Tag Archives: General

BBC Using Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act RIPA to track down licence fee dodgers | Newsblog

While I would not trust the Daily Vile Mail as far as I could throw the bastards, this bears looking at.

Alasdair Glennie and Harriet Arkell report in the Mail Online that the BBC has been using Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to track down television licence fee dodgers.

BBC Using Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act RIPA to track down licence fee dodgers | Newsblog.

An Orangutan Learns to Fish – The New Yorker

Orangutans are wonderful creatures. I am a firm supporter of the work the Orangutan Foundation UK does. We need to stop the removal of its habitat and work towards increasing the population before it is too late.

The word “orangutan” comes from a seventeenth-century Malay expression meaning “forest person.” Perhaps it’s time we learned again to see the person in the ape.

via An Orangutan Learns to Fish – The New Yorker.

There are other country specific charities that work to help the orangutans. If you do a websearch for Orangutan Foundation you may find one in your own country that you can support, or there is http://orangutan.org/, The International Orangutan Foundation

The New New Poor Law | Politics and Insights – kittysjones

Michael Gove has written: “For some of us Victorian costume dramas are not merely agreeable ways to while away Sunday evening but enactments of our inner fantasies … I don’t think there has been a better time in our history” in “Alas, I was born far too late for my inner era”.

A better time for what, precisely? Child labour, desperation? Prostitution? Low life expectancy, disease, illiteracy, workhouses? Or was it the deferential protestant work ethic reserved only for the poor, the pre-destiny of the aristocracy, and “the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate”?

via The New New Poor Law | Politics and Insights – kittysjones.

The Tree of Life: Triclosan in toothpaste: potential risks are not a “rumor” as arrogant Colgate official argues, but are something to worry about

You see, I thought, for reasons that are unclear to me right now, that the main issue with agents like triclosan was their use in kitchen counters and clothing and building materials. Well, it never even occurred to me that it would be in oral care products and thus purposefully introduced into the human body.

So I decided to check to see if my toothpaste had any in it. And, well, $*##. It did.

via The Tree of Life: Triclosan in toothpaste: potential risks are not a “rumor” as arrogant Colgate official argues, but are something to worry about.

Dear Dave and Nick…: The Indyref – forcing more accountability in Westminster?

The No result should be a trigger for a better country for all of us. Though I won’t hold my breath 🙁

Dear Dave and Nick…: The Indyref – forcing more accountability in Westminster?.

Ewan Morrison – YES: Why I Joined Yes and Why I Changed to No | wakeupscotland

The Yes camp have managed to make it seem like criticism of their politics is an attack on the individual’s right to imagine a better self. To do this, the Yes campaign has had to be emptied of almost all actual political content. It has had to become a form of faith.

And it’s not surprising – there is no way that the groups under the banner of Yes could actually work together; they’re all fighting for fundamentally different things. How can the Greens reconcile themselves with the ‘let’s make Scotland a new Saudi Arabia’ oil barons? How can the radical left reconcile themselves with the pro-capitalist Business for Scotland group? Or the L.G.B.T Yes Youth community find common cause with elderly Calvinist nationalists or with the millionaire SNP donor who backed Clause 28. Instead converts chant the same mantra – YES – to cover all the cracks between their mutual hatred. Debate becomes reduced down to one word and the positivity of that one word erases all conflicts and questions beneath a fantasized unity. YES. Yes also erases history, politics and reality. Yes means too many things and ends up meaning nothing. It’s silenced the conflicting politics within it to the point that it means little more than the euphoric American self-help phrase “be all you can be.”

via Ewan Morrison – YES: Why I Joined Yes and Why I Changed to No | wakeupscotland.

Tory Donors, NHS owners: What ‘gifting’ political parties can buy…. «

As our NHS is broken up around us, only a very few people will benefit. The rest of us will suffer without access to the medical support we need.

Tory Donors, NHS owners: What ‘gifting’ political parties can buy…. «.

My Review of Bra-Llelujah Bra

Originally submitted at Freshpair

No more bra lines, bulges, clasps, hooks or wires

"Underwire" lift without the underwire

Unique hosiery knit engineering offers the ultimate support and comfort

Designed to give you a smooth, sexy back

Straps distribute weight evenly and won&…

Almost Perfect

By Kayla from Somerset, United Kingdom on 6/2/2013

 

4out of 5

Cup Fit: Feels true to size

Band Size: Feels true to size

Pros: Figure-Flattering, Comfortable, Soft, Good Coverage, Washes Well, Good Support

Cons: Seams At Back Irritate

Best Uses: T-Shirts, sleep, Everyday

Describe Yourself: Geek, Comfort-oriented, High-end shopper, Mature, Practical, Disabled

Was this a gift?: No

Fabulous. I’ll buy more. The ONLY issue is that I have to wear them inside out. There’s a seam on both straps where they attach to the back band. Those seams manage to be at the most sensitive part of my back & cause intense irritation & itching. Wearing the bra inside out puts the smooth side of the seams against my skin instead. If the manufacturer could find a solution, the bras would be perfect & worth 5*.

This bra is one of the most comfortable I have found. The lack of clasps & few seams means that it feels comfortable against my skin & I don’t have to reach to put it on/take it off (the best way to put it on is to step into it and pull it up). I wouldn’t recommend it for cup sizes bigger than a D/DD if you’re looking for strong support.

Me at age 2 with Pippy

“OMG! Why do we pay people just for squeezing out another kid?!?”

I should probably stop “reading the comments” (those under certain online newspaper articles and blog posts). My BP goes up and the acid rises into my throat.

Regarding the Philpott case and the Chancellor’s comments I’ll just say that Osborne is a creep of the first order. There’s no natural justice in the world or he, IDS, Cameron and the rest of the bastards would soon experience the pain and stress that too many of us have to deal with every day – and without the cushion of insane wealth or “friends” to ease it for them. It won’t happen, but I can dream sometimes. Hey, I never, ever said I was a nice person. I can be kind, helpful, caring etc – also judgemental, bad-tempered, angry, grudging and vindictive. But not nice – ask my husband, he’s the nice one.

So, the Philpotts received Child Benefit for 11 children (two mothers, 5 and 6 children each)? And, apparently that’s a horrible horrible thing. To some people the idea of having that many children is so alien that it can only be explained by “They did it for the money!” I’ve heard this said about families with 5 or 6 kids where both parents are working and claiming no other benefits than Child Benenfit (until recently payable to, usually, the mother of every child in the UK).

So let’s examine the amazing financial benefit of “squeezing out another brat” as I have heard it termed (I have heard other terms used, some by people I still consider friends despite their seeming hatred for children – that’s another rant for another post). One thing every single person forgets when they cry “OMG! They were getting £8K* a year in Child Benefit!” is that each one of those kids has to be fed, housed and clothed. Each one has to:

– have a bath or shower regularly (utilities bill);

– be clothed adequately, now hand-me-downs used to be the way with large families but nowadys cheap clothes barely last through one child, so clothes & school uniforms for constantly growing kids, shoes and coats being the most expensive items – oh, laundry, more on the utilities bill;

– they have to be fed regularly, preferably with healthy food;

– have somewhere to live, so rent & rates on a large enough house to accomodate all of you (note: both women worked, so may have had to pay rates & at least part of rent depending on income);

– to be kept warm in winter – unless you want to force them all into the box room to keep warm by body heat a la the middle ages.

There is a lot more, but you get my drift.

Once you’ve paid all that…. you know what? Child Benefit per child doesn’t come anywhere close to covering what it costs to raise a child. So there’s no “extra” left to fund any kind of “lifestyle”. I don’t know what sort of “lifestyle” the Tories and their sycophants think someone who has to rely on a high level of benefits has – perhaps they should each swap homes and incomes with some of those that they are trying to dehumanise and turn into hate figures for people who are scared that they might be next.

*Calculations

£20.30 /week for first child

£13.40 for each subsequent child

Now, most calculations I have seen assume only one at eldest child rate, but I suspect each mother received her own Child Benenfit.

So, per week:

2 @ £20.30  = £40.60

9 @ £13.40  =£120.60

Weekly total = £161.20

x 52  = £8382.40