Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

August, 2010:

Taking French Leave of Our Senses…

I saw this on the front page of the Times today but, dear reader, you’re going to have to put up with the Mail version because I shall be arseholed with an Abyssinian disembowelling cutlass before I pay Murdoch a red cent.

Apparently the word on the street is that the Royal Navy will be pooling it’s resources with our Froggie chums.

Dear Sweet Jesus of the Bastarding Fuck! The French! The fucking French!

Have we ever once done well (when not fighting the garlic-munching degenerates) allied to the French? Ever? Try Mers-el-Kébir for example. The Frogulent types are still cut-up about that. Well, fuck ‘em! Those ships would have been handy at the time if Admiral Darlan had had the balls for the fight and the fight on the right side – little Vichy arsehole he truly was. But no! France just collapsed in 1940 like a soufflé in a cupboard, rolled over and let the Hun tickle it’s tummy. In over a thousand years of English history we have fought worse than the French but we have never yet managed (on a number of occasions) to have a more perfidious ally.

Oh, and I probably should add that Anglo-French carrier ops are totally different and we have no capacity for real inter-operability. Not that will matter a jot to that pair of prize cunts iDave and The Sarcophagus.

It’s a good thing Admiral Nelson is dead because this would fucking kill him.

Plane Sense

Only 7% of flyers are funding green energy projects to offset the carbon emitted on their flights, according to a survey.

A study of passengers at Stansted airport revealed that 93% of those questioned did not offset their flights. Ignorance cannot be blamed: 56% of those questioned by the Civil Aviation Authority knew what the practice meant.

Asked if they had taken fewer flights over the previous year on environmental grounds, only 9% of those asked said yes. Most of this 9% took one or two fewer flights. When asked if their choice of airline had been affected by how environmentally friendly they were, only 3% replied in the affirmative.

In total 318 travellers were surveyed in September last year, the most recently available figures. British Airways and easyJet, which both allow passengers to offset their flights directly on their websites, said that the number who chose to do so this year was “static” compared to last year, without giving more details.

I bet they didn’t. It’s been a flop has it not?

Carbon offsetting was first practised by individuals on a meaningful scale about five years ago in response to mounting concern over global warming. It fostered a new industry which set up green energy projects, mostly in the developing world, which consumers could fund to offset their emissions.

Can my nostrils detect the Dame Judi of epic corruption…

Initially, regulation of the new industry was lax and some projects were not properly audited to make sure that the claimed carbon emission savings were actually taking place.

Well knock me sideways with a wet haddock! If I am allowed to be cynical here then might I suggest that sounds to me like they these schemes were once run by shysters and are now run by different shysters with spurious qualifications. I have been on the receiving end of a “green audit” and it was 20% monkey bollocks and 80% non-disclosed filler. Wider still and wider shall thy Green be set!

Even though the carbon offsetting industry is now more professional, some environmentalists believe the principle is misguided.

Friends of the Earth said: “Carbon offsetting is a con – it encourages businesses and individuals to carry on polluting when we urgently need to reduce our carbon emissions. It allows people to develop the mindset that it’s OK to carry on polluting if green schemes in far-off locations make up for it.

Or, I suspect don’t. Comes to something when Johnnie Porritt’s Barmy Army of head-cases are disagreeing with how the Goreacle is funding his retirement. Anyway, at what point did CO2 become a “pollutant”. I issue a challenge. Open a bottle of Coke and inhale deeply over the top. Just do it and let me know if you drop dead suffering from violent convulsions. Or get your next of kin to do it. I’m waiting.

“The greenest thing holidaymakers can do is choose a location that is closer to home, that can be reached by coach or by train. The travel industry must do more to promote nearby towns, coasts and countryside, and the government must ensure rail is a fast, convenient and affordable alternative to flying.”

Oh, what evil rot! This is the real agenda. Keep the plebs on the bus trip to Bangor rather than let them go abroad and mess it up for the chattering classes in Tuscany. Also note the invocation of government – the cause and alas not the solution to most of our problems. Orville and Wilbur must be turning in their graves.

Fuel consumption. The combination of new materials, increased electrification, design and engines all lead to the expected reduction in operation fuel consumption of 20% compared to current aircraft of a comparable size.

Boeing calculates that the 787 will deliver fuel consumption of approximately 2.4 l/100 passenger-kilometers, assuming average modal load factors.

That I would suggest is pretty good. The aircraft business has generation upon generation relentlessly ratcheted down fuel consumption magnificently and I suspect the bus and train businesses can’t honestly say the same. That of course is one of the major reasons us proles can now get on planes and go places and don’t the Greens just hate that? They just hate aviation because they are luddites, snobs and evil control-freaks.

One of the concerns voiced about the advent of the new, more fuel-efficient aircraft (as well as its apparent popularity, as orders are outpacing analysts’ earlier projections) is the potential for a “rebound effect” similar to that seen with increases in fuel efficiency in light-duty vehicles—i.e., the decrease in fuel consumption (and thus, operating costs) leads to an increase in vehicle miles travelled.

You can’t win with these fuckers can you? You just can’t win. Boeing spent billions of dollars developing their new jet and now it’s too good so more people will be able to fly. You see the utter miserablist negativity at play here? It’s foul. Much of the aviation business is now seriously looking into even more efficient flying wing designs and presumably that is bad too. The Greens essentially do not want us to travel. Travel has, since time immemorial been a marker of and a requirement for progress and the Greens want that halted.

Truly they are inhuman.

They won’t take the skies away from me. Or it would appear 93% of all of us. The Greens can go fuck off and live in a yurt and worship Gaia or windmills or something. The world will get on fine without them. And what with the economic development of places like China, India and Brazil… Oh, bring it on!


A man who suffered severe brain damage after being given the MMR vaccine as a baby has been awarded £90,000 in a landmark ruling expected to pave the way for thousands of similar compensation claims.

Robert Fletcher, 18, was a healthy 13-month-old baby when he was given the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. He now suffers from frequent epileptic fits, is doubly incontinent and is unable to stand, talk or feed himself.

Obviously this is tragic for Mr Fletcher and his family but…

The Department of Health denied any link between his disabilities and the controversial jab, but a medical assessment panel ruled last week that Mr Fletcher became severely disabled as a direct result of the MMR.

That is a hell of claim. My understanding is that no serious study has shown MMR to be dangerous. I am now thinking of Arthur Eddington, the great astrophysicist. He had a dictum that one should never believe experimental results until they are backed by theory. He was right. Unless you have a physically viable mechanism you are merely correlating and correlation is not causation.

It is thought to be the first compensation award in an MMR case since the vaccine became a focus for controversy in 1998, when the now discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield claimed it could be linked to autism.

To call Wakefield “discredited” is somewhat of an understatement and to suggest that Mr Fletcher’s problems have anything to do with autism are totally irrelevant so what the now ex-Dr Wakefield’s work has to do with this is beyond me.

Medical legal experts said last night that the ruling could open the floodgates to thousands of similar claims by families who believe their children have been adversely affected by the jab.

The vultures are circling…

Dr Robin Moffat, president of the Medico-Legal Society, said: “I would have thought there will be a surge of actions as a result of this”.

“Today, everyone is money-conscious, and if a doctor makes a mistake they are all looking for compensation, and many of them get it.”

The vultures have landed…

Dr Malcolm VandenBurg, a medical legal expert, said: “One case like this makes other people think that they will be able to get a similar ruling. In the past, when there has been a first ruling of this kind, it has opened the door to others.”

… and are feeding.

Nadine Dorries, a Conservative MP who sits on the Commons Health Committee, said: “If an independent panel has reached the conclusion that there has been a link between the MMR vaccine and the brain damage suffered by this boy in this case, then it is fair to assume that there could be as many as thousands of children and parents in the same position.”

Enter stage left “Mad” Nad just to put the cherry on the top.

Mr Fletcher, from Warrington, Cheshire, requires round-the-clock care from his parents, who have been battling for compensation for 13 years.

His mother, Jackie, dismissed the £90,000 award as “derisory”, but said she was pleased to have been vindicated.

Mrs Fletcher set up and runs the pressure group JABS which is helping around 2,000 families who claim their children were harmed by the MMR with their struggles to win compensation.

Her first application for compensation under the Government’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme was rejected in 1997 on the grounds that it was impossible to prove what had caused Robert’s illness.

“Round the clock care” and 90 grand. That’s a pay-off. That in no way represents the cost of this man’s care. I shall not even dignify the “vindicated” here because there is too much of the scientist to me.

But her appeal was upheld last week. In a six-page judgement, the medical assessment panel wrote: “Robert was a more or less fit boy who, within the period usually considered relevant to immunisation, developed a severe convulsion… and he then went on to be epileptic and severely retarded.

“The seizure occurred ten days after the vaccination. In our view, this cannot be put down to coincidence.”

If not coincidence (and such things do happen) then what? Have we a mechanism here?

If not then the best bet is that it is coincidence. I hope to Hell this doesn’t re-ignite the whole MMR debate which should have been put out to grass years ago.

Put it this way. If I had kids I’d have them have the MMR vaccination. That. Simple.

Baby, it’s cold out there

From an excellent article in the Daily Bayonet on the climate change hysterics failures so far, and their tendency to blame everyone bar themselves:

Greens outspent skeptics, they had the ear of the political class, effectively demonized and even silenced opponentsand still it was not enough to convince the world that anything was wrong with the weather. It’s hard to think of any movement in history that enjoyed the funding, support and momentum that the greens once had and yet achieved so little.

Now the momentum is gone, shattered by the revelations that climate science is little more than guesswork and bad statistical analysis. Celebrities are moving on to other, more fashionable causes and soon the only people left to rail against skeptics will be the ones with reputations or fortunes so heavily vested in their global warming theory that they can never retreat.

Admittedly, that final bit doesn’t apply right now to Europe, the EU and its subsidiary governments seem to have been captured outright by the hysterics, and Australia may follow soon, but I suspect that will be their final victory, the high tide of their influence. Hell, even without an emissions trading scheme and home grown carbon pricing Australian electricity prices are due to double over the next half decade as a result of the renewable energy scam mandates.

Amazing isn’t it, how the ‘left’ are so desperate to push their supporters into unemployment and poverty. Thing is, those supporters are getting to know it.

Anyway, the BRIC states, South America? Asia? You think they are doing more than mouthing platitudes? Now that the USA can be counted on to do nothing more than token gestures you think even the more gullible bits of the West will keep the whole thing going? In the face of the rest of the world laughing at them? Jesus Christ, it’s nearly a decade since we saw the last hint of warming; they just can’t keep up the charade much longer.

Take heart people, sanity isn’t dominating the airwaves yet, but it’s still winning.

Seeking advice

Now, I’m a bit of a Joss Whedon fan, but I never watched Firefly when it was on. Should I make the effort now? Is it worth it?

Homo Heroes

I have a leaflet from the LGF (Lesbian and Gay Foundation) in front of me that I picked up at Piccadilly Station in Manchester yesterday. They were being distributed by British Transport Police because it’s Manchester Pride weekend. It is entitled “Homo Heroes” and asks people to vote for their erm… homo hero. It briefly profiles the current “top pollers” and lists the rest of the nominees. They are to quote Huck Finn “all too various” (I thought of calling them a “rum collection of buggers” but that’s a cheap shot even for me). Any list that allows you to choose between voting for Alexander the Great or Christopher Biggins is truly bizarre.

Anyway, of the current front-runners these three caught my attention…

1. Alan Turing. Both Cats and I have recently posted on science and gender or racial identity recently. I suppose sexual orientation can be chucked into the mix as far as the game of “Great Scientists Identity Politics Poker” is concerned. Turing was treated abysmally because of his sexual desires but I think he’d be surprised to now be seen almost more as a gay icon than a towering figure in mathematics, cryptanalysis and computation. Turing was no crusader or martyr – just very unlucky and rather naive. If he had returned to Cambridge after the war rather than take-up a readership at Manchester his homosexuality would have gone completely unnoticed. Manchester of course was building a computer (arguably the first complete one) – how could Turing say no to that? I guess this spells out one of the dangers of identity politics – it can become very easy to see the identity and not the achievement. In the case of Turing, “A great man being hounded to suicide for his sexual orientation” is an easier meme to metabolize than sitting down and reading his stuff on the Entscheidungsproblem.

2. Lindsay Lohan. From the sublime to the ridiculous. Apparently Ms Lohan has a girlfriend. Yeah. Right. Whatever. She’s also famous for something or other.

3. Tony Blair. Yes, Dear reader, you read that right. Apparently Blair is sitting pretty in this poll (more votes than Peter Tatchell!) Ye Gods upon Olympus! Yes, that Tony Blair. OK, his government equalised the age of consent but, but, but… Any conceivable government would have done the same thing at the time (correct me if I’m wrong here) this was because the differing ages of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex were in contravention of various Euro “thingies”. Blair getting credit for what was essentially a fait accompli is very Tony. Moreover that was just one thing his government did over all those years. Has the gay “community” completely lost it’s senses? He did other things too you know – things that have had a negative impact on everyone in this country whether gay, straight or whatever. One swallow does not make a spring and all that. At least Lord Mandelson isn’t on the list. I suppose because to qualify to as a potential “Homo Hero” you at least have to be “Homo” in the sense of belonging to the same genus as the rest of us and that can hardly be said of Mandy. I never fussed too much over Mandelson liking boys as much as him eating flies that he caught with his prehensile tongue when no one else was looking.

Pat on the Mosque

Do they have a right to build it?

Of course they do.

Is it a deliberate act of bad faith, a provocation and an insult?

Just consider its original name, The Cordoba House Mosque; of course it is.

Cordoba? Well, losing Iberia is one of Osama’s pet whinges, reconquering it one of his pet objectives, as it must be to all devout Muslims.

But, that’s Islam for you.

Anyway, here’s Pat. Still not funny, but blunt and passionate.

Oz explained

Fun and games here in Oz this month.

You may have heard, we had an election, and guess what? No one won.

Our situation is even worse than the UK tho, there seems to be no conceivable grouping to establish a stable government. Neither the Government nor the opposition can form a workable majority from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam the electorate threw up, and I mean the last description advisedly.

The Government is the Australian Labor Party – otherwise known as the ALP, centre left but spanning a broad spectrum and with a leader from the hard, very hard, left. If the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, could get away with it she would probably come out as a committed communist.

OT warning: And yes, in Oz labour is spelt with a ‘u’, with the exception of the Labor Party. And that in itself is a great story, all down to an itinerant 19th Century American conman with a wonderful name. We can blame him for Canberra as well.

Anyway, the opposition, the Liberal Party in permanent coalition with the National Party, is a strange fish indeed. The Libs are an urban party with truly liberal economic views and both conservative and liberal social ones. The Nationals are rural, the party of the bush and very socially conservative. They are protectionist and a party of rural socialism – all about subsidising farming and rural life.

These two parties have been in coalition together, both in government and opposition, for nearly sixty years.

As I said, weird.

So what’s left? The Greens have a single MP, brand new, Marxist, a new age nut job and hasn’t even polished his shiny new seat yet, and a gaggle of independents who all seem to be ex Nationals, although their unexpected and unprecedented influence seems to have driven them power mad.

Neither the ALP nor the Coalition control the Senate, there the Greens will hold the balance of power. The Greens? Sigh, these guys are an interesting lot all on their own. They are their own coalition, made up of sentimental bunny huggers, or, this being Australia, koala huggers, and hardline Stalinists who sniff an opportunity; just like the UK in fact. My forecast? Over the next decade the huggy tendency will be marginalised by the Stalinists – they being the better organisers. Regardless, their published policies call for the Australian economy to be bulldozed flat, and foreign policy to be stuffed sideways.

So, whomsoever forms government, no legislation will pass the Senate without the support of either the opposition or the real nutcases.

Whee. Fun and games there.

In the House of Representatives? Where the government is formed? Well, the ALP, the current government, has 72 seats, the Coalition has 73, Greens 1 (Marxist and new age idiot remember) and independents 4.

So, no workable majority for anyone without the independents, even with a red/green (but I repeat myself) partnership. Now three of these guys are the ones who couldn’t get along with their mates in the Nationals, and left; obstreperous and conservative but rural socialists nonetheless. They are making all sorts of demands that no sane government could go along with, but it looks as if the ALP is more willing to pander to them than the Libs/Nats.

If you are interested, read this for a hoot.

So, my guess? A jerrybuilt government, a sort of formalish ALP and Green relationship, along with tacit support from the independents. That’ll be great, as stable as a bamboo lean-to in a hurricane, the people who voted Green because they are the nice party will get a good solid dose of reality, and Gillard, already haemorrhaging authority and credibility, is coming over as a weak negotiator who will suffer any humiliation to keep power.

Tony Abbott, leader of the Libs, is showing a bit more principle and comes out of this smelling of roses. Despite having one more seat his chances of carving out a solution are even worse than the ALP’s, but he did his job and shattered the government. So long as the new government is as rickety as it is shaping up, his chances of losing the next election are tiny.

And that election may be a week next Saturday.

Although Insha Allah, a few months of this comedy show will strengthen Abbotts hand and keep the nation amused.


Now we have this race obsessed dickhead:

I’m all for a bit less Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, Galileo and Copernicus, if it means a bit more McCoy, Banneker and Carver. It’s a question of balance. It’s important.

So, this bloke Muir wants us to study the scientists of the past based on their race? Their skin colour? Not their contribution?


Ok, take the first two, Newton and Darwin; why do we study them? Well, because they had some good ideas and helped create modern society, right?

Well, yes, I suppose they did, and that’s pretty much how they’re taught. No wonder this fool can dismiss them so casually. But there is another, even more valid reason to study them and their contributions – they were the two most influential people in all human history.


Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and On the Origin of Species, each, in their own way, changed the way all people think, across all cultures, for all time. Only those two frauds, Freud and Marx, come even close to the influence these two men have had. And no, I’m not forgetting about Big Mo, Confucius, The Buddha or anyone else; just discounting them as not in the same league.

You don’t agree? Then I suggest you probably don’t appreciate just how radically different was the world view of your recent ancestors.

The ones Muir suggests we study instead? Well, I read a biography of George Washington Carver about forty five years ago, and he seems to have been a fine and decent gentleman; and for his times that is praise indeed. The others? Never heard of them. Is that really racism? Or a justifiable acknowledgement of their importance?

Quite frankly, we don’t accord either Newton or Darwin the attention they deserve.

As for the rest of his crap about black history month? Well, uncle Morgan gets it.

We will never abolish racism so long as idiots like this keep ramming race down our throats. Far from helping abolish racial concerns, obsessive’s like Muir just keep exacerbating it. Making curriculum decisions for political reasons.

Runaway Horses

So… I’m on the phone tonight arranging a trip into town for Manchester Pride tomorrow and I hand it over to the missus to arrange the details with our mate (she’d spoken to him before on the subject). And he mentions – in passing – that he was there last night and that Belinda Carlisle was playing and that he “sort of recognised her from the ’80s”. The divine flame-haired temptress of my youth and she didn’t even leave a light on for me! Why do I feel like that time Homer Simpson failed to see Mr T at the mall? I pity the fool! The fool is me, alas.

Anyway, next weekend, there is an opportunity for me to see a joust, the Red Arrows and Alan Titchmarsh all on the same day at Chatsworth.

I’m not missing Mr T at the mall twice. That would look like carelessness.

I think I ought to draw the threads together here but I just can’t. Can you? I can’t… So take it away Ms Carlisle…

He’s not the Messiah…

“People were once comparing him (Obama) to Jesus Christ. On the economy he seems more like Moses; wandering around aimlessly, blaming everything on the Bush.” –Tim Slagle

From here. H/T to commentator Laird on this Samizdata thread.

Marie Who?

Two-thirds of the British public are unable to name a single famous female scientist, according to an ICM poll.

The same survey, organised by the Royal Society, revealed that 90% of 18-24 year-olds could not name a female scientific figure – either current or historical.

Almost half were able to name at least one famous male scientist, such as Albert Einstein.

The Royal Society’s Lorna Casselton described the results as “frustrating”.

I suspect the “gender gap” in these figures is essentially an artefact of the fact that there have been more famous male scientists than female ones. Yes, I do appreciate that that word “famous” is somewhat loaded due to it being at least as culturally determined as determined by genuine achievement but the fact remains that they were asking the public about fame rather than achievement. If we take that as an explanation for the “gender gap” then we are still left with, if true, two appalling facts. The first is that “famous” scientists aren’t that famous in Britain and that situation appears to be worse amongst the young.

I said “if true” that is shocking but I’m not sure I believe it is that bad (I hope not anyway) because you always have to be very suspicious of surveys conducted to an end – in this case encouraging more women into science. I mean there are lies, damned lies, statistics and statistics derived from surveys.

Going to the cats.

The England cricketer Graeme Swann told Nottingham police that he was on a mission to buy screwdrivers to rescue his pet cat from under the floorboards when they stopped his Porsche at 3am and charged him with drink driving.

I mean it’s got it all: a famous sportsman, a cat, a bizarre excuse to an arresting officer…

… And screwdrivers or rather the lack thereof. What self-respecting Englishman doesn’t have a set of screwdrivers in his abode? For shame! We may have exported cricket (or “organised loafing” as Matthew Arnold called it) across the globe but a large part what enabled that was the oily men in sheds with full tool-boxes rather than the loafing men on the pitch with boxes full of… if you catch my drift.

No wonder we’re in the state we’re in. If it was up to me anyone running for office in this country would have to demonstrate a practical skill – such as making a child’s model castle with a working drawbridge. Or something similar. Needle-work would of course be acceptable from the ladies and homosexuals. Just Imagine Peter Mandelson knitting an Arran sweater…

Dr Fox wields the axe.

Britain could be forced to “borrow” American warplanes for its new aircraft carriers as the Armed Forces’ core capabilities are eroded by budget cuts.

That means lease them. So I’m a bit vague as to the saving here exactly. It’s more that we’ll have to do something to save the embarrassment of having the ultimate floating white elephant (white whale?) an aircraft carrier without aircraft. If F-35B slips further or is cancelled by the US entirely. There are just two customers for F-35B – RN/RAF and USMC. I could seriously see Gates saving quite a few simoleons by scrapping the USMC fixed wing aircraft such as the AV-8Bs we’d be leasing or rather in this scenario buying – basically the same aircraft as the Harrier GR7/9 we’d be scrapping. These new carriers have not been thought out at all.

Furthermore, the Navy may lose its ability to put troops ashore in an amphibious assault.

Right… OK, so what precisely is the point of the Navy then? I mean that is surely one of their absolute key roles. Surely.

Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has said that, instead of “salami-slicing”, where pain is shared equally across the department, the cuts must be allocated strategically.

Within the context of defence cuts that makes sense. And I have previously argued that Trident might be the one big thing to go.

Defence sources have suggested this will result in the Forces giving up entire capabilities, like aerial surveillance and amphibious landing.

Those are two we can’t let go. Aerial surveillance is the oldest use of aircraft and still answers the fundamental question that has plagued commanders since time immemorial, “What is over that hill?” Now what I suspect they mean by aerial surveillance is Nimrod MRA-4 which at enormous expense and grossly late is just entering service.

Britain would have to rely on allies until the defence budget recovered, when these operations could be resumed.

Wishful thinking. Some of these are “use it or lose it”. It’s about skills not just kit and amphibious operations are by their very nature tricky things. Anyway, rely on allies! Like our EU “chums”? Like Obama’s USA? You know he might help out and send a boxed set or Region 1 DVDs from the Blockbuster bargain bin.

The cuts could also have serious implications for the Navy’s two new aircraft carriers, which will cost £5 billion and are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

Defence sources said at least one of the carriers was almost certain to be completed, but questions hang over the second.

We need at least two – what happens when our sole carrier is being re-fitted?

If the second carrier is built, it could be adapted to carry helicopters instead of jets.

Why if we are losing the amphibious assault role would we need such a thing? Moreover the carriers that the navy are desperate to retain in order to at least keep the pretence of being a blue water navy are about power projection and that very frequently is in support of amphibious landings.

A more radical option would see the second carrier shared with another country, most likely France.

There is a reason you only have one captain on a ship you know. That is madness! It is also of course a route to Euromil. They are bound to call it something dreadful like that. Forget single currencies and Schengen and all that jazz because once you lose control of your own armed forces you are a vassal.

The Treasury is understood to be budgeting for the cost of the carriers as empty hulls [I'd like to know exactly what they mean by that], and balking at the additional cost of planes to fly from them. A military source said: “The Treasury seems to think it’s quite normal to budget for aircraft carriers with no aircraft to carry. It’s rather bizarre.”

Just bloody typical.

To ensure both carriers are built, Navy chiefs are considering making several sacrifices. These include retiring Britain’s 45 Harrier jump jets ahead of schedule.

The Harriers, operated by both the Navy’s Fleet Air Arm and the RAF, are due to retire in 2018 and be replaced with new Joint Strike Fighters. But the jets could be retired earlier, saving more than £1 billion. That in turn could mean that the first carrier enters service in 2014 with no British aircraft to carry.

Or the “pub with no beer option” as I call it. Let’s go the whole hog and issue the army with guns but no bullets. We can just train them to shout “Bang!” very loudly at the enemy.

This is the permanent and complete evisceration of the British military. I might argue that the ministers and civil servants responsible ought to be lined up against a wall and then… er… do we still have the capability to shoot them?

Catholic Priorities

Well we all know about the cover-ups of sexual abuse over decades we thought it couldn’t get any worse…

But wait it does. It would appear the Catholic church is happy to collude with the British government to cover-up terrorist priests.

Oh, well, at least on his up-coming visit you won’t be able to take a vuvuzela to the Pope’s masses in Britain.

I guess one out of three ain’t too bad!

I’m almost hoping Ian Paisley turns up with his vuvuzela although that would shatter glass over a wider area than a suitcase nuke.

%d bloggers like this: