Haven't posted for a couple of weeks. Began with having nothing in particular to say, and then progressed via general idleness.
Principal events - making the out-of-court settlement stick with my ex-wife, giving raise to huge relief and jubilation. Going to London to see Enormous Oaf 1, the aspiring actor, star in a show - and bloody good he was too. Looking likely to get Enormous Oaf 2 to study up here in the North-West in September. All this involving a fun trip to the Great Wen, which is still horrible, but it's always nice to be reminded of the thousand ways in which it is.
Staying with friends in Sudbury, in the general direction of Harrow. My friend warned me that the Piccadilly Line was buggered for the weekend, and so was the District Line, and so I'd have to get the Bakerloo and a bus from Wembley Central. OK, an extra quid on my Oyster Card, but what the hell, life's too short. On the Sunday, however, an extra ingredient was added to the mix; the Bakerloo was closed as well, due to "a person on the line". First thought: people who are selfish enough to top themselves by diving onto a Tube line should be warned that their bodies will be desecrated by having their quarters hung up at the market cross as in medieval times; second thought: how long does it take to get a sodding corpse off the line? If they really wanted they could have normal service resumed within the hour, which would be an even better deterrent to suicidal glory-hunters. But it seems that the delights of fucking London transport up reign absolutely supreme.
Meanwhile Enormous Oaf 2, meeting me in the centre to see his brother's play, dutifully bought a train ticket to find that his train wasn't running. Great.
What seriously worries me is how Londoners put up with all this. Well, given that Londoners habitually do 10 or more hours of unpaid overtime a week to please their bosses, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. Why are we so fucking servile?
Part of the same question is, as I've asked before, why do we put up with bankers? It's clear that there's been another disaster, caused by people who have too much money to be properly regulated and still expect to be bailed out by government; are they going to come under proper control, or are we going to have to go and lynch them?
Monday 17 March 2008
Sunday 2 March 2008
Why I am not a Catholic....
Largely because of their obsession with temporal as opposed to spiritual power, complete unscrupulousness in maintaining their power and influence, as best shown by giving complete support to General Franco in 1936 with his policy of murdering everyone to the left of David Cameron, in order to secure complete control of education. Not to mention the other policies; whereas Christ on the Cross said that He could have summoned twelve legions of angels to protect Him, but didn’t, Franco brought in twelve legions of Moroccan rapists to ensure the Church’s side won. Also because of their half-baked doctrine of marriage, which serves no useful purpose except to give Graham Greene and Evelyn Waugh a peg to hang plots on.
More recently, see the crap-hole a Brit in the Philippines has got himself into by fathering a child on a Filipina who was not yet free of her abusive husband: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=517821&in_page_id=1879
The Church is falling over itself to protect the rights of the so-called husband. As Laurence Sterne wrote of a typical Catholic, “His priests have got the keeping of his conscience”, whereas the priests have a rule-book where their conscience ought to be.
More recently, see the crap-hole a Brit in the Philippines has got himself into by fathering a child on a Filipina who was not yet free of her abusive husband: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=517821&in_page_id=1879
The Church is falling over itself to protect the rights of the so-called husband. As Laurence Sterne wrote of a typical Catholic, “His priests have got the keeping of his conscience”, whereas the priests have a rule-book where their conscience ought to be.
Saturday 1 March 2008
Good old Iceland
On the whole I think it's a good idea that Northern Rock has been nationalised. Firstly because there obviously wasn't a private buyer who wouldn't have demanded so much unchallengeable money up front as to make the whole thing unmanageable. Secondly because something needs to happen to break the taboo about nationalisation - which was the main reason the establishment, including (or especially) NuLab, was so much against it. Sorry, chaps, the idea may be here to stay now.
Thirdly, because we might be needing a nationalised bank. The existing cartel of cut-throats are currently saying that they must be allowed to charge people what they like for the occasional overdraft (illegal though the current charges are), otherwise they may have to charge everybody for having an account at all. Now this isn't on. We don't "choose" to have a bank account, we effing well have to, because employers won't pay our wages in any other way. A few years ago, when working in the public service, I enquired, not entirely seriously, whether I could have my monthly salary in cash in a brown envelope. Not that I was really on for paying my leccy and phone bills personally in cash, but still. If the bastard banks are going to charge us by the month for running our accounts, there needs to be a simple alternative, no doubt with a limited service and possibly without overdrafts, which will do what 90% of us want for free. Why can't Northern Rock be that?
George Trefgarne, writing in this week's Spectator, disagrees with me. The government bail-out of Northern Rock, he says, has created "moral hazard", which means encouraging other banks to behave just as irresponsibly in the knowledge that the government can't really let them swing in the wind. "The bosses of every high-street bank comparable to Northern Rock now know that however bad their decisions, however risky their speculations, they will be bailed out by the government. If things go wrong they can simply resign, having amassed millions in bonuses and share options over the years, as Adam Applegarth, the ex-Northern Rock chief executive, did before Christmas."
Trefgarne, though a Tory, is dead right. The cunt's got clean away with it. And we all know that the main reason for the run on the bank was that everyone assumed, no doubt rightly, that if things went tits up then Applegarth and his cronies would have grabbed all the remaining money and told the depositors "sorry, nothing left for you!"
It is here that my thoughts drift off to the ancient Icelandic legal system, whereby people who behaved like that were sentenced by a popular assembly to outlawry, i.e. anybody who had suffered at their hands could go and knock them off without legal penalty.
In the same cultural context, I am reminded of an episode in the Icelandic saga of Njàl, where the house of Njàl and his delinquent sons is surrounded by hundreds of enemies and burnt down over their heads. I think that there is a connection here to Adam Applegarth. I hope I find out his address one day.
Thirdly, because we might be needing a nationalised bank. The existing cartel of cut-throats are currently saying that they must be allowed to charge people what they like for the occasional overdraft (illegal though the current charges are), otherwise they may have to charge everybody for having an account at all. Now this isn't on. We don't "choose" to have a bank account, we effing well have to, because employers won't pay our wages in any other way. A few years ago, when working in the public service, I enquired, not entirely seriously, whether I could have my monthly salary in cash in a brown envelope. Not that I was really on for paying my leccy and phone bills personally in cash, but still. If the bastard banks are going to charge us by the month for running our accounts, there needs to be a simple alternative, no doubt with a limited service and possibly without overdrafts, which will do what 90% of us want for free. Why can't Northern Rock be that?
George Trefgarne, writing in this week's Spectator, disagrees with me. The government bail-out of Northern Rock, he says, has created "moral hazard", which means encouraging other banks to behave just as irresponsibly in the knowledge that the government can't really let them swing in the wind. "The bosses of every high-street bank comparable to Northern Rock now know that however bad their decisions, however risky their speculations, they will be bailed out by the government. If things go wrong they can simply resign, having amassed millions in bonuses and share options over the years, as Adam Applegarth, the ex-Northern Rock chief executive, did before Christmas."
Trefgarne, though a Tory, is dead right. The cunt's got clean away with it. And we all know that the main reason for the run on the bank was that everyone assumed, no doubt rightly, that if things went tits up then Applegarth and his cronies would have grabbed all the remaining money and told the depositors "sorry, nothing left for you!"
It is here that my thoughts drift off to the ancient Icelandic legal system, whereby people who behaved like that were sentenced by a popular assembly to outlawry, i.e. anybody who had suffered at their hands could go and knock them off without legal penalty.
In the same cultural context, I am reminded of an episode in the Icelandic saga of Njàl, where the house of Njàl and his delinquent sons is surrounded by hundreds of enemies and burnt down over their heads. I think that there is a connection here to Adam Applegarth. I hope I find out his address one day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
