Protect him, someone protect him!

If you go to the woods today.

Whilst walking through Knighton wood I saw 4 ducks. 3 normal duck coloured and one brown. Brownie was a first sight leading the pack. It quickly became apparent that leading was actually being chased, purposefully.
Lucky ducky.
The frantic zig-zag-ing suggested something a bit more serious than an innocent game of
kiss chase. The largest duck coloured duck caught her. She tried to swiftly change direction but his
weight was too much. She was pinned to the floor.
The 'Prime Directive' prevented me from saving her, so I stayed to watch instead.
One of the other 'suitors' was not going to take sloppy seconds and fought with the large duck. The large duck stepped off brownie to sort out this pathetic rival. Brownie quickly saw her escape and started off away from fat arsed duck. Seeing this, lard arse re-mounted brownie. The self-interested knight resumed his attack.
Quite frankly this was ruinning the whole experience for fat boy, and he resigned himself to an afternoon swimming instead.
A brief respite for Brownie, but its better than gang rape. Then to my astionshment not only did the aggressive-'suitor' not climb on her neither did the voyeur. These weren't potential rapists they were Mum and Dad. Brownies honour has been saved and they lived happily ever after.

Its just not cricket

ICC have brought in bans on alcohol being brought into grounds, Walkers crisps, Coke (as in cola) and musical instruments. Why?
ICC seems to be changing its own remit. From an organisation to run the game, under a fairly standard set of rules, internationally to a micro managing monolith. Of course a tournament needs organizing so who better than the ICC to make decisions "Promoting and protecting the game, and its unique spirit."
"Promoting and protecting the game, and its unique spirit" here means generate loads of money for itself. Spend it all on bringing associate members to sufficient strength on the field that they can just get away with making them full members with voting rights. Do one sided matches promote the game? No. Does it protect the game? No. Must be part of its unique spirit then!
Its the 10 votes from full members on the ICC that actually runs the game. Or more preciously its who controls the majority of the votes, controls world cricket.
So who can be trying to gerry-mander the council then?
Well, lets take a look at the last two entrants Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Who benefits from Zimbabwe's inclusion. England tried to block there inclusion so I doubt its them. I understand India were big supporters of them. As for Bangladesh, aren't they in Asia somewhere? (Which countries are least impacted by the alcohol ban?)  Such a plan could only be carried out by someone so determined they would kill to get what they want.
So why has the ICC imposed these silly little rules and regulations? Because the ICC is to focused on "Promoting and protecting the game, and its unique spirit" instead of attracting people to cricket grounds.

Central Control of The Voters

So our beloved leaders are implementing the next phase of Project CCTV. Having installed a natonal  network of cameras they now want to install speakers on them so they can "deter anti-social behaviour". what is anti-social behaviour?

• urinating in shop doorways
• spitting
• using mobile phones
• careless walking
• putting hands in pockets
• wearing stripped clothing on a spots day

Who decides?( I so want that job)

In the near future they can connect the cameras to  face recognition software (which already exists).  Once the infrastructure to enforce curfews / track particular known "trouble makers" is in place it would be irresponsible not to use it. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. Its only criminals* that will suffer.
How much longer until we hear "for public safety a ban on all public gatherings, for a brief period of time, is regretable but  necessary" after some unpopular legislation.

Of course all this takes a lot of resources. How can the rulers afford it? I know, let the proletariats pay for their own prison. Brillant!
You might think even plebs aren't stupid enough to do that. Just tell them its to stop littering (or any other trival event that plebs care about) and they
will be begging to be controlled.

This country started going down hill when universal suffrage was introduced. The sooner we go back to having an elite ruling class the better for everyone!?

*criminal = person who has broken ruling class rules, not society rules.

What do we want: GMT. When do we want it: an hour ago!

Contrary to popular belief changing the time on clocks does not alter the amount of daylight in summer.
If you want to do things earlier than you normally do, then may I suggest you do things earlier, not move your clock. Are trains late or is it the wrong type of clock?
In an increasingly connected world then having an agreed standard time is required. But why then change that standard twice a year. They wouldn't change how much a kilogram weighs twice a year would they (I probably shouldn't give them ideas!) . What if they did it for colours. ROYGBIV=>OYGBIVR. Are football supporters meant to start singing "come on you oranges". Would supermarkets have to relabel there fruits yellows? so why time?
I'll tell you why. govt just likes to tell everyone what to do. Basically they are telling everyone to get up an hour earlier just so they can watch all their subordinates obey.
I WILL NOT CHANGE MY CLOCKS. GMT FOREVER.

Thy name is control.

So the thief has taken from the poor (<£18,000pa) so he can give it back upon application, subject to some social engineering. This means that an ever increasing chunk of society are going to have their
take home pay decided not by agreement between employer 
and employee but by the thief himself.
This is an incomes policy by any other name. They tried it in the 70s and it failed then. I wonder what is going to happen this time?

Playing politics with peoples' lives

So the Cypriot government wants to raise the birth rate in greek Cyprus. GBP23,000/baby for the third or more baby a woman gives birth to. Guess what enquiries at abortion clinics have risen by women wanting to wait for the payments to come in.
So the first effect of a government proposal to raise the birth rate is going to lead to more abortions!