Longrider

I notice that the Farepak fiasco has come to a sticky and entirely predictable finale with the fund set up to compensate the customers who lost money somewhat short of the planned target.

The fund set up to compensate people who lost savings in the collapse of the Farepak Christmas saving scheme closed at 1800GMT on Wednesday.

About 150,000 people are estimated to have lost a total of up to £50m when the firm went bust.

So far, the Farepak response fund launched by the government has raised £5.8m from companies and individuals - about 10% of the money lost.

Organisers aim to deliver the money, in the form of vouchers, before Christmas.

While I have some sympathy for the victims – we have all made bad calls in our time – it is rather limited. In the first instance, a bank or building society savings account will not only keep money safe, it will pay interest. One argument I came across that contradicted this was that a savings account can be raided in times of need, leaving it bereft come Christmas. Ahem… what just happened? Also, is a sudden emergency requiring immediate funds more or less important than a hamper (or whatever rubbish people waste their money on at this time of the year)?

Also, since when did a hamper, i.e. luxury goods, become a charity case?

Christmas is something of an obsession in this country. But, then, I’m biased; I hate Christmas in all its garish, tacky superficiality with a vengeance and eschew it in its entirety. Yes, I have some sympathy, but not enough to put my hand in my pocket. I will however, dispense some pretty obvious wisdom; put your money in a proper bank or building society account in future. Consider this a life lesson – there, that’s a useful Christmas present for you. Harsh, I know, but true.

Ah, I wondered how long it would take. Now it seems the knives are out:

Blogs and other internet sites should be covered by a voluntary code of practice similar to that for newspapers in the UK, a conference has been told.

Why? A reasonable man might ask.

But unless there was a voluntary code of conduct there would be no form of redress for people angered at content.

Ah… so that’s why. And why might people be angered? because some blogger has dared to call them on their views? Because, dare it be so, a blogger has pointed out that the angered person is an arrogant fuckwit? Or because a blogger has ripped someone’s dearly held convictions to shreds? Or because some impudent blogger has pointed out that our mainstream media lies and then lies about the lies?

While there is a wild west-like persona to the web, the sheer freedom of speech means that some feel threatened. However, the laws of libel still apply, so it is beholden on bloggers just as with their conventional counterparts to ensure that they speak the truth.

Mr Toulmin described the phrases “free speech” and “free press” as relative terms because views expressed on the internet are still governed by laws such as libel and data protection.

Well, quite… Isn’t that what I just said? Given this, why do we need a code of conduct? If someone has been libelled, they can demand a retraction and apology. They can, should they wish, resort to law – although suing someone who has little in the way of resource is a pointless exercise.

But apart from those sites, generally on the internet “there are no professional standards, there is no means of redress”, Mr Toulmin said.

Of course there is; I just mentioned it – it’s called the law of libel.

Former Downing Street spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who chaired the session organised by the Commission for Racial Equality, said blogs were “perceived as a positive development” but added that “some of the most offensive stuff” comes from them.

Who asked that prize tit for his tuppennyworth? I presume by “offensive” he means the stuff that usually pours forth in response to the latest authoritarian nonsense proposed by his erstwhile boss. Common abuse, however, is not covered by the laws of libel. Common abuse is mild compared to what he and his erstwhile cohorts deserve. Common abuse is something that allows I and others like me to let off a little steam. If a voluntary code means that I cannot call Blair, his sycophants on the government benches and the equally retarded fuckers on the opposition benches a bunch of conniving cunts, well, then I won’t be signing up to it.

Come to that, I won’t be signing up to it anyway.

Get used to it.

Unfortunately, upon looking at my referral logs, I note that images from my sites have been used and manipulated without my permission. I generally take a relaxed approach about the use of my content – certainly fair use is not affected in any way, but the stealing of RSS feeds caused me to resort to partial feeds following discovery of wholesale theft of posts. Now it is images that are being hot-linked (this is bandwidth theft) and subsequent derivatives made.

I will, generally, allow people to use my images providing they ask first and acknowledge the source. I will not, under any circumstances agree to derivatives and will invoke copyright law should I discover any instances. I am currently doing so with a site at the moment.

If you are considering using my images, then please note my copyright notice and contact me first. It isn’t much to ask.

After yesterday’s brief ray of sunshine, the apoplexy returns following my being alerted to this story by Paul and Mr.E

POLICE and councils are considering monitoring conversations in the street using high-powered microphones attached to CCTV cameras, write Steven Swinford and Nicola Smith.

The microphones can detect conversations 100 yards away and record aggressive exchanges before they become violent.

What the fuck!?! I mean, what the fucking, fuckitty, fucking fuck?!! Just what shit-for-brains fucktard knobhead came up with this little gem? For crying out fucking loud! Just what is it with this fucking intellectually bereft country that not only allows this crap to happen, not only doesn’t go out on the streets en masse and slit the gizzards of the authoritarian fuckers proposing it, but, doubtless is so devoid of imagination and understanding of history, will be looking at this story and thinking “’bout time, too.” That’s why these arseholes get away with stealing our privacy and liberty, because the sheeple not only let them but are so fucking stupid that they approve of their own slaughter. For fuck’s bloody sakes!

Okay, breathe deep, think calm thoughts, slowly, slowly, breathe out…

The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that a full public debate over the microphones’ impact on privacy will be needed before they can be introduced.

Oh, good. Then, of course, they will do as they usually do following consultation; the wankers will ignore the gainsayers and carry on anyway.

Last Friday a Sunday Times reporter visited the office of Sound Intelligence in Groningen to test the system. The reporter stood in the control centre with a view of an empty room on one of a bank of monitors. Van der Vorst entered the room, out of sight of the camera, and began making aggressive noises.

This is for real? Apparently so…

The camera swivelled to film him and an alarm went off in the control room, designed to alert police to a possible incident. “The cameras work on the principle that in an aggressive situation the pitch goes up and the words are spoken faster,” said van der Vorst. “The voice is not the normal flat tone, but vibrates. It is these subtle changes that our audio cameras can pick up on.”

If this was a Monty Python sketch, I’d be laughing. Unfortunately, life has surpassed parody, leaving it withered in the shade unable to compete with the bright colours and sounds of reality. The blood pressure’s up again, chaps.

I trawl the news most days and, most days, I notice my blood pressure rise and I am aquiver with incandescent rage at the liberties being taken (literally) by the slime-balls elected to serve us. Yet every once in a while, among the dross and manure of corruption and malfeasance is a gem. Miss Pascoe’s victory over the malodorous Prescott’s pet project in Liverpool is one such shining beacon in a night characterised by overweening, bullying authoritarians and a subservient electorate.

A disabled grandmother won a high court victory yesterday stopping the demolition of her home and 500 others in Liverpool in a project approved by John Prescott.

The judge had already concluded that Mr Prescott and English Partnerships acted illegally when they approved an urban regeneration scheme that would have entailed the demolition of the home of Elizabeth Pascoe, 60.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Forbes issued an order quashing the entire scheme, which Liverpool council had wanted in place as a “gateway” to Liverpool during its year as European Capital of Culture in 2008.

 Not least, in this case,  a precedent is set:

Legal experts said that if Miss Pascoe had lost her case local councils or government bodies would have been able to compulsorily purchase any home anywhere in the country because its neighbours had been deemed to be defective.

And that chills me to the bone. Still, thank goodness for the rule of law.

Of course, ZANU Labour and its minions do not take kindly to losing. Good grace is not one of their overriding characteristics.

Just before the judge’s ruling became public yesterday afternoon English Partnerships issued a statement saying it would be seeking a new compulsory purchase order “to deliver the comprehensive regeneration of the Edge Lane West area” in Liverpool.

Such contempt for the rule of law and property rights from these hideous gangsters comes as no surprise, I suppose. Although their swift, premature, riposte is perhaps remarkable for its arrogance and audacity. Translated as it is to; “we don’t give a fuck for the rule of law, we’re going to steal people’s homes anyway.”

Dr Peter Brown, of Merseyside Civic Society, said: “A second compulsory purchase order would amount to intolerable bullying and flagrant contempt of the court.”

Well, quite. So what’s new?

“The Government must stop Liverpool throwing more public money at this failed demolition scheme and activate Miss Pascoe’s Plan B.”

Only, I suspect, when they are forced to do so following a second rebuke from the judiciary. Still, all in all, a good day for liberty and the English when faced with adversity. Here’s to you, Miss Pascoe, more power to your elbow.

Bob Russell is the MP for Colchester and he is today’s star turn. Bob doesn’t much like those irritating ring tones on mobile phones. Fair point, they piss me off too. Indeed, they are an irritant in the modern world. However, Bob gets today’s fuckwit award because he wants to get parliament involved in the matter:

An MP is urging action over irritating mobile phone ring tones and wants more consideration of other people.

Bob Russell, MP for Colchester, has tabled a House of Commons motion in a bid to apply pressure to mobile phone firms to introduce a “code of conduct”.

Two things immediately sprung to my mind when I saw this being discussed on the BBC breakfast programme… Firstly; why are we even discussing this? I mean, like it’s news or something? And, secondly, have MPs nothing better to do with their time than discuss irritating ring tones? Ring tones may be irritating, but they pale into insignificance when compared to the trite, banal, gaseous emissions emanating from Westminster palace…

Then, of course, the sting in the tail:

Mr Russell hopes his actions in the House of Commons will act as a spur for subsequent action by ministers and phone companies.

While Mr Russell sounds sooooooo reasonable as he talks of the phone companies introducing a code of conduct, what lies at the bottom of it is this; force. How else will such a thing come about? Why else involve the poltroons of parliament?

And you thought that the Lib Dems were liberal….

Rowan Williams and Benedict XVI have been discussing their differences:

The Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Benedict XVI have publicly acknowledged that “serious obstacles” stand in the way of their Churches’ cooperating.

Well, no news since 1534, then.

In a joint declaration, they said it was a matter of urgency that talks continue on issues which divide them.

It comes amid concerns in the Roman Catholic Church over possible women bishops and gay Anglican bishops.

And they are likely to remain so. Still, look on the bright side. They are having a cosy chat about it; as opposed to persecution, torture, murder and burnings. Things are looking up.

The Olympic Games, that corrupt, trite junket that descends upon us every four years is to secrete itself like some obscene Jabba the Hutt on London in 2012. Worse, far worse, the whole sorry mess will be coming by invitation. And the egregious Ken Livingstone assures us that despite the costs rising sharply above the predicted budget, it will be value for money.

Ken Livingstone has denied the 2012 Olympics finances are in chaos - as he contradicted what Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell told MPs on Tuesday.

Ms Jowell said the cost of the Olympic Park had risen from £2.4bn to £3.3bn, blaming inflation and the decision to spend £400m on a “delivery partner”.

But London’s Mayor insisted the £2.4bn figure stood, saying any increase was due to other regeneration work.  

When two professional liars compete for our attention, it can sometimes be difficult to unravel the truth. However, on this occasion, I’m inclined to go with Jowell; the rising costs were entirely predictable as previous Games have done much the same thing. So it’s Ken telling porkies as he engages überdenial mode.

Putting aside my own personal dislike for sport for a moment; I accept that other people like to watch people run about and jump and stuff. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with the idea of spending on regeneration providing the land exchanges hands equitably and for the going rate. I do object when people are forced out of their property though (although some have won a reprieve, this does not alter the principle).

What I object to is the arrogance and conceit of people like Livingstone who in their presumptuousness decide that we will have this dreadful junket, and, London council tax payers will pay for it, like it or not. Now, to rub salt into the open wound, the price has risen dramatically and will, doubtless, continue to do so. And who foots the bill? It won’t be Ken.

But Mr Livingstone said he was “determined” that there would be no increase in the £20 a year for 25 years each London council tax payer will pay.

I should hope not. It’s taking a liberty imposing the increased tax in the first instance. If Ken wants the Olympic Games, let him pay for it. Stealing money from people by force is an outrageous imposition, but, then, what do we expect? This is ZANU Labour in the flesh. Spiteful, hateful, greedy, grasping and arrogant to boot.