Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Pollymath

From here:

Bonuses that hit an epic £14m last year may drop this year,


I think you may be out by a small thousand-fold. An excellent achievement, even by your standards (although Bishop Ussher still, for me, holds the record at over 800 thousand-fold.)

but not because managers or CEOs are doing their job less well. Sub-prime mortgage lending in the US is hardly their fault. This will show that the "performance-related" bonus culture is nonsense.


Err, nonsense. It could be either because companies have less profit (possibly) because of the general market conditions, therefore (quite rightly) less in the bonus pool or because bonuses may be tightly linked to share price, therefore the general fall in the market does actually count as "doing their job less well" (their job being to increase the market value of the shares) even if it is "hardly their fault".

Update: Edited to correct my math - £14b is not 1000% of £14m, it is 100,000% - therefore her error is 99,900% rather than my initial 999%.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Academics on Age

Ming the clam is 'oldest animal'.

A clam dredged up off the coast of Iceland is thought to have been the longest-lived creature discovered.

Scientists said the mollusc, an ocean quahog clam, was aged between 405 and 410 years and could offer insights into the secrets of longevity.


Of course, the good academics of Bangor University weren't thinking, at all, of the quite-possibly-a-wee-bit-too-old-for-his-comrades MP for North-East Fife? No. Surely not.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Shock and Awe

Johann Hari speaks great sense (he may have been under the influence when he wrote this):

If Christian fundamentalists were doing this – as they used to, and would like to again – none of us would hesitate in erupting in rage. But because Islamic fundamentalists are doing it, we feel awkward, and fall silent. The difference is the colour of their skin. There's a word for this: racism.

Read the rest. There should be one law for all and it should be impartial - race, religion, sexual preference, riches and all.

Counterfactual

Not as egregious as her but (a letter in today's Scotsman, regarding the Gould report - may appear here eventually - try here, bottom letter):

Everybody to blame but nobody accepting blame. I understand former prime minister Neil Kinnock was involved with the company supplying the electronic counting machines that had a part in contributing to the shambles. As the machines were not fit for purpose has the government been refunded for the contract?

Sheila Clark
Dean Park Crescent
Edinburgh


Now before I ask our Greek friend to go and administer a little correction to reality, I have three questions for your good selves:

1. Given the list of people (leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties) who, post the election of Maggie, could have filled the role of Prime Minister (note the capitalisation), did Sheila pick the worst one to promote?

2. Why the hell did the Jockman print this without noting the error?

3. Do any of us think that a government contract would allow refunds for mere 'unfit for purpose'? For examples, the SA80, the Scottish Parliament building, almost any computer system but particularly the CSA ...

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

You couldn't make it up ...

We know that the government despises the Armed Forces and begrudges every penny (of ours) they have to spend on people or kit, we know that recruitment is so difficult that large numbers of Commonwealth citizens are now in the British Army (mostly) - yet numbers are still falling.

And now look at this:

Where a member of our Armed Forces is medically discharged as a direct result of injury sustained during operations, the requirement for them to have completed four years service in order to qualify for settlement will normally be waived.

If any cases of service men or women being refused settlement are as a direct result of injury sustained outside operations, we will look at them on a case-by-case basis.

Remembering that, for the Home Office (as deportation after deportation to evil regimes has shown) 'on a case-by-case basis' means 'repeatedly denied at endless levels of bureaucracy so that you give up before you get to court where we might be forced to obey the law'.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

That's Fine Thanks

For supporting the incompetent Jockanese Nu-Lab monkeys through their first taste of not-quite ultimate power:

His one attribute was that he had a very catchy nickname 'Ming' at least we in Scotland know what 'ming' means don't we.


Now, for a self-appointed champion of political correctness, Our Hero is quick to abandon this when it comes to his no-longer political friends. Now, if I was to call Wendy of the ilk of Alexander a "deeply despicable cunt of buffalo-faced imbecility", the only difference between Terry and me would be my reliance on overt comment rather than obscure innuendo. Right or wrong, that makes me honest (ha, ha) and him a two-faced socialist spunk-rag (Duh!)

Monday, October 15, 2007

An American Trys (and Fails) Metaphor

Checking Pat Condell's ever insightful Liveleak video blog, I noticed a comment from "The Angry American":
The only question is how many times will you need to be hit in the head before you realize that you’re on fire?
Err, what? I understand vaguely what he is trying to get at but how about "how hot does it need to be before you realize that you're on fire?" or "how many times will you need to be hit in the head before you realize that telling your girlfriend that 'No, it's your bum that makes itself look big, not the dress' was a bad idea"?

Friday, October 12, 2007

Fighting Talk?

Shotgun and I clearly do not agree on everything but, in this case the Iraqi employees campaign - hence his comments on this blog. His latest sets out his reasons, so let's try to respond ...:

The plight of British servicemen is only a small part of my objection to this shameless campaign.

The Iraqis must take respnsibility for their own people; why are we in any way to blame?

People may dispute just how much control the coalition currently allow the Iraqi authorities - more in the South East (i.e. the British sector) and North (the predominantly Kurdish areas) but, taking that aside, the people we are campaigning on behalf of are those who have been placed at significant risk because they have worked for the British Government (military or civil) or British sponsored or supervised sections of the coalition effort. It is the increased risk because of working for us that justifies the moral indignation - rather than the overall security in Iraq or any particular bit of it. Our moral obligations under the latter are also being ignored by the Government and the Immigration Service but that is an entirely different matter.

Resttlement could be achieved anywhere in Iraq, which is a very large place.

Iraq is, it has to be said, rather large. It is also composed of tribes and factions who really don't like each other, therefore resettlement into Baghdad for some-one from Basra may be more "from frying-pan into fire" than resettlement to a place of safety. There is also the issue that, as the UK Government, the only place where we have the right to offer relocation to is the UK. If people choose another location and can get (or we can facilitate) the appropriate permissions, that is clearly an option. However, first, we need to agree the moral imperative to assist and begin implementing it practically.
British soldiers must take complete and utter precedence; you may find this distasteful, but I would put British lives before Iaqis.

At no point did I (or have I heard anybody) suggest that the efforts on behalf of the Iraqi employees should take support away from British troops. I would find it difficult to do anything other than equate the value of a life with any other - and the responsibility of the UK Government is to its employees. That applies whether they are British or not, and whether they are military or not.
Where is the campaign, as vociferous and passionate as this, to bring British servicemen home?

Surprisingly, all over the place. Not, admittedly from me but that is because I believe that regardless of the wrongs and wrongs of the initial invasion, having made a mess of the country and its infrastructure, we have an obligation to help restore the Iraq to being a functional state.

This is an admission of defeat at a time when we should be trying to raise moral.

I disagree - no more that Operation Trident is an admission of defeat by the Met Police - it is doing something about a specific circumstance.
It is a serious and callous insult to previous British servicemen who have died and been injured to allow, and campaign, Iraqis into the UK because it is too dangerous for them in Iraq.

Is it? Most of the servicemen I have spoken to (admittedly, none of them had been killed in Iraq) support fair treatment for Iraqi employees at serious risk. If they don't feel insulted, why are you so insulted on their behalf? We also have to remember that it is also the families of the British employees at risk - operational service posts in Iraq or elsewhere are not accompanied - therefore there is a wider hazard to the locally employed civilians than too British servicemen - especially now that there are very limited deployments outside of the main Basrah Airport location.
What about other Iraqis? Hundreds die every month; are these not deserving?

Are they deserving of protection - certainly. Should people be campaigning for the coalition powers to keep trying to improve the rule of law throughout Iraq - certainly. What is the level of specific responsibility of the British government - less than for its current or ex-employees, in my opinion.

The same Iraqis under threat of death should be working for and protected by the new Iraqi authorities, and if they are not, why not?

And so on and so on.

Because the new Iraqi authorities have not fully established the rule of law in Iraq. We can argue about why this is - some will be the fault of the coalition, some the fault of foreign jihadis or governments. Many Iraqis, in government service, have loyalties to militias, tribes or other factions. Many do not yet have the training or equipment necessary to play their full part. Some, hopefully not many, are unwilling to risk their lives (although merely placing a police or Iraqi Army uniform on is quite a dangerous activity) to protect the British employees.

To suggest they must come to the UK because it is too dangerous for them in Iraq is probably the worst insult I can think of to British servicemen who are serving and have served in Iraq, and while you say tow wrongs don't make a right, which I agree with, it is still a wrong that shouldn't be added and built on from the original; let's not make the second wrong.

I can, without too much effort, think of many worse insults. I also believe that providing sanctuary (whether or not this is asylum, indefinite leave to remain, relocation to another safe country) is a moral responsibility for the GCF and his darlings who are at the head of the pyramid responsible, to a significant degree, for the risk of torture and death that these people face.

If you truly believe the rubbish in this campaign, then campaign as vociferously that we have been defeated and the troops should come home immediately. I don't see that there is a specific plight of these people, and don't believe there is one that exists above and beyond what already exists in Iraqs back streets and what everyone is subject to. Yes, they are targeted, but so are millions of others.

They are specifically targeted because of their status as current or previous servants of the Crown. Being barely able to speak English, I never had much contact with interpreters but Mark Brockway did. Look at his website, www.weoweittothem.com, for some details of the risks being currently run.

If you and others campaigned to have them resettled in Iraq, or the Jordan or where-ever, then fine I am with you, but back to the UK because it is to dangerous for them? I think that is unacceptable, and that is not an immigration view. Too many are using this as purely a campaigning issue for bloggers and don't care what the issue is, but it is a strong issue, and has raised their profiles, and that is what counts for them. (I don't include you in that)

It comes back to the responsibility of the British government. Clearly, in an ideal world, the generic we should be able to ensure the rule of law in Iraq and this problem would go away. That is not a practical short-term option (and part of that is due to piss poor planning by our and our allies governments). Therefore, we need another option and the one available in international law is refugee status & political asylum - and we can only offer these in our country. Hopefully, eventually, it will be safe for people to return but I want them to be alive to do so.

Some may be in it for less than 100% altruistic reasons but I haven't seen any evidence of this. Most of the bloggers concerned are micro-traffic people like me, or are already 'famous' for the depreciated definition of it as applies to bloggers: Manic, Justin, Rachel etc. Personally, I have not spent too much time peering into the souls of the bloggers concerned (and there wasn't nearly enough time in the pub after the meeting broke up.) From long conversations with Dan, and hearing Mark (who isn't a blogger), I am sure of their motives.

Oh yuck

What has this idiotarian done for Peace? Even if you agree with his cause, it is not "World Peace":
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

At least he did provide Senate support for the move from Arpanet to the Internet :)

Thursday, October 11, 2007

More On the Iraqi Employees

Well, I was there as were a number of bloggers (though work and illness did thin the field somewhat.) A number of MPs turned up and I will post some pictures when I can acquire an HDSD card reader :(

Dan would like to draw your attention to this:
Iraqi Employees: the next letter

Our Government is still proposing to abandon people to the death squads for having worked for the troops it sent, in our name, to Iraq.

The 'twelve month' stipulation is utterly unacceptable. In the Miliband statement, the Government committed itself to doing nothing to shelter people at risk from death squads for having worked for British soldiers or diplomats, unless they can prove that they have worked for the British for a continuous period of twelve months.

There are a lot of local employees who fled their jobs before 12 months precisely because they had been targeted, or who did a 6-month tour for one British battalion and were then told to go and work for the Americans, or who did 12 months or more with interruptions, or who the Army didn't give proper documentation too. Mark Brockway (former Sergeant-Major, TA Royal Engineers) said so, several times, at the meeting on October 9th; so did Andrew Alderson (Major, Yeomanry); so do the employees, and serving soldiers, who are in touch with them, or with me, by email.

This is indescribably shabby. It has to be changed.

The first letters to MPs worked. Telephoning the offices of MPs, I was frequently told 'They've written to the Home Office about it- they got all these letters from constituents.' So without the letters that you wrote, we wouldn't have had Brown's partial climbdown, which may at least save the lives of those hundreds of Iraqis who can prove that they worked for twelve months for us. Write another letter- or write your first- and we can save some more lives.

As before, bullet points for a letter are below. So is a form letter, but don't send it unchanged: adapt it a lot. It's just there to help people over writer's block. Again, be courteous when writing to your MP and put your full address including the postcode, to indicate that you are a constituent. If you don't know who your MP is, you can find out here. You should address letters to: (MP's Name), The House of Commons, Westminster, London. SW1A 0AA. When you get a reply, let me know (in comments, or to danhardie.blog@gmail.com ) so that we can see which MPs we can work with, and which need persuading.

Bullet points:

  • David Miliband's Statement on 'Iraq: Locally Recruited Civilians' of 9th October stated that Britain will help to resettle- in the wider Middle East, or in the United Kingdom- Iraqis who can prove that they have worked for this country's soldiers or diplomats for a continuous period of twelve months.
  • Hundreds of Iraqis have been targeted for assassination for having worked for this country. Some have worked for a period of twelve months exclusively for the British and can prove this. Some have not but have been pinpointed for murder anyway. We have a responsibility to save these people from being murdered for the 'crime' of working for the British.
  • There are a lot of local employees who fled their jobs before 12 months precisely because they had been targeted, or who did a 6-month tour for one British battalion and were then told to go and work for the Americans, or who did 12 months or more with interruptions, or who the Army didn't give proper documentation too.
  • Iraqi staff members must be given shelter not because of their provable length of service but according to whether they have been identified for murder by local death squads. This can be investigated on the spot by Army officers and referred rapidly to London: the process needs to start now.
  • Mr Miliband's statement did not mention the families of Iraqi employees. As Iraqi militias also murder the families of their 'enemies', we must resettle our employees' families as well. Mark Brockway, an ex-soldier who hired many Iraqis, estimates that we are talking about a maximum of 700 Iraqis to resettle: this country admits 190,000 immigrants net every year.
  • Iraqis have already been targeted for murder for having worked for this country. We will be shamed if we allow more to be killed for the same reason. Our soldiers, who are angry at this betrayal, and our diplomats, will be placed at risk if they gain a reputation for abandoning their local helpers.

Form letter:

(MP's Name)

The House Of Commons

Westminster

London. SW1A 0AA.

Your full name and address.

Dear (MP's Name)

As you will have read in the Times, Iraqis who have worked for British soldiers or diplomats are being targeted for murder by local militia. An unknown number have already been killed and more have been forced into hiding.

On October 9th, David Miliband's statement on 'Locally Recruited Civilians' in Iraq said that Britain would offer assistance with resettlement for Iraqis who had worked with British forces, but only if they could prove that they had worked for us for 12 months or more. This is effectively leaving hundreds of Iraqis, who have risked their lives for this country's forces, to the mercy of the death squads.

Mark Brockway, a former soldier who employed many Iraqis, told Channel Four News on 9th October that local staff often worked for six months for British units, during which time they were frequently identified as 'enemies' by the local militias. I believe that the Government has a direct responsibility for the safety of these people.

I feel that it is morally unacceptable that this country is following such a policy. I also believe it will endanger our soldiers and diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can I please ask you to write to the Foreign Office, and also to the Home Office which has charge of asylum policy, to ask why the Government is prepared to ignore the plight of hundreds of people who were placed at risk serving this country's soldiers.

Yours sincerely

The Government's responses (PM and Miliblogger) are politically disingenuous and inadequate. They need to do better and, as Alex says, the process for implementing any asylum or relocation is key.

BTW - Shotgun - we clearly disagree on this. You feel that concentration should be solely on the British troops, I feel that two wrongs do not make a right and that just because things could be improved for British servicemen in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is no reason to ignore the plight of local employees.

How Can We Make This Work?

From the BBC:
the book was protected by the defence known as Reynolds qualified privilege.

This allows the media to publish information, even if it turned out to be untrue and defamatory, provided the public had the right to know it and it was the product of responsible journalism.


This sounds like a sensible rule and I am sure I could increase my drinking sufficiently to meet the standard British definition of a journalist :)

Monday, October 08, 2007

Iraqi Employees Campaign - Update

Folks,

Dan wants you to think about this:

Gordon Brown may apparently be making a statement on Iraq to the House of Commons tomorrow afternoon (Ed - that's today, now) sometime after 2pm. He may or may not mention Britain’s Iraqi employees and the need of some of them for asylum. The Times article of Saturday promises nothing but gave the Government a big, positive headline: classic spin. I have always said, when writing to Jacqui Smith and other Ministers, that to pre-announce asylum for Iraqi employees before they’d actually been taken to safety would increase the risks to them and to the British soldiers who would have to evacuate them. I hope desperately that this won’t happen. I also hope that we will see a genuine promise of resettlement for all who are identified as being seriously at risk for having worked for the British in Iraq.

Brown may or may not promise this on Monday afternoon: frankly they have been so grudging that I doubt it. The Government are going to have to be pushed to do the right thing, so the meeting on Tuesday, October 9th is now more important than ever: we can win if we keep pushing. It’s at Parliament, Committee Room 14, St Stephen’s entrance, from 7-9pm. Invite your MP and come yourself.

I fully intend to be there, even if the GCF capitulates entirely (even if only to do my best to ensure that the rules in practice meet the spirit of the Parliamentary declaration). I may see you there.

Oh and, if you write for the Observer, Dan isn't a Doctor (MD or PhD) and has never claimed to be one ...

Update: Iain's favourite chipmunk has bounced us out of the room and the venue is now the Attlee Suite in Portcullis House.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

I suppose this

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, of the Islamic Medical Association, said: “To learn about alcohol, to learn about sexually transmitted disease, to learn about abortion, it gives us more evidence to campaign against it. There is a difference between learning and practising.

“It is obligatory for Muslim doctors and students to learn about everything. The prophet said, ‘Learn about witchcraft, but don’t practise it’.”

makes me a warlock. But without any STDs (as far as I am aware. Except marriage, of course.)

An Exciting Few Hours

Well, I wouldn't go as far as Tim (it sounds rather uncomfortable) but both the rugby results were somewhat interesting. Now if Scotland can just pull their collective finger out tonight and ...

Hard luck to Lewis - it will make Brazil very interesting.

Update: And it was just a bit too much for Scotland - still, the quarter-finals of the world cup is not too bad a showing.

Saturday, October 06, 2007

Well Done, England

I'll be honest (one of the few, it seems) and admit that I didn't think they had a chance against the Wallabies. Now all Scotland need to do is to beat Argentina tomorrow ...

Imminent Victory?

Is this a success for Dan and the campaign?

Has blogger-power claimed a UK political victory?

Will the practicalities of the implementation strangle the good Mr Webster claims will be announced?

Why is the GCF's administration leaking like a rusty colander?

Is there any point to Parliament any more?

Why is Murdoch mouthpiece thieving Dan (and others, but mostly Dan & Manic for the video)'s credit? Ed: oh, I know that one - it's because they're a spineless bunch of pathetic parasites.

Hundreds of interpreters and their families are to be given assistance to leave Iraq, where they live under fear of death squads because they collaborated with British forces. Those wishing to remain in Iraq or relocate to neighbouring countries will be helped to resettle.

After a two-month campaign by The Times, Gordon Brown is set to announce that interpreters who have worked for the British Government for 12 months will be given the opportunity of asylum in Britain.

The offer also applies retrospectively to interpreters who worked for the Government but have ceased to do so. Government sources have disclosed that a few hundred vital support staff would also be helped, although they declined to give details.


These questions, and more, will probably not be answered after the break :) We'll have to wait until Monday. Tuesday's meeting could be more of an all-out celebration than has been apparent. Just how much is Parliamentary fizz a bottle? I may just have to find out. H/t to Tim.

Oh and Lewis too.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Courage - a brief thought

I heard Madeline Bunting's "Thought for the Day" on the Today programme this morning and she was talking about the courage being shown by the Burmese protestors and that they will need to continue to show as so many of them are carted of to what I assume will be a harsh and miserable internment (as opposed to imprisonment as I doubt they will see any, never mind a fair, trial).

It got me thinking, which was probably not a good idea while driving and quite so early in the morning, about the difference between 'hot' and 'cool' courage. The former is the heroism of dramatic rescues and military exploits - the sort of efforts that win headlines and medals, the latter (and this is where I see the Burmese mostly fitting) is the much less lauded struggle to stick to your convictions or continue your efforts in continual pain or discomfort, cold and lonely nights, or omnipresent fear.

The sort of courage that, for example, the late Jane Tomlinson demonstrated so utterly.

Cnut of the Day

It has to be, and I realise that the day is yet young, Bob Ainsworth MP, to our great misfortune, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, for his semi-literate and wholly pathetic performance on the Today programme.

Bob, for your enlightenment:

1. "Playing Politics" - was the GCF's announcing the troop reductions yesterday to shift the media focus away from the Tory conference. Imagine how Prescott you could have been if Dave had visited either Basra or Helmand last week whilst you were gathered together in brotherly socialist solidarity. Despite Dr Fox's quite justified complaint, I can assure you that the military expect no better from our political masters.

2. "Despicable" - that was the GCF announcing 500 new reductions and cutting in 500 already announced. Admittedly, he has been playing that game for so long, in his previous tenure as King of Stealth Taxation, that it is probably too worn a path for him to divert from but it is, using the hopes of the friends and families of those deployed as a political football, utterly despicable and you are my "Cnut of the Day" for trying to defend it.

By the way - play the ball not the man and Humphries (I think) and Fox were both right that this should have waited until the parliamentary speech next week. Gordo didn't need to say nothing, he needed just to have left the policy announcements until the proper time & location.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

It's not about money, any more

We are all used to the Great Clunking Fist re and re-re announcing spending increases. He is now doing it with troop withdrawals:
UK troops in Basra are to be cut by 1,000 by the end of the year, Gordon Brown has said on his first visit to Iraq since becoming prime minister.

but, later on we see:
The figure of 1,000 troops includes 500 already announced in September as a result of the pull-out from Basra Palace, Downing Street said.

Of those, 270 are now back in the UK.

So, correctly, that should be "UK troops in Basra are to be cut by 500 by the end of the year, in addition to the 270 who have recently left and the 230 we have already announced". I would even give you (but clearly not Gordo) grace for, "UK troops in Basra are to be cut by 730 by the end of the year, of which we have already announced 230."

Now, this is just scummy - it was bad enough when he was conning us about the great tax'n'waste rip-off but this is people's lives (and the hopes of their friends and families) he is misusing for pathetically political ends.

Having said that, all it is for most of them is a swap of where to wear their desert-pattern DPM from the increasingly safe Basrah to the increasingly dangerous Helmand. That's the Queen's shilling for you :(

While I was away

Some obnoxious fat rich foreign football-crazed criminal has been employing a bunch of sociopathetic parasites to stomp on bloggers. Well, no, that would be dangerous. Some of us are armed.

And it's not the Chairman of Fulham ...

Actually, Alisher Usmanov, previously sniffing around Liverpool FC and now 23% shareholder in Arsenal, has been employing the London law firm of Schillings to stomp on bloggers' web-hosting providers. Okay, be fair to the scumbags various, 'provider': Fasthosts, enemies mine from long ago (UK web-host of choice for phishing and 419 scammers, if you must know) caved immediately. For details see here.

It is amazing that when faced with obviously criminal behaviour, Fasthosts will prevaricate unto the (possible) heat death of the universe but when they receive a lawyer's letter they scurry round in an appalling sycophantic manner and then manage to stupendously over-react (although, with my experience of their technical competence, this may just have been, "Now this looks like a pretty button, I wonder what happens if I press it.")

PS - and Google seem to have fixed their little language difficulty. Thanks.

Update - what this man says:

Monday, October 01, 2007

And upon my return ...

I find this sitting, waiting to be moderated:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Cumbernauld College Cnuts":

Independance is a diversion, it is NOT going to happen, or certainly not for very long, the SNP leadership are conning their voters.....
the EU will swallow them up as well..Welsh, Scottish 'independance are simply , distractions, (just like the Maddelaine case in the Media)divide and conquer policies...
How did Blair solve the Northern ireland troubles...he simply gave em both what they wanted....since within a few years it will not matter anyway, they will be eaten up by the EU...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
http://thewestminsternews.co.uk/
http://www.betteroffout.co.uk/sup01.htm
http://www.betteroffout.co.uk
http://www.brugesgroup.com/
www.eutruth.org.uk
http://www.european-referendum.org.uk/101-reasons.html
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_your_own_choice.htm
Note how none of this has ever appeared in the Press or on the News.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Anonymous to Surreptitious Evil at 11:20 AM

Slightly bemused, I re-read my post. I wasn't desperately polite about Tartan Nu-Lab, I thought Cumbernauld College should know something about Scots Law, and I was dismissive of the EU flag.

Now, I do realise that this is the blogosphere, so relevance (like spelling :) isn't of the greatest importance. But WTF? Anonymous, if you are reading this, what the hell were you on about? And it was 11:20 AM, so don't bother blaming the drink (if you're drunk then, and it isn't 1st Jan, it is you with the problem).
 
HTTP Error 403: You are not authorised to access the file "\real_name_and_address.html" on this server.

(c) 'Surreptitious Evil' 2006 - 2013.