Or if you have a burning need to be exact, 1,003,382 thank you's.
Over one million visitors since I kicked this thing off. I've had my ups and downs, but we are still here. Off into a brave new year where I anticipate....more of the same.
I intend to be a pain in the arse for that inane, inept, insane government for another 12 months. They fully deserve it. In the last 12 months they increased their "take" on my salary to a whopping 73% so I will do what I can, using fair means or foul, to redress that shameful situation.
I hope you do too.
They also produced 4,038 new bits of legislation in 2012. Just to fuck with your life a little bit more than Labour ever did. (Their very best efforts produced just 3,075 new laws in a single year).
Not quite as good as their efforts in 2011 which produced a jaw-dropping (and record-breaking) 4,116.
Which was up on 2010 (although they only started in May) with 3,969.
Only twice, since 1265, has the 4,000 barrier been breached. Both times by this coalition government. The same government that swore to "less interference" and famously, "small government".
Well, if that is their idea of less interference I'd hate to see them really go for it.
For one night only, fuck 'em.
I am going to party like it was, erm, 2012.
Happy New Year to all of my wonderful readers. Thank you so much for putting up with me, AND talking me out of quitting. Three times.
Very best wishes for 2013!!!
Yer old pal,
Capt James Susan Ranty (Ret'd).
December 31, 2012
December 30, 2012
December 28, 2012
UK Could Engineer EU Disintegration
The "UK needs the EU" argument has collapsed. If we leave, it all falls apart.
Today I read that we are given a 'warning' by arch-numpty, Herman von Rompuy.
In a staggering display of arrogance, he says that if we leave the EU we will be "....walking alone in the desert". Well, that suits me. And I suspect it will suit the country as well.
Forget the money for a moment. Forget the seemingly endless tranche of inane legislation flowing from Brussels onto our Rolls. Forget, even, the dubious legality surrounding our joining in the first place. Remember instead, that unelected dreamers in a big fancy building in Belgium-a non-country if ever there was one-tell us how to run our country. Remember that for almost 1,000 years we ran the place well enough on our own. It hasn't been beer and skittles all the way but pretty much since the first parliament in 1265 we have been in command of our own destiny. We made mistakes, sure. All nations did. The slave trade, along with tobacco, was paramount in the building of this nation, as it was the USA, and many other countries. Both are now vilified but arguably, we would still be a third world nation without them.
We did some good stuff too. Apart from democracy (I know, I know. It is a badly flawed concept but it is the 'least worse' system of government) we delivered fantastic engineering to parts of the world which would otherwise still be floundering badly. Railways, bridges, sanitation, roads, education, science and health were our combined gift to the world. Adventurers (some thinly disguised as such, I admit, as many were out to make their fortunes. Cecil John Rhodes being just one amongst many) traveled afar and found new plants and animals, minerals, new crops, and essential foods that Britain had an unending appetite for.
My point is that we were in charge. We helped to shape this brave new world. We had influence and we had power. Our leaders were well respected. Our armed forces the finest in the world. The Bank of England was one of the most respected establishments the world over. A cheque drawn on the BoE was like gold. Accepted by all. Our sovereignty was intact. Monarchs, a colourful lot, I'll grant you, were as respected as our politicians and our constabulary. Those were the days. I want them back.
What has changed? In 1971 we made a disastrous decision. Led by the traitor Heath, we were taken, blindly, into a union that should never have seen the light of day. Using hindsight, we can now clearly see that it was a continuation of those two failed German initiatives: to create a United States of Europe. The method altered, but still nevertheless employed force. Instead of using guns and bombs they just robbed us. Every month. The new weapon was called 'taxation'. They took our money and channeled it over the channel where it was (and is) channeled into vanity projects. It pays for the insane dreams of the unelected and unaccountable. Trillions of pounds have been wasted since the 1970's trying to bring 20-odd nations together in a hugely messy mass wedding. Divorce, the EU tells us, is not an option.
Look at what that limp dishrag, that political non-entity, von Rompuy says:
"In a major blow to the Prime Minister’s strategy, Herman Van Rompuy said the European Union would fall apart quickly if countries were allowed to pick and choose which powers they wanted to keep.
Mr Van Rompuy said he wanted Britain to stay in the EU, adding that the UK’s departure would ‘see a friend walk off into the desert’."
and:
"Mr Van Rompuy said sweeping changes to the governance of the EU could even be brought in without a fresh treaty in order to avoid referendums in member states – leaving Mr Cameron with no leverage to demand concessions for Britain."
I don't know about you, but that reads like a threat to me: "Try to escape and we will change the rules to prevent you from escaping". Bloody marvelous.
Read the rest here: von Rompuy's nonsense
Be ashamed, as you read the words of Lightweight Clegg, and remember that his first duty is to our nation. Doesn't look like he knows that, from the words he chooses to use. This no-mark, thrust to the top by a party famous for never making decisions, insists that we remain in The Stupid Club. The same club that says we cannot manage our own affairs. A feat we pulled off for many centuries.
The europhiles would have you believe that we need the EU. We do not. Dig deeper and have a close look at the figures. They need us more than we need them. This is nothing new. It's not a boast, either. It just is what it is. We have always enjoyed visiting our European pals, many of us relocate there. We had a healthy relationship. Now? It is difficult to look upon our Greek friends, our Spanish friends, our Italian friends or any of those newer member nations with fondness. They are costing us a fortune. Their inability to manage their finances impacts on every taxpayer in the UK. But, put that aside for a moment and imagine their distaste at being bullied and dictated to by von Rompuy and slimy Barroso. Some lawfully elected leaders were replaced with technocrats selected by Brussels. Not so much a democratic outfit by definition, more like a tyranny. And the longer we remain, the more we will be dictated to as well.
I say no.
I say how dare that political dwarf, and his Brotherhood of Conmen dictate anything to us?
I acknowledge that a succession of treasonous men and women in parliament, along with Mrs Windsor, gave the EU bigger and bigger chunks of our sovereignty but repatriation must commence immediately.
The experiment was a failure and we must declare an end to the project.
I'd rather walk alone in the desert, thank you very much.
CR.
Today I read that we are given a 'warning' by arch-numpty, Herman von Rompuy.
In a staggering display of arrogance, he says that if we leave the EU we will be "....walking alone in the desert". Well, that suits me. And I suspect it will suit the country as well.
Forget the money for a moment. Forget the seemingly endless tranche of inane legislation flowing from Brussels onto our Rolls. Forget, even, the dubious legality surrounding our joining in the first place. Remember instead, that unelected dreamers in a big fancy building in Belgium-a non-country if ever there was one-tell us how to run our country. Remember that for almost 1,000 years we ran the place well enough on our own. It hasn't been beer and skittles all the way but pretty much since the first parliament in 1265 we have been in command of our own destiny. We made mistakes, sure. All nations did. The slave trade, along with tobacco, was paramount in the building of this nation, as it was the USA, and many other countries. Both are now vilified but arguably, we would still be a third world nation without them.
We did some good stuff too. Apart from democracy (I know, I know. It is a badly flawed concept but it is the 'least worse' system of government) we delivered fantastic engineering to parts of the world which would otherwise still be floundering badly. Railways, bridges, sanitation, roads, education, science and health were our combined gift to the world. Adventurers (some thinly disguised as such, I admit, as many were out to make their fortunes. Cecil John Rhodes being just one amongst many) traveled afar and found new plants and animals, minerals, new crops, and essential foods that Britain had an unending appetite for.
My point is that we were in charge. We helped to shape this brave new world. We had influence and we had power. Our leaders were well respected. Our armed forces the finest in the world. The Bank of England was one of the most respected establishments the world over. A cheque drawn on the BoE was like gold. Accepted by all. Our sovereignty was intact. Monarchs, a colourful lot, I'll grant you, were as respected as our politicians and our constabulary. Those were the days. I want them back.
What has changed? In 1971 we made a disastrous decision. Led by the traitor Heath, we were taken, blindly, into a union that should never have seen the light of day. Using hindsight, we can now clearly see that it was a continuation of those two failed German initiatives: to create a United States of Europe. The method altered, but still nevertheless employed force. Instead of using guns and bombs they just robbed us. Every month. The new weapon was called 'taxation'. They took our money and channeled it over the channel where it was (and is) channeled into vanity projects. It pays for the insane dreams of the unelected and unaccountable. Trillions of pounds have been wasted since the 1970's trying to bring 20-odd nations together in a hugely messy mass wedding. Divorce, the EU tells us, is not an option.
Look at what that limp dishrag, that political non-entity, von Rompuy says:
"In a major blow to the Prime Minister’s strategy, Herman Van Rompuy said the European Union would fall apart quickly if countries were allowed to pick and choose which powers they wanted to keep.
Mr Van Rompuy said he wanted Britain to stay in the EU, adding that the UK’s departure would ‘see a friend walk off into the desert’."
and:
"Mr Van Rompuy said sweeping changes to the governance of the EU could even be brought in without a fresh treaty in order to avoid referendums in member states – leaving Mr Cameron with no leverage to demand concessions for Britain."
I don't know about you, but that reads like a threat to me: "Try to escape and we will change the rules to prevent you from escaping". Bloody marvelous.
Read the rest here: von Rompuy's nonsense
Be ashamed, as you read the words of Lightweight Clegg, and remember that his first duty is to our nation. Doesn't look like he knows that, from the words he chooses to use. This no-mark, thrust to the top by a party famous for never making decisions, insists that we remain in The Stupid Club. The same club that says we cannot manage our own affairs. A feat we pulled off for many centuries.
The europhiles would have you believe that we need the EU. We do not. Dig deeper and have a close look at the figures. They need us more than we need them. This is nothing new. It's not a boast, either. It just is what it is. We have always enjoyed visiting our European pals, many of us relocate there. We had a healthy relationship. Now? It is difficult to look upon our Greek friends, our Spanish friends, our Italian friends or any of those newer member nations with fondness. They are costing us a fortune. Their inability to manage their finances impacts on every taxpayer in the UK. But, put that aside for a moment and imagine their distaste at being bullied and dictated to by von Rompuy and slimy Barroso. Some lawfully elected leaders were replaced with technocrats selected by Brussels. Not so much a democratic outfit by definition, more like a tyranny. And the longer we remain, the more we will be dictated to as well.
I say no.
I say how dare that political dwarf, and his Brotherhood of Conmen dictate anything to us?
I acknowledge that a succession of treasonous men and women in parliament, along with Mrs Windsor, gave the EU bigger and bigger chunks of our sovereignty but repatriation must commence immediately.
The experiment was a failure and we must declare an end to the project.
I'd rather walk alone in the desert, thank you very much.
CR.
December 24, 2012
Merry Christmas!!
A happy and safe Season's Greetings to all my readers.
Lot's of songs to choose from but I am going with this one (again):
Very best wishes for 2013.
Let's see how much havoc we can cause.
Yer old mucker,
Captain James Mary Ranty (Ret'd).
Lot's of songs to choose from but I am going with this one (again):
Very best wishes for 2013.
Let's see how much havoc we can cause.
Yer old mucker,
Captain James Mary Ranty (Ret'd).
December 22, 2012
The Guns Of Neverown
I have been thinking about guns lately. Mostly because of Newtown, but also because, like the Americans, we have an ancient right to arm and defend ourselves.
Hence the dodgy title.
We are permitted to own weapons "...as allowed by law"*. The last four words in the statement (originally giving Protestants the right to arm themselves, like already-armed Catholics) are the most important, and successive governments have all but removed our right to own a weapon. Although, shotgun licenses may be granted, rifles too, and under some rare circumstances, pistols. My problem with that is the "licensed" part. A license may or may not be granted, and it may or may not be revoked. And of course, because the license can be taken away on a whim, we never own the weapon. Not truly. Not as long as it is in someone's gift to take that "right" away. No real freedom there.
* "Subjects’ Arms. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." Link here: Bill of Rights 1688 which, by the way, has never been amended or repealed in whole or part.
This is purely anecdotal, but I have learnt that those most terrified of guns are the same people that have never been taught to use one, safely and responsibly. In the military I fired many shooty bangy things, and it was almost always a pleasure. Safety is a huge thing in the armed forces, and a negligent discharge (known as an ND), on the range or anywhere else, is frowned upon and punished harshly. My brother was fined £100 for an ND and his next promotion was delayed by a year.
Among the weapons I have fired are: the 7.62MM SLR (Self Loading Rifle), 9MM Browning pistol, Sterling SMG (Sub Machine Gun), 7.62MM LMG (Light Machine Gun), GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun), Blowpipe (I missed the target), and I lobbed a few hand grenades. I was also taught how to use PE4 (Plastic Explosives) and can still clearly recall where to place charges to bring down a tree (Route Denial), a bridge (for the same reason) or a medium sized building. I also stood within a couple of feet of a tactical nuclear weapon but they wouldn't let me play with that.
My time in the daft and barmy was in the eighties and while the weapons may have changed, handling techniques have not. Basic safety is still the most important lesson to be taught, and repeated, endlessly.
My point? Weapons are only as dangerous as the people using/abusing them. I was and am comfortable around weapons. I just don't like the business end. On my travels in Africa I have had more than one AK-47 shoved in my face and I almost always gently reach out, and with a finger, move the barrel away from my face. I meet with few problems when doing this. It is usually the police, usually in Nigeria, and they usually have no magazine fitted to the weapon and only rarely do the possess any rounds. (In fact, because the government doesn't pay them very often, it is more likely that they have sold the magazine and the 30 rounds to buy food for their families). Which is why they stick the gun in my face in the first place: they want a bribe. They never get anything from me, AK-47 or no AK-47. It is not my responsibility to pay them, and I tell them so.
But, I digress.
The Newtown massacre.
Is all as it seems? I doubt it very much. I don't even need to concoct a theory for this one. (Note: this does not mean I understand what went on).
Have a look at this: Official Story Spins Out Of Control
Thanks to Harbinger, who kindly sent me the link. If you want a different, but no less messy account of the shooting, please pop over to The Tap's Place for a selection of posts on Sandy Hook.
As the author in the first link says, in the early stages of an event, the media get many facts wrong and later correct them. Nothing unusual in that: things are moving fast and as we all know, what they don't know they will make up. Like I said, adjustments can be made later.
The problem here is with the officials. Their story does not add up at all.
To add (unnecessary) fuel to a blazing inferno, British newspapers do what they can to confuse and conflate.
Look at this from the Daily Mail: Trigger Happy Families
Trigger happy families? In not one case does a family (or family member) say that they just simply love shooting weapons. None of them. They have them for sporting or utilitarian reasons. They have them so that they can defend themselves. I can just picture hordes of tutting, outraged DM readers....
I have been to the USA many times. Mostly to southern states like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. You won't be surprised to learn that they are big fans of the bangy things. They are also (coincidentally?) more religious than the northern states. They can quote huge tracts of their Constitution verbatim, with no reference notes. They do not (all) register their weapons because that information is then held publicly. Any bad guy can simply peruse the records down at County Hall or in their local library, identify who has guns at home and who doesn't, tool up, and off they go on a burglary/killing/raping spree. Friends of mine are proud of their gun collections. I never yet saw a collection that included automatic weapons though. They mostly have a couple of pistols, a shotgun or two, and more often than not, sporting rifles.
We think that we have guns under control in the UK. After all, did we not legislate against them? Did we not, over several decades, disarm the public? Hand guns are banned. Rifles are (mostly) banned. Automatic weapons are banned. Gun crime never happens, right? Oh, yeah. Dunblane. Hungerford. Those armed robberies. The shootings in the drug-turf wars, using MAC-10's and TEC-9's. But just those.
Now, only the bad guys have guns. And the police. But I repeat myself.
There will come a time, I reckon, when you will look wistfully into the corner of your lounge or bedroom and wish that what you were looking at was a gunsafe. We live in a nasty world. Mostly, we need protection. Not just from those thieving gits that smash a window, creep around and steal all your stuff, but from the very people who have no desire for you to be able to once again carry a weapon, lawfully.
The government needs us to be unarmed.
And that is the most powerful reason I know of that makes me want a gun.
CR.
Hence the dodgy title.
We are permitted to own weapons "...as allowed by law"*. The last four words in the statement (originally giving Protestants the right to arm themselves, like already-armed Catholics) are the most important, and successive governments have all but removed our right to own a weapon. Although, shotgun licenses may be granted, rifles too, and under some rare circumstances, pistols. My problem with that is the "licensed" part. A license may or may not be granted, and it may or may not be revoked. And of course, because the license can be taken away on a whim, we never own the weapon. Not truly. Not as long as it is in someone's gift to take that "right" away. No real freedom there.
* "Subjects’ Arms. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." Link here: Bill of Rights 1688 which, by the way, has never been amended or repealed in whole or part.
This is purely anecdotal, but I have learnt that those most terrified of guns are the same people that have never been taught to use one, safely and responsibly. In the military I fired many shooty bangy things, and it was almost always a pleasure. Safety is a huge thing in the armed forces, and a negligent discharge (known as an ND), on the range or anywhere else, is frowned upon and punished harshly. My brother was fined £100 for an ND and his next promotion was delayed by a year.
Among the weapons I have fired are: the 7.62MM SLR (Self Loading Rifle), 9MM Browning pistol, Sterling SMG (Sub Machine Gun), 7.62MM LMG (Light Machine Gun), GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun), Blowpipe (I missed the target), and I lobbed a few hand grenades. I was also taught how to use PE4 (Plastic Explosives) and can still clearly recall where to place charges to bring down a tree (Route Denial), a bridge (for the same reason) or a medium sized building. I also stood within a couple of feet of a tactical nuclear weapon but they wouldn't let me play with that.
My time in the daft and barmy was in the eighties and while the weapons may have changed, handling techniques have not. Basic safety is still the most important lesson to be taught, and repeated, endlessly.
My point? Weapons are only as dangerous as the people using/abusing them. I was and am comfortable around weapons. I just don't like the business end. On my travels in Africa I have had more than one AK-47 shoved in my face and I almost always gently reach out, and with a finger, move the barrel away from my face. I meet with few problems when doing this. It is usually the police, usually in Nigeria, and they usually have no magazine fitted to the weapon and only rarely do the possess any rounds. (In fact, because the government doesn't pay them very often, it is more likely that they have sold the magazine and the 30 rounds to buy food for their families). Which is why they stick the gun in my face in the first place: they want a bribe. They never get anything from me, AK-47 or no AK-47. It is not my responsibility to pay them, and I tell them so.
But, I digress.
The Newtown massacre.
Is all as it seems? I doubt it very much. I don't even need to concoct a theory for this one. (Note: this does not mean I understand what went on).
Have a look at this: Official Story Spins Out Of Control
Thanks to Harbinger, who kindly sent me the link. If you want a different, but no less messy account of the shooting, please pop over to The Tap's Place for a selection of posts on Sandy Hook.
As the author in the first link says, in the early stages of an event, the media get many facts wrong and later correct them. Nothing unusual in that: things are moving fast and as we all know, what they don't know they will make up. Like I said, adjustments can be made later.
The problem here is with the officials. Their story does not add up at all.
To add (unnecessary) fuel to a blazing inferno, British newspapers do what they can to confuse and conflate.
Look at this from the Daily Mail: Trigger Happy Families
Trigger happy families? In not one case does a family (or family member) say that they just simply love shooting weapons. None of them. They have them for sporting or utilitarian reasons. They have them so that they can defend themselves. I can just picture hordes of tutting, outraged DM readers....
I have been to the USA many times. Mostly to southern states like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. You won't be surprised to learn that they are big fans of the bangy things. They are also (coincidentally?) more religious than the northern states. They can quote huge tracts of their Constitution verbatim, with no reference notes. They do not (all) register their weapons because that information is then held publicly. Any bad guy can simply peruse the records down at County Hall or in their local library, identify who has guns at home and who doesn't, tool up, and off they go on a burglary/killing/raping spree. Friends of mine are proud of their gun collections. I never yet saw a collection that included automatic weapons though. They mostly have a couple of pistols, a shotgun or two, and more often than not, sporting rifles.
We think that we have guns under control in the UK. After all, did we not legislate against them? Did we not, over several decades, disarm the public? Hand guns are banned. Rifles are (mostly) banned. Automatic weapons are banned. Gun crime never happens, right? Oh, yeah. Dunblane. Hungerford. Those armed robberies. The shootings in the drug-turf wars, using MAC-10's and TEC-9's. But just those.
Now, only the bad guys have guns. And the police. But I repeat myself.
There will come a time, I reckon, when you will look wistfully into the corner of your lounge or bedroom and wish that what you were looking at was a gunsafe. We live in a nasty world. Mostly, we need protection. Not just from those thieving gits that smash a window, creep around and steal all your stuff, but from the very people who have no desire for you to be able to once again carry a weapon, lawfully.
The government needs us to be unarmed.
And that is the most powerful reason I know of that makes me want a gun.
CR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)