...one of the most stressful activities known to man, they say, just as bad as getting divorced, though having moved twenty-four times and got divorced once I have to say that the latter was worse than all the former put together. And cost more, too.
But it was duly horrible all the same. And somehow two of my best tweed jackets disappeared in the middle of it.
Most Amusing Moving Anecdote: the Iron Buddha somehow deciding to put a tube of superglue in the back pocket of her jeans and forgetting about it. Several hours later the fact of her arse getting stuck inextricably to her clothing was very funny indeed, provided one was wearing a cricket box.
Friday, 11 July 2008
Not-so-hard Labour
Well, the Government's in the brown stuff (hardly a hyper-perceptive or original observation). That they're strapped for cash is something I could work out entirely from the state of my e-mail inbox, as I'm still (and will remain) a member of the party, and they're even more assiduous about trying to tap me for cash than the Enormous Oafs.
Well, let 'em whistle for it, one might say. What the hell have New Labour ever done for me or anyone I care about? But then I saw the leader in today's Times, begging the rich bastards who utterly corrupted Tony Blair to carry on financing the party, so they can utterly corrupt the next few leaders too. After all, the alternative would be to leave the party in the hands of the trade unions (who already provide, er, 88% of its income, and we don't want it any more heavily influenced than that). Heaven forbid that the Labour Party should be overly influenced by working class organisations - much better to keep it as a lackey of bankers and non-doms, so that at each election the main parties can try to outbid each other as to which can get its tongue further up the Russian mafia's arse?
(Incidentally, that's why I don't buy the line of many left-wingers whom I otherwise respect and agree with, that we should regard Nu-Labor like Dracula regards a crucifix. If another movement rises up and gets the unions behind it, then it has my full support. Until then, whatever the ideological objections, we have to stay with what we've got. Hence my continuing receptivity for Labour blagging initiatives.)
If the rich decide they're better off with the Tories (and if they don't, it's a disgrace) we should pull out of the competition, and adapt our manifesto to however much of the union agenda we can win an election on. But we won't win anything on a platform of saying yah-boo, watered-down Islamism, and agreeing that people sitting in offices all day are doing a proper job of work and shouldn't be taxed.
Well, let 'em whistle for it, one might say. What the hell have New Labour ever done for me or anyone I care about? But then I saw the leader in today's Times, begging the rich bastards who utterly corrupted Tony Blair to carry on financing the party, so they can utterly corrupt the next few leaders too. After all, the alternative would be to leave the party in the hands of the trade unions (who already provide, er, 88% of its income, and we don't want it any more heavily influenced than that). Heaven forbid that the Labour Party should be overly influenced by working class organisations - much better to keep it as a lackey of bankers and non-doms, so that at each election the main parties can try to outbid each other as to which can get its tongue further up the Russian mafia's arse?
(Incidentally, that's why I don't buy the line of many left-wingers whom I otherwise respect and agree with, that we should regard Nu-Labor like Dracula regards a crucifix. If another movement rises up and gets the unions behind it, then it has my full support. Until then, whatever the ideological objections, we have to stay with what we've got. Hence my continuing receptivity for Labour blagging initiatives.)
If the rich decide they're better off with the Tories (and if they don't, it's a disgrace) we should pull out of the competition, and adapt our manifesto to however much of the union agenda we can win an election on. But we won't win anything on a platform of saying yah-boo, watered-down Islamism, and agreeing that people sitting in offices all day are doing a proper job of work and shouldn't be taxed.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Resumption of wartime situation
Enormously sorry, but the truce with my ex-wife has not held. Out of sheer exhaustion with all the crap, total distrust in the family courts, and the hope of relieving the pressure on my sons, I agreed in March to a totally inequitable dispute resolution in which I paid out a large amount of money when I didn't believe I owed her a bent farthing.
For the third or fourth time in this saga, a show of friendliness by me has resulted in my getting kicked in the wotsits. I got a real one-two this week; firstly, I discovered that she was not prepared to put a penny towards the Enormous Oafs' university expenses, and secondly I discovered that she had set the Inland Revenue on me (see earlier post). One or the other might have been acceptable, but both together....I have the choice of letting the Oafs starve (or at least go short of beer) or running fast out of cash myself, with the help of the taxman. I shall of course choose the latter course, even though I can't expect either of them to recognise the truth of the situation - it would be too painful. Nor will I extend myself in imaginative invective about the woman - the Oafs wouldn't like it. All I can say - and I'll only say it once - is that if anyone calls either of them a son-of-a-bitch, they won't really be able to deny it.
For the third or fourth time in this saga, a show of friendliness by me has resulted in my getting kicked in the wotsits. I got a real one-two this week; firstly, I discovered that she was not prepared to put a penny towards the Enormous Oafs' university expenses, and secondly I discovered that she had set the Inland Revenue on me (see earlier post). One or the other might have been acceptable, but both together....I have the choice of letting the Oafs starve (or at least go short of beer) or running fast out of cash myself, with the help of the taxman. I shall of course choose the latter course, even though I can't expect either of them to recognise the truth of the situation - it would be too painful. Nor will I extend myself in imaginative invective about the woman - the Oafs wouldn't like it. All I can say - and I'll only say it once - is that if anyone calls either of them a son-of-a-bitch, they won't really be able to deny it.
Been watching a Channel 4 Dispatches programme called "It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim" about unjustified attacks on harmless Moslems after 7th July 2005. Fair enough, I thought; and when all the manufactured stories in papers like the Daily Express, showing completely bogus headlines aimed at working up anti-Moslem prejudice, I quite agreed that all the prejudice should be directed towards the complete ostracism of everyone who reads the Daily Express (and any other crap paper).
But then I thought; Yes, the vast majority of Moslems are quite OK, and should be protected from ill-directed prejudice. There are, however, a smallish minority of Moslems who are trying to pull the others into the pro-Al Qa'eda line. And a lot of moderate Moslems, who are the main targets of these people, must know who they are. And we want their heads on a plate, or at the very least their names on a list. I'm sorry, but moderate Moslems who won't grass the bastards up should not complain if they get targeted too. After all, we kill them without hesitation in Afghanistan; why do we let them get away with it in Accrington?
But then I thought; Yes, the vast majority of Moslems are quite OK, and should be protected from ill-directed prejudice. There are, however, a smallish minority of Moslems who are trying to pull the others into the pro-Al Qa'eda line. And a lot of moderate Moslems, who are the main targets of these people, must know who they are. And we want their heads on a plate, or at the very least their names on a list. I'm sorry, but moderate Moslems who won't grass the bastards up should not complain if they get targeted too. After all, we kill them without hesitation in Afghanistan; why do we let them get away with it in Accrington?
Saturday, 5 July 2008
It smells of.....victory
Some of the papers - those who are allowed by their readers to do so - are indulging in bouts of unbridled optimism concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It might all be rubbish, but it's quite exhilarating, and either way it involves an awful lot of dead Islamists - the best kind. It could be that the Taliban and al-Qa'eda may be pushed back to their last redoubts. But will the Paras and the 101st Airborne be allowed to launch the final assault in Lancashire?
Ex Africa semper aliquid crappy
When are we going to be allowed to say what we really think of African so-called “leaders”? We know damn well what we all thought of last weeks “African Union Summit”, starring “President” Robert Mugabe. What a revolting bunch of twats, preening around in suits that were certainly not made in the continent which competence forgot, any more than the cars they swank around in were. The whole summit reminded me of an old Foreign Office joke:
Q. Could a summit of African leaders possibly solve the problems of the continent?
A. Depends how big a bomb you planted under it.
"President" Omar Bongo of Gabon (a name no novelist would have got away with making up) then said that Mugabe had become rather a "hero" to the other wankers present for defying the white man. This is so clearly a fourteen-year-old's response. Why should we respect it just because Mr Bongo is black?
African "leaders" are slightly worse news for the continent than the HIV virus, and it is time both were eradicated.
We saw a photographer trying to get a shot of the Mugger being pushed away by an accompanying goon, who said “He’s a head of state! You can’t do that to him! Is it just ‘cos you’re a white man? I mean, you’re mad!” Of course anyone casting the slightest slight on a black mass murderer is purely motivated by racism.
The people who really are purely motivated by racism are those like the International Cricket Council, who aren’t even prepared to suspend Zim from international cricket, saying that sport should not be influenced by politics. I mean, how long are these people’s memories? Or rather, is there any limit to the racism these people are allowed to get away with you because a lot of them aren‘t white? The world of cricket actually achieved something by closing ranks against South African cricket purely on the grounds of its politics; the referendum on change in 1992 was decisively influenced by the fact that SA were then in the semi-final of the World Cup and would have been slung out if they’d rejected the changes. But Mugabe’s black, even if his victims are too, and so he’s all right. Racist scum.
And then you get the Anglican Churches of Africa, who perhaps aren’t racist but just hate homosexuals. This, of course, has nothing to do with the Bible, though some of the obscurer bits of the Good Book are cited as an excuse. African sexual culture’s rejection of gays is the flip side of a dumb macho celebration of fantastically promiscuous unprotected heterosexual screwing around, which has left the whole continent awash with AIDS. For me the leading light of the Church of Jesus Christ, Queerbasher, the Archbishop of Nigeria, will always be Bishop “AIDS” Akinola.
No doubt African culture has several good things to teach us (though just at the moment they fail to occur to me) but attitudes to sexual morality are certainly not among them.
Q. Could a summit of African leaders possibly solve the problems of the continent?
A. Depends how big a bomb you planted under it.
"President" Omar Bongo of Gabon (a name no novelist would have got away with making up) then said that Mugabe had become rather a "hero" to the other wankers present for defying the white man. This is so clearly a fourteen-year-old's response. Why should we respect it just because Mr Bongo is black?
African "leaders" are slightly worse news for the continent than the HIV virus, and it is time both were eradicated.
We saw a photographer trying to get a shot of the Mugger being pushed away by an accompanying goon, who said “He’s a head of state! You can’t do that to him! Is it just ‘cos you’re a white man? I mean, you’re mad!” Of course anyone casting the slightest slight on a black mass murderer is purely motivated by racism.
The people who really are purely motivated by racism are those like the International Cricket Council, who aren’t even prepared to suspend Zim from international cricket, saying that sport should not be influenced by politics. I mean, how long are these people’s memories? Or rather, is there any limit to the racism these people are allowed to get away with you because a lot of them aren‘t white? The world of cricket actually achieved something by closing ranks against South African cricket purely on the grounds of its politics; the referendum on change in 1992 was decisively influenced by the fact that SA were then in the semi-final of the World Cup and would have been slung out if they’d rejected the changes. But Mugabe’s black, even if his victims are too, and so he’s all right. Racist scum.
And then you get the Anglican Churches of Africa, who perhaps aren’t racist but just hate homosexuals. This, of course, has nothing to do with the Bible, though some of the obscurer bits of the Good Book are cited as an excuse. African sexual culture’s rejection of gays is the flip side of a dumb macho celebration of fantastically promiscuous unprotected heterosexual screwing around, which has left the whole continent awash with AIDS. For me the leading light of the Church of Jesus Christ, Queerbasher, the Archbishop of Nigeria, will always be Bishop “AIDS” Akinola.
No doubt African culture has several good things to teach us (though just at the moment they fail to occur to me) but attitudes to sexual morality are certainly not among them.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Someone has shopped me to the tax...
And I've a pretty good idea who it is - and now all bets are off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
