allows them to, shock horror, make money. The money in deposits is not in liquid form because it should never be needed all at once, except in Mary Poppins and when the government and Bank of England can't deal with financial problems in a subtle and sensible way.
But Northern Rock took out a loan with the Bank of England, they weren't lent a load of cash. Even a bank like Barclays or Bank of Scotland couldn't pay back all their loans in six months if asked, so how could Northern Rock?
What credit rating does the UK Treasury/Tripartite Authority/Bank of England deserve? The answer is triple B: BBB.... for bungle, blunder and botch.
Words cannot describe the hate I feel towards people who think that they must control every aspect of our lives. Julian Le Grand, who is a professor at the London School of Economics and was Tony Blair's senior health adviser, thinks it would be a jolly jape to make people buy a permit for purchasing tobacco.
I am literally shaking with rage. It's not enough for them to force us all outside into the cold and to damage pubs with their fascist policies, but to have to buy a permit and for Le Grand to say that they should make the form sufficiently difficult so people couldn't fill them in is the product of a sick mind.
Hear that, Julian, you are a sick individual.
Such a view also seems to me to be saying that clever, richer people are allowed to smoke but you thickies down there aren't allowed to.
Also in his list of things to make our lives more miserable is the ban of salt in processed food.
Listen. If we don't want to eat salt, we won't. The packages are covered in blobs and circles filled with all sorts of information so we know if something has salt in, okay. And what's more, IT'S OUR CHOICE WHAT WE EAT, NOT YOURS.
And we're all to have an exercise hour. It's not too long before that daily diet plan sent to all of us to let us know what we are allowed to eat for the day is actually a reality.
I see that Adelaide are keen to get migration from the UK and I'm off to their website now to look, because I just cannot stand this country anymore.
Remember the story about Dan Hannan being expelled from the EPP for pointing out similarities to the action taken by Hans Gert Pottering, president of the European Parliament where somewhat similar to Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933?
There was uproar and calls from all over the place about how he should apologise unreservedly for his comments.
Well, now take a look at this video:
I seem to notice a comparison made by a europhile with regards to Jens Peter Bonde, co president of the Ind Dem group along with Nigel Farage MEP of a similar style. How come that is okay? Double standards, anyone?
I have heard a rumour that Nick Clegg is going to sack MPs who have anything to do with the i want a referendum campaign.
So, if it's true, he's going to sack the MPs who actually have a backbone and an ounce of common decency by sticking to their manifesto pledge.
Why do people vote Lib Dem? Anybody?
The busy little bees in the European Parliament website have been excelling themselves finding new bits of flannel to put on. Today they have gone for the theme of Love. And even with this topic, this chemical imbalance, they have managed to find the time for legislation...
1. If there was a European Charter for Love, what should be in it?
Genowefa Grabowska (PES, PL): There should be no age limit...nor should it contain any sanctions. It has to be based on persuasion and faith...Maybe the Slovenian presidency could introduce a Charter of Love.
Katalin Lévai (PES, HU), author of the bestseller "Pillow-book": Mutual understanding and respect. Love is not only about sensual pleasures, but it is also about a spiritual and intellectual togetherness, otherwise desire dwindles away.
Frédérique Ries (ALDE, BE): Please, no charter! Love is allergic to paragraphs and annexes.
Zita Pleštinská (EPP-ED, SK): Love never fails. If we managed to put this idea into practise, the world would become much nicer. Then the Charter could replace many EP resolutions.
Henrik Lax (ALDE, FI): Live with your loved one as if every day you are together could be your last.
Christofer Fjellner (EPP-ED, SV): Love should not be bound by any borders; any more than goods, services, capital or people.
Roberta Alma Anastase (EPP-ED, RO): Nowadays, people do not use the word love in public speeches, however, our existence is based on feelings, particularly on love. The European Union is a space where thoughts, feelings, attitudes are encouraged to flourish openly. I think this charter already exists and it is to be found in every one of us.
2. Would you like to share any good tips about romance and love?
Katalin Lévai: Be sincere from the very beginning. The one who acts a role will eventually fall.
Astrid Lulling (EPP-ED, LUX): You cannot organise or plan romance and love. It happens or it does not!
Frédérique Ries: For eternal love, admire and be admired and surprise, always. Boredom poisons love.
Genowefa Grabowska: The more you love the more you expose yourself to suffering. But suffering enriches us. Every grandmother has a drawer full of advice because she has been in love so many times. But her granddaughters will never listen to her, because they would prefer to learn from their own experience.
Henrik Lax: Enjoy the romance, but do not take any serious life decisions until you know whether it is love or something else.
3. What "says it best" on Valentine's Day: chocolate, flowers or something else?
Roberta Alma Anastase: Chocolate and flowers are good, especially if mixed. However, the most important thing is to be sure the person you love is there for you.
Katalin Lévai: A good book is the most valuable of all, if it is accompanied by a flower, then my heart warms.
Genowefa Grabowska: If I was cynical and materialistic I would expect my husband to give me a red car, because I like red cars. But I am not, so what I would like to get is a red rose.
Frédérique Ries: Give yourself, that's the real present and not only on 14 February. Give your time, your imagination and your heart - there are infinite possibilities for wonderful surprises.
4. Are you planning to do anything special for Valentine's day?
Astrid Lulling: Valentine's Day only became fashionable when I was already over 40. But one can always dream, so why not hope that a good friend will take the initiative for a lovely surprise.
Christofer Fjellner: Yes, I will spend it with my girlfriend. Since I spend so much time in Brussels, spending time with her is always special.
Henrik Lax: "No, I will be in Kiev, far from my wife whom I met 43 years ago. I will send my warmest thoughts and feelings to her and all my family.
I'm quite angry today. Lots of things are happening which are really annoying me, and then I read about some stupid bitch who is going to sue London Underground because her wrist is sorely because she had to use a handle without getting training.
WHAT!
Latona Allison developed tenosynovitis in her right wrist and now cannot work as a driver.
The FT reports today on the apparent climb down over the levy charged to non doms.
The cabbage which the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have in his skull in place of a brain led him to believe that charging rich people who make this country an awful lot of money so that they would leave and go abroad was a jolly good idea.
£30,000 levied on people who bring the exchequer about £7bn in taxes a year. WELL DONE YOU!
Here:
is where most of the business in the city of London would have gone. It may well still go there unless we get a government who aren't economic retards, or unless we leave the EU.
I'm still wondering why he hasn't scrapped the proposal altogether. It's like leaving the gates to the Tower of London open and allowing any Tom, Dick or Vaclav to pinch the crown jewels, because that is what the City of London is to our country.
The hypocrisy of George Osborne is also staggering: writing a letter to Darling and hoping that people didn't remember that this bloody fiscal fiasco was one of his ideas in the first place, because the Tories are too scared to promise tax cuts, preferring instead to play along with some ridiculous idea that the state spends your money better than you, invests it better than private businesses and that tax cuts necessarily mean less money spent on public services and thus a decline in service.
Why don't these people appear to understand anything about fiscal policy? Haven't they heard of the laffer curve? There is an optimum rate for tax revenue and it ain't going to be at a higher level of taxation, just as the minimum levels of tax revenue (i,e zero) are gained at taxation levels of 0% and 100%.
But this appears to be a huge problem with our career politicians, who haven't really had proper jobs and certainly don't know about taking risks and starting up small businesses. They can't grasp that what we need is less government, less tax and less fuck ups from state run organisations who don't have the desire to stream line and be efficient because it's not their money in the first place and they get paid no matter what. When did it become a requirement for MPs to be as pig ignorant as possible? A House for mensa rejects, if you will. The fact that we have two opposition parties who really need to be taken to the office of fair trading for that misleading description because they don't appear to oppose anything except wage cuts.
It's like Philip Green. His wife owns most of the shares in his company and lives in Monaco. Philip pays himself a small wage on which he pays tax. Lewis Hamilton will proably join the other mega rich F1 drivers and assorted sports stars and live there also, because there they won't see millions of pounds of their cash going to the government and wasted on crap. Or MPs wives.
It's like I said to the Inland Revenue when I was doing my tax return and they wouldn't be helpful and send me the account details so I could pay them. I asked "wouldn't it just be easier if I bypassed all this and just set fire to this money, because that's essentially what this government are going to do with it."
They chose not to comment.
Well, it's not actually valentines day yet, obviously, but research done by Alpharooms shows that we britons are not too excited about Valentine's Day, because we think we'll get shit gifts.
Women anticipate getting tacky underwear, cheap perfume and flowers from the garden. Men expect "the usual meal at an overpriced restaurant - which they'll be expected to pay for".
Luckily, I am not getting or giving either. Hurrah.
The bit which tickled me, however, was the response from one chap which said his ideal valentine's day would be hitting the slopes whilst his partner stayed at home.
Love it.
To follow on from yesterday and the outrageous comments by Gordon Brown's barrister, there is a story even more outrageous.
Oh yes. A man from Cornwall has written a letter to his bus company after buses kept on driving past him. Bad enough in a built up area, but in the countryside where buses are infrequent and there aren't many alternatives?
The reply back said that he used the 'wrong kind of wave to flag them down.' erm. what?
The letter said that the driver was sorry,
"But she did not realise you wanted to use the bus as you were not indicating in the recognised manner,"
I've always known that Brown was a lying fucker and at last he has admitted it. In the court case brought against him for breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution, Brown's personal barrister has just told the court that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
Oh yes, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has just told an open court that we shouldn't expect him to be telling the truth with his promises, and that no manifesto pledge can be considered to be binding in anyway.
What is even worse is how large sections of the main stream media don't seem to think that this is a story or an outrage. Are they so bitter after spending so long in politics that they are surprised anyone would believe a manifesto pledge? It makes me sick thinking of what these politicians get away with. How much coverage on Tory hypocrisy over patio heaters? none. Major debates happening in the European Parliament? None. Official announcement that politicians can't be trusted? None. Britney Spears being taken into rehab again? Rolling news, baby!
The day we can all think about those in our lives we've loved and lost, those we are with, and lots of women can sit around sobbing over brief encounter. Possibly forcing male partners to do so.
Oh! Barbara, where are my tissues?
The rather dishy Andrew Porter has written today in the Telegraph about plans to encourage the use of the contraceptive injection or implant rather than the pill. £10 million will be spent on the pilot scheme which hopes to slash the number of teenage pregnancies.
According to the article only 14% of women who ask their GPs for contraception use longer term whereas 35% use the pill. However, more than 75% forget to take their Pill on two consecutive days each month, thus increasing the chance of an unwanted pregnancy.
The DoH has said that if more women opted for longer term contraceptive options then the number of unwanted pregnancies could fall by 73,000. This is beneficial for everyone concerned, including the public purse.
This makes sense to me, but it's only a matter of time before the numbers of people taking longer term contraceptives increases. It's much easier to deal with, you don't have to remember to take a pill every day, and it's not affected by illness. However, it does make one a bit porky. It's all that extra hormone circulating round your body that turns into testosterone I think (that's what my doctor told me) and then the body puts on fat.
Also, my friend was on the injection but because of her surgery being rubbish and her (shock!) having to go to work in the mornings and stay there until the evenings she couldn't get an appointment to have her injection. And they have to be done at certain times of the month. But anyway, her and her partner are delighted with their daughter, who should have been named after me really.
But what really irritated me about this story is the reaction of the anti-choice fanatics who, get this, instead of thinking that taking measures to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies, particularly in teenagers and young women, and therefore the number of hot baths and bottles of gin, are moaning! Yes! Moaning!
They have said that the guidelines would encourage promiscuity and fuel the epidemic of sexually transmitted infections. Some of which cause infertility which would mean fewer abortions but these people never try to see the positives.
I thought that they were against abortions, but now it appears they are against people having sex! How many other things do they want to stop people doing? Fair enough have your opinions, as long as you don't force them on other people (which is why I can't stand the pro life brigade) but saying that effective contraception is a bad thing because people might get it on is just ridiculous. Why don't people just leave each other alone, stop being so judgmental and self-righteous and understand that we all don't want to live by your dull rules, chappie.
come now, Jesus, into the Wilderness and resist such temptations which will erode your mind and corrupt your body. For 40 days must you wander around in a tent-like item of clothing and sandals you have borrowed off a passing Liberal Democrat and think about me and good things. But not bad things.
Oh, but do feel free to pack thee a king sized mars bar and some jaffa cakes.
But Jesus, what ever you do, you must not leave the TV on standby. Nor must ye go into the wilderness without going round the house with a ribbon to check for draughts and buying those large cuddly snake things to go under the door.
And those who are true believers will follow your fine example and will remove a lightbulb from a promient place in the house, like the crazy, so they can Carbon Fast with you. And only then shall they be allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven without paying the Congestion Charge.
What next?
Here is a list of how the British MEPs voted on the decision to ban patio heaters et al:
In favour of the ban: All LibDems - Attwooll, Bowles, Davies, Duff, Hall herself, of course, Ludford, Lynne, Newton-Dunn, Nicholson of Winterbourn, Wallis and Watson;
16 (out of 28) Tories - Richard Ashworth,John Bowis, Philip Bradbourn, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Giles Chichester, Den Dover, Jonathan Evans, Malcolm Harbour, Caroline Jackson, Sajjad Karim,Edward Macmillan-Scott,John Purvis, Struan Stevenson, David Sumberg, Charles Tannock and Geoffrey Van Orden
16 (out of 19) Labour - Michael Cashman, Richard Corbett, Robert Evans, Glyn Ford, Neena Gill, Richard Howitt, Stephen Hughes, Glennys Kinnock, Linda McAvan, Arlene McCarthy, David Martin, Eluned Morgan, Brian Simpson, Peter Skinner, Catherine Stihler and Glenis Willmott
Greens - Caroline Lucas, Jill Evans and Jean Lambert
Against the ban:
8 out of 10 (all present) UKIP MEPs: Nigel Farage, Derek Clark, Jeffrey Titford, Tom Wise, Mike Nattrass, Gerard Batten, Godfrey Bloom, Roger Knapman
3 out of 28 Tories: Martin Callanan, Nirj Deva and Robert Sturdy
No Lib Dems, Greens or Socialists
Sayeed Kamall of the Tories abstained.
As Booker pointed out yesterday, Richard bloody Ashworth then went and wrote a letter to the Telegraph talking about how patio heaters produced less CO2 than the pointless trip to Strasbourg each month by MEPs, no doubt winning pats on the back by people thinking that that would mean he would vote against the ban. Hypocritical arsehole. Can we have an explanation for that, please?
Posts
All Comments
