In the 80s I would go along with my mum to various anti-nuclear protests and actions. They were always peaceful, non-violent protests. But we did cause inconvenience to the police, the MoD and the government and gave journalists something to focus on, using civil disobedience. It might not sound very revolutionary or exciting, but lying down in a main highway and linking arms with fellow protestors, playing dead when the police tried to pick you up, caused absolute chaos. They’d lost control of us.

Thatcher brought in laws around protests and made it illegal to congregate without a permit from the police and the local council. So now you have to plan it with the authorities for months, negotiate with them and abide by whatever rules they give you. They will tell you when you can march, which roads you may march down, what time you can hold a rally, and when it must all be over by so that normal life can resume. In other words they will allow you to protest, but don’t make a scene and don’t disrupt anything.

Which makes it all the more important to make a scene and disrupt things.

Take the anti-Iraq War demonstration… we all did what we were allowed to do, had a lovely day, and went home. The media was full of lovely images of hundreds of thousands of people making their way to Hyde Park that day. It was an incredible experience to be there. The idealogical side of me grew excited and thought that a government  couldn’t possibly ignore this many people. We all know how that turned out. A week later and the protest was forgotten and the government carried on with their plans. For the first time I truly realised what I had suspected all along – that no one was listening.

Yesterday I was in London for the TUC March for the Alternative. I was there to swell numbers and draw attention to what that alternative to the cuts is. Tax the rich. Make the bankers responsible. Look at http://robinhoodtax.org/ for the alternative. I marched for my colleagues jobs, that I, as their union rep, am trying to save. I marched for my own job too, frankly. I marched for our students who have lost their EMA, their travel passes, and will have to pay through the nse for university education our politicians took for granted (and for free). I marched for pension rights. I marched for our NHS, our youth centres, our libraries. We marched when and where we were told, and it was a brilliant day. News started to filter through about trouble in Picadilly… paint bombs and broken windows. Instantly, we knew hat the media would be focussing on. Not the thousands who marched peacefully, made their point and went home happy, but the minority of ‘mindless thugs’.

Are they mindless thugs though? As we walked back towards Euston through the same route as we’d passed on our way through, we saw paint strewn windows, a few smashed windows, and occupations. No violence though. Just angry people who are fed up and who want to draw attention to tax avoidance. The paint is soluble and will wash off. With the amount of tax these companies are saving, they can afford to replace a couple of windows.

The point is, the media will run with this now, and the question of tax avoidance will stay in the headlines. The protestors are clever and always one step ahead of the police, and they play the game well. I’m amazed at our students’ ability to plan and execute, then disperse and reform at another location to do it all again. They leave the authorities with no control, so they eventually use batons on our young people. And let’s get beyond the headlines – these are not violent people. But we saw ourselves the police lining up in riot gear before anything had happened, almost willing the trouble to begin. Even as a 40-odd year old parent, I had an odd compulsion to have a go when I was faced with lines of police intimidating me. And we’re paying for those polce with our taxes. I’d rather they were out there fighting real crime, rather than doing the government’s work for them by trying to suppress the freedom of speech.

You might not find me standing on top of Nelson’s column or occupying Top Shop, but I do think that buildings and ‘stuff’ is fair game in the bigger picture. The more chaos we can cause as protestors, the better.

“Get Wagner out!”

“I can’t believe Katie’s still in!!”

“[Insert name of vacuous contestant here] to win!!!”

They kid themselves that they have any control whatsoever over what happens over the duration of the series. Well, they do, but only as far as if they don’t phone those numbers and keep the money rolling in, the show will be canceled and Cowell and his mates will move onto the next money-making scheme. Everything else is pre-written, right from the start, before we even get to laugh at the ‘audition’ stages.

And by the way, if you still don’t know, the people you see at the auditions have already been through a screening stage and have been picked out because they fit the criteria… they must fit the story that’s already been written. We need comedy and tragedy for a good story, right?

People wonder how the truly awful ones actually have the audacity to believe they have a talent for singing when they sound like a cat being used as bag pipes underwater. That’s because they were screened already and told they were through, because they clearly are talented and fantastic singers. It’s not true, of course, and it builds them up for an obvious fall when the panel laugh at them and the crowd yells at them to get off the stage. There’s no thought to the well being of these people, who often appear to be mentally subnormal and vulnerable. Does anyone look after them? Does anyone make sure they’re not suicidal after their dreams have been built up and dashed?

Ah but it makes great telly, so that’s ok.

X Factor also relies on a bit of scandal and shock. It needs the headlines so that people will keep talking about it, keep watching it, keep imagining it’s all real and keep calling those all-important phone lines. The more scandalous the contestant, the better. Your family will get thrown out of the UK if we don’t take you forward as a final contestant? Tick that box! Daily Mail outrage – sorted! Ka-ching! You used to work as a prostitute and were a little bit desperate for fame? Why, viewers will HATE you! Ka-ching!! Annoying teenage brat with illegal tattoos and a dubious background and no talent at all? Parents will hate you, and young teenage brats with illegal tattoos and dubious backgrounds with no talent at all will LOVE you… Ka-CHING!!!

And you all fit the story that’s already been written! Only the contestants don’t seem to know it themselves, even. And that’s the really sad part. The newspapers have headline after headline exposing them for the fragile, imperfect human beings they are. It’s unfair. They build them up and knock them down again. Those nasty papers. Nasty journalists.

Except, every single one of those stories has been sanctioned by the X Factor publicity office. Every single one of them. Don’t kid yourself that they make stuff up, because they don’t. We had Heat magazine call up just last week asking for stories about one of the contestants, but we already know, and Heat already know, they have to go through the publicity office at X Factor first. There are no exposes. Nothing is a shock to Cowell and his mates. He just loves a bit of controversy. Ka-ching all the way to the bank, Mr Cowell! Screw the human beings who are the victims of all of this, dumped when the next big things comes along.

And the sheeple lap it up and keep calling those phone lines. They’d be better off getting out there, away from that television feeding them stories, and finding some proper music, because I bet the band down the local pub are better than anything you’ve ever seen on the likes of X Factor. Really, they’d appreciate your support.

How do you demonise a species? The same way you demonise teenaged single mothers, teenagers in hooded tops, an entire city, Eastern Europeans, any foreigners, for that matter, Muslims… twist any, and I mean ANY story, or even a non-story, into a story that blames that species or section of society so that it fits neatly into your little political agenda at that time.

First, foxes are eating our babies. Then they chew our shoes and kill cute fluffy kittens (they can redress the balance on felines at a later date when that fits their other agendas). Next they nibble our ears while we’re in bed. They hang around on corners sniffing glue and looking menacing. Is there no end to the madness that these fierce, out of control, wild animals will go to?

Hold the front page, because they’ve just sunk to a whole new low in Inveresk. Luckily for humanity, David McCann, that intrepid reporter with a nose for a great scandal with a human interest angle, was on the scene straight away to investigate and report…

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Fox-bites-off-man39s-nose.6600939.jp

Give Mr McCann a medal! I’m glad this stand-up journalist was there. I can breathe a sigh of relief that the world is safe in his hands.

Fox bites off man’s nose and fingers in cemetery!!!!!

SHIT!!! They’re EATING us now!

It’s in the news, therefore it must be true.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure I have the energy left to go through yet another made-up story and point out the blatantly obvious. You can read it for yourself. There’s no evidence at all of any fox attack. A man got drunk, blacked out and woke up with some injuries. People are talking, and saying blah blah blah whatever. Two police cars turned up. TWO! No one who worked there had heard anything at all about this horrific incident. That’ll be the news blackout and the lockdown, which they also didn’t hear about.

Thank goodness for our intrepid reporter though. He knows a fake fox attack story when he sees one. And he doesn’t let a few pesky facts (or lack of) get in the way. He also neatly ties up the story with a ribbon – “Earlier this year a fox attacked twin baby girls while they slept in their cot at home in London. At the time, John Bryant, a pest control consultant who specialises in foxes, said such attacks were not typical fox behaviour.”

Well, thank you David McCann. Can I call you Dave? I don’t know how long you’ve been doing this job, Dave, but really, you need to go back to media school or whatever, because your article’s crap! Complete and utter bollocks, if you don’t mind me saying so. I’d be ashamed to put my name to such a pile of steaming turd.

I would love to think that no one would believe any of this crap, but noooooooo. There’s a prize idiot who uses the name of “proclaimer,”. Yes, that’s “proclaimer,” with a comma added. If it was anyone with half a brain I’d like to imagine they added the comma for amusing effect. Unfortunately this is just an idiot who can barely use a keyboard. You can sense his fat, sausage fingers, mashing away at the lap top as he replies to the story, his mouth open and his eyes dead – nothing going on behind those eyes. Nothing to see here. Move along!

There followed a series of exaggerated articles describing out of control animals wandering around our neighbourhoods looking for small children to maul. People complained about the noises they make, how nasty they were, and that they shouldn’t even be there.

Daily Wail article here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284505/Baby-twins-Isabella-Lola-Koupparis-seriously-injured-fox-attack.html

Foxes are by nature shy, and wary of humans, with very good reason. It’s all about survival for them. I’ve never managed to get within 10 feet of a fox, unless it’s lying dead on a road – and there are plenty of them knocked down by cars every single day. I find the sight of a dead fox saddening when I realise there’s probably cubs waiting for a meal somewhere, and eventually starving to death. They’re beautiful, and I feel honoured if I do see one of these wild animals. The chances to see anything wild are fading fast, as we continue to cover their habitat with concrete car parks and housing estates. I find it amazing that they adapt and develop to enable them to survive in an urban setting.

But, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that this wasn’t a neighbour’s dog, – and previous ‘fox attacks have been proven to be dog attacks, when investigated – but a fox that came in to specifically target and attack two young children, inside their home, and in two seperate cots. The parents must be distraugt, of course – who wouldn’t be? I have seen people accusing them of negelect for leaving a door open – that’s not on. It’s a hot summer and people leave doors and windows open all over the world. This isn’t their fault. However, to demonise an entire species on the back on a single attack after humans and foxes have lived side by side for thousands of years is illogical at best.

Illogical, and suspiciously fishy scented, with the new coalition government having expressed a wish to overturn the Hunting Act 2004. This shouldn’t be a class issue, but unfortunately politicians ave made it so. Anti-hunt opinions are seen as left-wing and working class, while the Conservative Party are keen to appease their funders, who are, in general, upper class, well-off and far more likely to be involved in activities such as fox hunting. What better way to turn the tide of public opinion on foxes to get the bill overturned, than to use the media and demonise the fox?

Yes, it’s true that hooray-Henrys in red coats don’t generally gallop down the main shopping street in a city, so why should a fox attack in an urban area have anything to do with a hunting ban being overturned?  Well, it shouldn’t, simply. But it’s also naiive to imagine that demonising the ‘Urban Fox’ will have no bearing on the public perception of the ‘Country Fox’. It most definitely will, and already has. You only need to read the hysterical rantings of the Daily Mail readers and their comments on the story to realise that people will blindly believe anything they are told, and all rationality will go out of the window (as fast as a fox would). Hooray-Henry must be laughing his fat, red little face off.

One single supposed attack does NOT equate to foxes running rampant, attacking everything in their paths. Nor does it need a knee-jerk reaction, such as killing a fox in the area (even though they have no idea if it was the one that allegedly attacked those babies – what was the point in that?), or changing a law that has little to do with urban fox populations anyway.

In the last few days a group was set up on Facebook in response to this story and the subsequent villification of foxes:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Urban-Fox-Defenders/133367853341725

You’ll notice that it’s filled with intelligent people who are able to articulate their arguments (aside from the odd troll that’s hell bent on causing trouble – always defending fox hunting, by the way). This has attracted the attention of the saviour of the human race, the Daily Mail. Journalists have been sniffing around, trying to find out about the person who set the group up – as though a person’s background can in one swoop can undermine their opinion and those of the thousands of people who have joined the group. It will be interesting to see what stories turn up in the Daily Mail in the next few days. The BBC are about to air an episode of Panorama about the fox attack, and as ever, the DM are keen to piggyback on the story and get some more mileage out of it. Hardly surprising from a ‘news’ paper that still makes money from Princess Diana at any opportunity (or sometimes where there’s no opportunity at all) – given that she’s been dead for almost 13 years. It’s difficult not to imagine that something bigger is in the pipeline, and that the media machine is about to get into full swing. A campaign to bring back hunting is bound to be on the cards.

To anyone who fears for their kids, with foxes in the area, please take the tie to learn a little about these animals. A little knowledge goes a long way to lessening your fear and your desire to kill anything you fear. There are plenty of websites out there to inform and amaze you about the fox.

Unfortunately, foxes could find themselves targetted as the new problem in society, which must be a relief for immigrants, asylum seekers, the unemployed, single mothers, teenagers with hoods, Muslims, black people…

Of course, many people like and use homeopathy for other non-evidence-based reasons and they think it should be made available on the NHS because they like it – never mind whether it works or not.

Unsurprisingly, a proponent and user of homeopathy is no less an intellect than ex-GMTV presenter Fiona Phillips who wrote a piece for The Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/27/nature-s-tonic-115875-22072960/

It contains a few gems!

The scientific evidence is that thousands of people use homeopathy because it works.

No, Fiona. That’s not ‘scientific evidence’, that’s the fallacy known as the ‘argument to popularity’. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it works – it just means it’s popular.

Whether it’s a placebo or not, who cares?

Well, for minor cuts and bruises etc., it probably doesn’t matter; but if you start treating more serious symptoms with sugar pills (homeopathy is nothing more than inert sugar pills) then you could be delaying your children vital medical treatment.

I think it’s better than stuffing some pricey chemical concoction down their necks and hoping for the best.

No, it’s far better to treat ill children with cheap pills that contain no ingredients and which are known not to work and hope for the best.

Like thousands of others I buy homeopathic medicines instead of going to my GP for a prescription for a proprietary brand loaded with scientific evidence and side-effects.

Well done – aren’t you a bright spark! We don’t want treatments to have ‘scientific evidence’ to back them up do we? And if some of them do have side effects, it’s because they actually do something. Homeopathy is side-effect free because it doesn’t have any active remedy in it – the reason why they have no side effects is the same reason why they don’t work: they’re nothing but inert sugar pills.

The more people who do that, the lower the drug companies’ profits are.

Oh yes, it’s much better to hand your money over to a non-drug (literally!) company who churn out sugar pills that don’t do anything for £5.99 per packet. So who’s the gullible fool?

Sorry Fiona but – epic fail.

NORTHERN IRELAND – an end to sectarianism!
Britain has shamefully allowed the terrorists in N.I. to come close to winning when the IRA could have been destroyed years ago. Government weakness has led to hundreds of deaths and given those same terrorists a share in government. We would end all attempts to force the people of Northern Ireland to accept foreign interference in their affairs and deal with terrorism – from whatever side – once and for all. No one with links to a terrorist organisation that refuses to lay down its arms should be allowed to enter government. We would abolish state-supported segregation in education. In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles.

It’s ok to laugh. I laughed too when I read it. I mean, Ireland is a fiercely proud nation, and the BNP simplistic ‘solution’ to the conflict in Northern Ireland is so ridiculous, it’s very easy to laugh at it.

We should not be complacent though. The BNP have been working furiously in NI over recent years, trying to stoke up racial tensions, and offering to help Ireland retain its ‘whiteness’ and keep all of those nasty immigrants out, because Ireland hates immigration, right? Hmmm.

The people in Ireland need to kick these nasty, vile little hatred-mongers out of their country before they cause real damage. The vast majority of the population don’t need this kind of trouble, and won’t put up with it.

I can’t wait to tell my Irish friends the news. They might like to point out to Dick Griffin, too, that the population of Ireland has never been anywhere near the numbers they were before mass emigration saw the population halved – oh, and millions starved to death during the potato famine… caused principally by the very country the BNP would like them to form a crazy federation with.

The Irish are gonna love this one!

I’m always on the look out for seemingly unimportant stories that I can have a good rant about, and this one has several parts to it that make me want to write very angry posts on forums.

Firstly, I don’t think they should have phones at number 10 Downing Street. It just distracts them from the very important job of doing things that make me angry as a Daily Mail reader.

Secondly, what is Gordon Brown doing, allowing his wife to have friends? And allowing her to make phone calls to those friends, as in, actually speaking to them? I ask you! Scandalous and shocking.

Thirdly, why is Gordon Brown allowing his wife to have a career and interests? She’s no Carla Bruni, as the article helpfully points out – I would never have been able to come to that conclusion myself, obviously. This woman should clearly spend her days adoring her husband and having plastic surgery to make herself look more like a French model half her age. None of this having a career nonsense. It’s the start of the slippery slope in to anarchy.

Fourthly, the cost is enormous. £2.14! I know I’m going to miss that chunk of money when it comes out of my tax next year. As a cheaper alternative I’d suggest going back to the traditional method of two yogurt pots and a piece of string. Yes, Gordon Brown, stick that one up your arse and think about that for a change. £2.14.

Fifthly, I’m shocked that Canterbury has been dragged through the mud like this, but at least the Daily Mail have managed to get a nice photograph of the lovely Archbishop, Dr Rowan “Makes a Whistle Sound when he says ‘S’ and Has ENORMOUS eyebrows” Williams, in there. He’s as British as you can get, make no mistake, and just to see his lovely bushy eyebrows and knowing smile makes me feel safe and warm inside and allows me to imagine that none of them nasty immigrants are going to come in here and steal our underpants.

Sixthly, Miss McNeil is a dirty single mother who writes about other single mothers, animals and Pagan children. It’s obvious from this that she’d not writing fiction there, but her experiences as an evil single mother. I bet she’s claiming benefits and has a massive council house too, all paid for by you and me, tax payers (well, I’ll be a tax payer as soon as this sore back’s better). She’s just another symptom of Gordon Brown’s Broken Britain and she should be ashamed of herself, making money by writing books.

She’s even mocking us with her words at the end of the article. ‘I don’t have any comment to make about any phone calls that have been made. I’ve got another call coming through, thanks, bye.’ Reading between the lines, what she’s really saying there is ‘I get £50k a week in benefits and I worship the devil. I don’t give a shit, and I’m laughing at you all.’ How very dare she.

And with a name like McNeil, I bet she has some dirty Irish immigrant blood in her, too.

The veins in my forehead are absolutely bulging here, and I must go and post this article on many forums, so that other people will be as shocked and outraged as I am. I thank my lucky stars that the Daily Mail are there to save us, as ever.

What is the world coming to, I ask you.

The Dangerous Dog Act 1991 (created seemingly to crack down on dog fighting), defines this as :

(a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;

(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and

(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.

So the Government are seemingly trying to clamp down on those dogs bred for the sole purpose of fighting, thats good in itself of course, but what about those dogs who aren’t defined above, aren’t bred for the purpose of fighting but are by virtue of the care given to them by the Owner, dangerous ?

Why is a child (of any age), present in a house with a breed of dog that could, (bearing in mind a dog is an animal), realistically kill, maim or cause serious harm ?

Of course I am referring to the latest case in Liverpool of John Paul Massey, now we haven’t been told (as yet) what breed this dog was – but is this relevant here ? Surely the onus is on the parent(s) to protect their child from harm ?  What is the appeal of certain types of dogs that clearly are not suitable to be around children ?

Surely, it is the responsibility of the parent to enforce this protection, not on local authorities, the Police or Housing Associations ?  If those institutions cannot prevent harm from humans towards children how can they believe that they can enforce the harm occasioned by dangerous animals ?

What is the answer ? clearly, banning breeds is not enough, bring back the dog licence ? What will that tell us ? only who owns the animals, not how they are being treated nor if they are coming into contact with children ?  Perhaps more should be done with the owners regarding why they feel it necessary to house a dog in a home with a child, perhaps educating the owner about how to bring up an animal of this type ? or disallowing ownership per se of a dog of a certain size with children under a certain age ?

She thinks she is the most stunning thing to walk this planet,   How wrong can one person get it?

Her cow like voice  (listen when she says ‘aahhhhhh’)  is so infuriating,  she drives me mental!!

Get this woman off our screen, 

the program’s bad anyway,  but was better without her!

Here’s the story as shown on a news channel:

Well, I came across this on the JREF website: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/783-this-cruel-farce-has-to-stop.html

It seems that the method they’re using to help Rom Houben communicate is bogus! The man himself is not communicating at all; it’s his ‘facilitator’ who’s actually doing the typing.

So is this all a big mistake and he really isn’t conscious?

It seems that he may well be conscious but the method of communication being used (Facilitated Communication) is where the error lies.

There’s a good explanation here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/houben.php

I find this rather shocking to be honest. OK, the scientist has determined that Houben is conscious and it’s probably true; but for some reason Facilitated Communication has ended up being the method used to assist Houben communicate – but it doesn’t really work.

I can only imagine how sad and frustrating it must be to be in such a ‘locked-in’ state for so long and then to have your consciousness recognised, giving you hope of some communication with the outside world again, only to have your opportunity lost because of some bogus speech therapy.

Now that the error has been highlighted, let’s hope those responsible for his care do something about this sad situation.