For Those Who Were There

Relationships are like the sea off Barcelona. They are difficult to get into and rife with obstacles (prophylactics and sanitary products) once you manage to get in. Ultimately it's easier to tread water rather than risk the humilation and pain of getting out. All the while you can see beautiful topless women just out of reach on the beach just a few metres away.

My thoughts exactly...

I've never never felt so brave as when I'm looking at your face,
They can rape and break my body, but my heart will not disgrace,
They can torture and interrogate, and shackle to my boot,
I'd gnaw off my own leg and hop the fuck right back to you.

- El-p - We Are All Going To Burn In Hell Meggamixxx2

New Site: ZOMeGle.com

You've all heard of Omegle.com, right? No? Head on over there now and see what the fuss is about.

Back?

Good. Your experience there will have varied but may have contained one of more of the following: Abuse, Random Friendship or teh funnay.

If you happened to find the latter there, then why not head over to zomegle.com and submit the transcript so that we all can enjoy?

Or just head on over there and vote on your favourites.

zomegle.com

Private vs. Public

I spent the last four hours in a bar talking shop with a friend. The friend in question works in the public sector whereas I know nothing outside the confines of the private sector. We have a great deal in common, but we also seem to clash over many issues. Mainly over my desire to make money and retire as soon as humanly possible compared to his desire to improve everyone's quality of life.

Both of our parents are or were teachers, and for the remainder of this post I will use the present tense. As it turns out they both teach English and are near, or have already hit, the Glass Ceiling in the world of teaching English.

We both agree that teachers are, for the most part, much maligned and deserve more respect and financial reimbursement, however we agree that there are a number of bad apples letting the side down.

So, back to my friend, and his job in the public sector. This guy works hard and goes above and beyond what's required of him in order to do an outstanding job. And it doesn't stop there. This guy takes his role very seriously, refuses to merely give 95%, and is an all-round good guy. He is exactly the sort of person you want managing a team of Business Analysts or leading one of your Projects. Simply put, this guy doesn't quit.

He doesn't get stressed, he doesn't work late to prove how 'dedicated' he is, he genuinely just delivers what's promised within the allocated time frame and then clocks off at the end of the day. He is the epitome of a self-managed hard worker.

To summarise, he is exactly what the private sector needs more of.

We got into a very involved conversation about the different recruitment processes employed by the public and private sectors, and the incentives offered by each. He is earning a salary comparable to mine, however he receives neither an annual bonus nor a pay-rise. To me this seems ludicrous. A person who is, to boil it down to the simplest, working five days a week to maintain and improve the quality of living of the entire nation doesn't even get a cost of living raise? What the hell is that about? Cue me advocating the virtues of a career in the private sector over a plethora of empty bottles, preaching about how you can perform adequately and still make the grade.

My dad worked his ass off for too long for the joy of the job and the benefit of his students and ended up getting dicked on by the powers that be. My friend's mum is still in the game, working as a head of department whilst simultaneously managing special education for the entire school and how is she rewarded? That's right, she has the threat of a pay cut hanging over her.

In summary, the people that really matter to the good of the nation (the teachers, the police, the paramedics, the social workers) are all getting a short straw. My friend tells me that "you've got to be the right kind of person to do these jobs," and therefore the remuneration isn't a massive factor. You've got to instinctively want to work your fingers to the bone for your fellow countrymen. This business model seems to work for our respective parents, but I can't help but wonder how many potentially awesome teachers decided against a career in education to pursue a far more profitable career in the private sector.

Granted, there will always be good people willing to do the right thing for the next generation, to try and educate them, to try and help them become all they can be. But there must also be an equal, if not greater number of moral, intelligent people who just want to make some paper and provide for their own as best they can regardless of anything else. Surely that's evolution?

Start With the Basics

OK, you're in the conference room. How do you know it's a room? That's right, check for the presence of walls, a floor and a ceiling. If all three are present, then yes, you are indeed in a room. Congratulations.

nPower's Generous Goodwill Gesture

That's right people. Your eyes are not deceiving you. That's a goodwill gesture of £1. Pop the Cristal, I'm going to party like it's my birthday, or perhaps 1999, I haven't decided yet.

The English are fucking sheep. But not like the Welsh.

This article was first published on kenandgeoff.com in December 2005. At the time there were fears of a fuel shortage in the UK.

For centuries, the Welsh have been the butt of jokes by the English, accused of all kinds of dastardly deeds, the most prominent of which being the fornication betwixt a man and a ewe. The practice of bestiality has been around since the dawn of time. In 1683 Denmark passed a law that in one swift move outlawed both homosexuality and

bestiality. The punishment for such an infraction; being burnt to death. Although not an aficionado of sausage-fests, it seems a little harsh to tar both gays and animal-rapists with the same brush.

Anyway, I'm not talking about copulation with animals, the point I am trying to make is that the English are behaving like fucking sheep, like Lemmings leaping from a cliff.

Last September, a proposed barricade around certain petro-chemical plants was suggested. This call to arms was not taken with the same vigour as the previous action in September 2000. However, what seems to be the vast majority of England who read The Sun and The Daily Mail, were suddenly spurred on to a spate of panic buying.

For two days I was driving past ridiculous queues at Petrol Stations, looking on in awe and disbelief. Had I got it wrong? Was I being complacent and not preparing for the imminent fossil-fuel-free catastrophe? Well, no, in a word. I was exercising a degree of intelligence sadly lacking among many of my fellow countrymen. Let's not be sexist, there are a shit-load of dumb bitches out there too - you know who you are.

On the first day of panic-stricken citizens buying as much petrol as their cars could hold, I surfed over to the BBC and got the heads-up on what was going on out there. The official report from the Beeb was that two thirds of fuck-all was happening. Interesting. What were all these jizz-masters doing at the pumps?

Anyway, things carried on this way until practically every local Petrol Station had exhausted their supplies of unleaded. Then came the real "news" reports. The juicy gossip. Although I always try to prevent more than the average number of brain cells dying daily, I did happen to catch the frontpage of The Sun, running a headline along the lines of: "They told us not to panic, now the pumps are dry!". I know exactly what you're thinking, and you're right. That isn't a Sun headline. There are two things that give it away. One being the use of more than four words, and Two being the use of words containing in excess of one syllable. There is a very good reason that The Sun stick to their incredibly successful formula: LCD. Always appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator.

So, let's take a look at the facts. The country was told not to buy excessive amounts of fuel. However, doubtless millions of people did buy far more fuel than usual in a very short space of time, far exceeding the normal demand for petrol. When supply cannot keep up with demand, stocks fall short, end of story. So the headlines should have read something along the lines of: "They told us not to panic-buy. We didn't listen and now we're going to have to wait a couple of days for the Petrol Stations to get their next delivery. What in God's name is wrong with us?" But that would obviously require far too long an attention span, and be far too close to the truth for a tabloid headline.

The people queuing at the pumps, all doubtless tuned in to Galaxy 102 reminded me of not one, but ninety scenes from Shaun of the Dead. The vacant, yet determined stare of the un-dead, hell-bent on filling up with 95 Octane.

I try to explain people's actions in order to make them more bearable. Chinese Whispers is the best excuse I've thought up so far, the media being the whisperer and the general public being the whisperee. Not the usual Chinese Whispers, where a phrase such as "My Hard drive light is always on" translates to "It's a long hard night when I bring the porn." But the all new 'noughties' Chinese Whispers where "Stay calm, this is a temporary problem that will be resolved in no more than a few days" translates, quite understandably, to "omfg, wtf, go buy shit-loads of fuel as the entire industry is about to grind to a halt. Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, what am I going to do?"

I dread to think how the public will react when an Extinction-Level Event hits our shores. Oh wait, we've already had the Avian Flu story, unfortunately there was no simple answer to the problem so most everyone just, well, conveniently forgot.

To conclude, the English public generally behave like a donkey following the carrot on the Media's stick. However, much like when you pretend to throw a ball for a dog and it runs off over the horizon at a rate of knots, the public thought they saw the ball go in the direction of 'Catastrophe', whereas the media had actually thrown it gently towards 'No Great Shakes'.

*No media moguls, members of the Great British public, dogs, donkeys, sheep, lemmings or even Welsh people were harmed in the writing of this article.

**The Sun is far from the worst offender. I remember seeing them running anti-BNP headlines a couple of years ago. Kudos to them.

Mortgages of 100% "Were Foolish"

Lord Myners tells us it was "foolish" for banks to offer 100% mortgages.

I haven't had to take out a mortgage in the last six years, so I haven't paid any attention to what seems to have been a pretty chaotic time for both lenders and customers in the mortgage markets.

I imagine the long and the short of it going down something like this:

Bank Manager: We'd be delighted to offer you a 100% interest-only mortgage, sir.
Customer: Excellent! So do we need to pay a fee or some kind of indemnity?
BM: No, no. It's fine. Just sign here and here.
C: But there is some kind of charge, right?
BM: You'll need to have a conveyancing solicitor carry out the standard searches.
C: Sure, but what do you guys get out of it?
BM: Another satisfied customer!
C: Right. But if I were to stop paying my mortgage.... what then?
BM: Well, we all hope that never happens, but if it were to, then we'd be forced to repossess your property.
C: The property you're offering a 100% interest-only mortgage on?
BM: Yes.
C: So if we stop paying our mortgage, you'll effectively just take back the property you've paid for on our behalf?
BM: Essentially, yes.
C: Where do I sign?

Now I know it isn't quite so straight forward as I make out, and that there are penalties for defaulting, but the above isn't a million miles away from the truth. The last time I had to get a mortgage I had to pay a deposit, prove my earnings, swear my devotion to Xenu and join a cult.* If I go into arrears I'll be forced to drink the Kool-Aid.

What the hell kind of business model was being followed giving people 100% interest-only mortgages? People taking up these offers had less to lose than if they were renting - at least then there would have been the threat of losing a deposit. I understand not everyone can afford the deposit on a house, but that doesn't mean you should just rewrite the rules so everyone suddenly can. I guess the current state of the global economy mirrors the durability of said business models.

*The author is not a follower of Scientology, nor any religion and respects the rights of others to worship freely. Nor is he suggesting Scientology or any other religion is a cult, or that Scientology or any other cult would necessarily encourage or demand its members to commit ritual suicide.

Qatada

Today the BBC reported that Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary is "very disappointed" that the European Court of Human Rights has awarded compensation to radical Islamic preacher Abu Qatada.

The Shadow Security Minister Crispin Blunt also went on record echoing Mrs. Smith's consternation and also seized the opportunity to criticise the government, calling the decision "an appalling scandal... ...[that] will horrify most reasonable people in the UK." He went on to say "It shows just how incompetent the government has been at managing the problem of preachers of hate and, frankly, it makes a mockery of the concept of human rights if we can't protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy our society."

Qatada was arrested in South London in October 2002 having been on the run from authorities since December 2001, when new anti-terrorism laws were passed in the wake of 9/11. He has been detained at Belmarsh Prison, Long Lartin Jail and under a Control Order, or strict house arrest since. Albeit a £800k house.*

Qatada arrived in Britain with his wife and kids using a fake passport back in 1993 and claimed asylum, which was granted the following year. Since then the authorities have been all over him like flies on shit. And not without good reason. He has been linked to various unsavoury deeds and people including:
*Praising attacks on Americans and the killing of Jews.
*Alleged association with Richard Reid, the infamous 'shoe bomber'.
*Being found in possession of £170,000 in cash, including £805 in an envelope marked "For the mujahedin in Chechnya".
*Issuing a fatwa justifying the killing of converts from Islam in Algeria.

The problem the authorities have with the above objectionable acts is that none of them are technically illegal according to the letter of the law, or at least weren't, before the new anti-terror laws came into effect. This poses a huge problem. Police have historically flexed their muscle to persuade wrongdoers to correct their wayward actions. They've done it to me (with little success) and to my friends. The theory is based on a universal respect for the law (and the enforcers thereof) and the other civilians we share the planet with. For most of us law-abiding, tax-paying citizens this is just fine. But what happens when your beliefs contradict the law of the land? At the bottom end of the scale is the young person paying their own way through university, studying hard all day, working a part time job at night and smoking a little weed when the opportunity arises. This is illegal. But surely working toward your degree (whilst paying tax) so you can better yourself and be somebody and make a positive contribution to society one day offsets this minor infraction?

Because of this, the Judges sitting in the European Court of Human Rights ruled that his six-year detention without trial breached his human rights. Jacqui Smith stated that the now-withdrawn measures had been devised in "good faith" to protect the general public, which I wholeheartedly believe.

I am not bleeding-heart liberal. I may have a leaning toward the left wing, but I also agree with parts of the right's manifesto. For instance, I believe in the right to a fair trial by jury, and food, clothes and shelter for all, regardless of how willing they may or may not be to contribute to the greater good. However, I also believe that I should have the right to keep a handgun in my home to better enable me to protect my property and loved ones. If we, the British people, are expected to live by a certain set of laws, then they should apply to every one of us, regardless of whether you were born here, or how you came to be a British citizen, regardless of any poor asylum decisions (it was a different world back then).

The European Court of Human Rights is merely upholding the law that guarantees us all basic civil liberties. You cannot persecute human beings without a fair trial. To do so would make us no better than those we judge to be "enemies of the free world."

The sums awarded in this most recent case are nominal at most. Abu Qatada himself was given £2,500 in compensation for over six years of incarceration and restriction of freedom. That works out at approximately £1 a day.

Everyone 'knows' what's going on, but no-one seems able to prove it. No-one can pin a conviction on him. And until they can, they're going to have a hell of a hard time justifying keeping him behind bars.

This post is riddled with poor evidence and hearsay, which is mainly due to the fact that there is nothing in the public domain that incriminates him as far as I can tell.





*Where the hell do you get £800k council houses?

McKinnon ain't goin' nowhere

It looks like Gary McKinnon won't be extradited to the United States. The entire episode is a farce of epic proportion. If you're not familiar with the story, here's a brief summary:

A man who was "diagnosed last August [2008] as having Asperger's Syndrome" hacked systems belonging to NASA and the US Navy looking for "classified documents on UFOs which he believed the US authorities had suppressed." He illegally accessed a total of 97 systems in 2001 and 2002. The US Government claim McKinnon's actions caused $800,000 of damage and wish to prosecute him accordingly.

For me, the key element in this case is that McKinnon used his own email address throughout. Furthermore, as McKinnon used his own email address, it cannot have cost the US Government anywhere near $800,000 to ID him.

There are so many levels of pedantry at work here. The USA got 0wned and they're not happy about it. I understand why they're upset, but why on earth are they making such a big deal of it? If Joe Calzaghe spilled some nobody's pint and got knocked out because of it, he wouldn't sue. He wouldn't get litigious, he wouldn't do a damn thing after the event. He'd take it, like a man, probably buy the bar for the feller in question and move on with a wink and a nod. The last thing he'd do is plaster it all over the news and push for charges to be brought.

The "greatest super power on the face of the earth" got h4x0red, and now they're crying to mummy. What has America come to? The founding fathers didn't sail across the Atlantic so their descendants could piss and whine about some limey exposing their weaknesses.



Author's note: - I don't remember posting this. Quite eloquent for an alcoholic though, if I may say so myself.

...According to The Daily Mail...

...Sarah Palin is "blasting the media" "for giving her unfair and class-biased treatment during the election campaign." She has also allegedly "questioned whether Caroline Kennedy, John F Kennedy's daughter, was getting better treatment from the news media in her quest for a Senate seat than she herself received."

Wow. Where do I start, how on Earth do I close, and who is to blame for this shambolic piece of reportage? The Mail's report gives no indication of how Palin's coverage was "class-biased," so I won't take that approach, nor does it expand on how she was "exploited." One quote The Mail has printed [on the subject of Caroline Kennedy's interest in her mother's soon-to-be-vacant seat in the Senate, which was assumably uttered by, but not explicitly accredited to Palin] reads "It's going to be interesting to see how that plays out and I think that as we watch that we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here also that was such a factor in the scrutiny of my candidacy versus, say, the scrutiny of what her candidacy may be." Take that as you may.

Two things jump out at me here. One. The article in question is terrible; poorly written and devoid of any real meaning, and more importantly, evidence. Two. According to said article, Palin is upset about the treatment she received from The Press whilst running for Vice President of the United States of America alongside John McCain. Now it may have been over a year ago, but I distinctly remember the President-elect getting a pretty tough time in the press over his admission of drug use and attacks on his lack of experience, whilst being 'accused'* of being a Muslim and a terrorist sympathiser.

A lot of shit's been written about Palin online, and while the bulk of it may not be nice, un-biased or even fair, once you step onto the World Stage you must not only expect The People to discuss you, but also to dissect, ridicule and ultimately judge you. Obama had to weather the same adversity, and went on to win fair and square.

In my mind, the entire shit-storm you weather once you step up is just part of the race for candidacy. I don't necessarily agree with any of it, but complaining about it post-defeat, especially as your adversary had such an uphill struggle sounds pretty unsporting.

Palin's comment about Caroline Kennedy's interest in becoming Senator for New York sounds even more desperate. The Kennedys are practically royalty in America, and drawing comparisons or picking a fight with any of them can only end in tears.

Palin can and should by all means run again in 2012, but right now, don't gripe about what could have been; the people of America don't want to hear such talk and it will do you no favours.


*How do you accuse someone of being Muslim? One might suggest someone is a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Patriot or a Hard-Working-Average-Joe, but I don't see how that could be an accusation.