Smoking Ban.....

In Blackpool, there is a small back street bar called the "Crazy Scots Fun Palace", essentially a Scottish bar, but more often filled with sports fans of all types not just your average jock on holiday.

The landlord/owner of this bar has declared that from Sunday 1st July he and his regulars will be holding a "Smoke In", the bar will not close and he will defy the Smoking Ban.

A regular at the bar who does not wish to be named has stated, "We are all really pissed off about this ban, if it was banned in food outlets we could understand, but to take the choice away from ordinary folks who want a pint and a beer is f**king out of order! and the government can go and kiss my Lilly white arse!!"

He went on to mention that he believed the police were not going to police the ban, and as no-one had seen fit to give the supposed council snoopers, powers of detention or arrest, "FFS you don't even have to give your name to the fuckers, so they canny fine you!" His mates/ fellow drinkers went on to say, "Good on the landlord for standing up for the working mans rights to have a beer and a fag!"
The landlord was unavailable for comment, but a member of the bar staff stated, "that he had the intention if fined (£2500.00) of not paying it, and taking it as far as he could through the courts! Anyway I doubt any fucker would get through the door with a camera! Or at least not be able to develop anything other than shots of his own bowels!"

It remains to be seen whether Blackpool Council will be sending in enforcement officers into, what could be a volatile and possibly hostile bar, aimed at making a stand against this law, that is hated by smokers. After all when smokers were asked to stop smoking in parts of pubs set aside for non smokers, they had no problem with complying, but it seems non smokers are not so magnanimous!

This maybe the start of a more concerted effort by publicans to change the law, even Dave West, Millionaire Nightclub owner, has hired Cherie Blair QC, in order to mount a legal challenge against the smoking ban!

As a smoker who has tried and failed to stop smoking in the past, I can see no reason for not allowing the Landlords to decide whether they wanted a smoking or non smoking pub. But then the government couldn't allow that, as that would have left very few opting for a non smoking pub.

The EU Constitution...errrr sorry Treaty....

All the Constitution is there ! Nothing is missing !
Jean-Louis Bourlanges MEP,

We kept the substance of the Constitution
Jo Leinen MEP (President)

We have the same thing but we regressed for transparency and clearness
Enrico Baron Crespo MEP

It's incredible to see all what they slipped under the carpet !
Gérard Onesta MEP

Formally, it's not a constitution but it's a big step to the constitution
Carlos Carnero MEP

Our political union finally has a Constitution
Johannes Voggenhuber MEP

90% of the old constitution is in the treaty
Bertie Aherne Irish PM

What have the above statements all got in common?

Yes they all agree that the Treaty is the rejected constitution by another name. In other words a blatant lie, was told to the UK by twat face bliar and other Nulabour basket cases.

Now its all down to whom you wish to believe, whether you think the red lines drawn in the sand by Bliar, were just a red herring to appease the masses, and he was lying through his cheshire cat grin. Or maybe the other MEP's and Bertie Aherene were just plain lying fuckwits trying to get bliar into trouble, in his last days in office.

I know who my money is on, and all I can say is thank fuck the lying sack of shit has gone!!!


I WANT MY REFERENDUM as promised by the Labour Party, you smug self centred bastards!!

A formal reply to Mr Barroso...

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has urged Britain not to hold a referendum on any new treaty agreed at this week's EU summit.

Point one it has fuck all to do you Mr. El- Presidente, the thing is we brits kinda like things done by the book. Well the UK general Public does, that’s why if one of our Politicians are caught lying and cheating, they get the order of the boot!

He said it was up to the British people but he could not see why the country which exported democracy to the world would not respect its own Parliament.

Point two, Yeah we took democracy throughout the world, but unlike the democracy the EU practices, we don’t have to put up with fuckwit politicians who are only out to line their own pockets, mmm sounds just like you El-Presidente, you see once again, if the Political Parties do not do as we wish, we tell them to FUCK OFF, which surprisingly is something that we can NOT do with you, nor the unelected EU!! But let me explain further you half witted dago bastardos, do the math, 700 politicians, approx 40,000 police, about 4,000 soldiers still in UK, versus 30 million pissed off voters! Now you get the idea??? We have come to the end of our tether, with venal, corrupt, smarmy two faced lying bastard politicians, we have had enough.

Mr. Barroso warned Britain not to block progress towards a treaty.

If the Treaty is as everyone suspects just the renamed EU Constitution, then too right we are going to block it you thick cunt!

In an interview with the BBC, he said: "Sometimes I hear people saying that for Parliament to approve it would be by the back door.

Unfortunately, this is how you and the EU are getting your laws onto our statute books, because your issuing too many and they cannot all be checked, and when we do find one we don’t like it is forced through under “benefit of the community clause”, 408 I think is the actual clause.

"Britain is the country that exported Parliamentary democracy to the world. Do the British people consider Parliament the back door?

When it is European Laws that you have had no mandate from the people to enact, that we have had no comment on, or vote on, then yes it is through the back door! Parliament has had no debates about the majority of the laws foisted onto us by the EU. Nor can Parliament repeal any of the EU laws, unless we repeal the 1972 EEC act as well.

"Do the British people who killed their king to protect the rights of Parliament consider it the back door?

The king tried to do much the same as the EU is trying now, fancy seeing if we have the balls to execute you as well??

"Is that the respect some people show their Parliament, maybe the greatest Parliament in the world? I don't consider Parliament the back door."

No you wouldn’t because you don’t care about anything, apart from getting more and more of our money and sovereign powers! Remember respect is earned not given freely! Besides who could respect a load of crooks and frauds! Even your own accountants wont sign off on your accounts!

He added that leaders had to stand up to the sort of "ugly nationalism" that traded on "imaginary threats" like the idea the EU was becoming a superstate.

If the EU is not becoming a Superstate, why does it need all 27 member countries sovereign powers, why does it need so much control, why its own army, police force, judiciary, parliament buildings? Why does it want a foreign minister, its own flag, an EU President, the power to sign treaties and agreements with other countries? Why? Why, Why? Why can we not have our fishing grounds back, our territorial waters back? Why cant we control our own immigration?

Why does it pass laws, yet not include itself or its workers in those same laws?

Get out of my face you ugly twaty headed parrot faced wazzock!!!
The actual piece is here: BBC news

Bonanza for Government my Arse!!

If as a working person you acquire through your hard work and diligence enough money to secrete away, either for old age or to fund help your family when you have died, good luck to you. Well done, I admire your hard work and thrifty nature. If you as a average person see the way the tide is turning and decide to bank offshore, to keep more of your hard earned money, again good luck to you. I do not begrudge you your money, I do not envy that you have more than me.

What I do abhor, is the Tax man, or HMRC (Her Majesty's' Revenue and Customs)he is a thief, a bully and a drain on everyone! He produces nothing, he has more powers than the Police, to all intents and purposes he is the strong arm man of the government.

Now through hard work and savings if I bought a villa in Spain, or any other country, and decided to rent the villa out, I am expected to pay tax on that money! Can anyone tell me why? I saved and paid tax on the money, I used it to buy a holiday home in a warmer climate, and am able to rent it out in order to recoup some of the money I have invested. I took the risk, spent the hours researching, looking at properties, spending time and effort to buy a decent place at a decent price. So why should I give any money to Mr Brown? He has had no input, not loaned me the money, yet he expects a cut? If I use my money to buy another property in another country, who's business is it, no-ones, just mine!

We as a population are expected to clear our debts, if we borrow we have to repay, we pay tax on our earnings, tax on our loans, tax on our insurance, etc, ad infinitum, there is no item in this country that we do not pay tax on,either indirect or direct.

Now if I won the lottery, and decided that I like the idea of my money, won fair and square, to gain me interest above what the UK banks pay, then I too would consider offshore banking, notwithstanding the fact that, the UK banks have an obligation and a duty to inform the tax man of how much money is in your accounts, which I personally think is abhorrent, my money is my money, not the governments or Mr G Browns. Because we are apart of the EU, now even the EU banks have to give details of UK peoples accounts to the UK Taxman. See I cannot work out why I have to pay tax on money earned in another country. It is pure and simply greed, the government wants as much of our money as it can get, it has no reason for taxing that money, as long as it is not brought into this country.

Now in order to try get people to admit that they have money outside of this country, invested and working for them, the HMRC has decided to offer an amnesty for people with offshore accounts. This is what pisses me off about the government, always chasing the small fry and never going after big business, because as we all know every bully is a coward at heart. I bet every penny I have got, that Mr Blair will pay less tax than he should on the reported millions he will earn on his retirement from the PM's job. I expect every penny he earns will be declared!!! Yeah right, he will employ tax consultants, lawyers and accountants, who will enable him to keep more of his money than we can. There lies the problem, there are ways and means of getting out of paying tax and if you can afford to pay for the information, you can do it, and there is nothing the taxman can do about it. After all a tax can never be retrospective, so changes to the tax system can only come into effect on the day they are made law.

Taxation has been around a long time in one way or another, Income tax has only been around since the 1700's, when it was brought into being to pay for a war. But seeing how much they could get off us, the government decided to keep it going. Over the years it has steadily risen, sometimes reduced, by never actually gone down, as figures have been fiddled, to make it look like your paying less.

So what does our tax actually get us, what do we get out of paying it? Not a great deal really, free and just society, yeah right pull the other one.

As it happens I have not got property in Spain, but it is my intention someday to buy abroad, and when that day comes I will not tell the taxman anything.

Protecting the People?

Now lets say, we trust our Councils, okay,....... okay, in reality I know we don't, but lets just pretend for a moment.... ready???

If a council discovered that underneath the town, there were massive and potentially dangerous amounts of Methane gas, locked in old coal mines, logic would surely dictate that something be done. People would be warned, police and fire crews notified, ambulances etc etc. Something one would think would be done to alleviate the threat, the council would actively do something! You think they would wouldn't you?

You would be wrong! The Express tells more!

Now doesn't that leave a nice warm fuzzy feeling in your stomach, or maybe just a blazing sense of disbelief!!!

What takes the biscuit is this comment from a spokesman for the council, talk about a fuckwit of the 1st order.... “If we go around telling people they live in a high-risk area they will panic and we have a duty not to blight house prices.” The bloke needs shooting! You have a duty to protect the citizens and residents of your town you stupid fuck!!! You know the ones who pay your wages!!!

Remind me never to buy a house in this town!!!!........

Police and guns!

The Daily Express is calling for all officers to be armed.

Talk about knee jerk reaction, to actively call for the police to be armed as a matter of routine is very wrong.

I vaguely remember a tale from an American Police Officer, who when asked about when he would draw his weapon replied "only as a very last resort", when asked to explain further he stated, "once my pistol is out of my holster I only have two options, not to shoot, or to shoot and kill. I refuse to limit my options, whilst my gun remains in its holster I have many options, often just talking and giving the guy chance to reflect, is enough to bring the person round to my way of thinking". This from a land were we expect the Police to be gung ho!

I am against our Police Force being armed for a number of reasons,

. It encourages criminals to arm themselves.
. It makes Police lazy, far to easy to pull a gun.
. We no longer have the death penalty, so why should a Police Officer be Judge, Jury and executioner.
. To many mistakes have been made by Armed Officers.
. We have unfortunately lost most of the rank and file officers, who knew how to control a situation, you know the real coppers, the modern younger officers tend to go for the gung ho approach to policing.
. Just how many Officers have been killed by firearms, in the line of duty? Now set that against how many people Police have shot by mistake or caught in crossfire, or even just got it plain wrong!
. Police are trialing tazers in parts of the UK, why are they not nationwide?

Many will say the Police are doing an important job, and deserve to be armed to protect themselves, but the Police do make too many mistakes and better that ten men escape and go free than one innocent person is killed. We have had people shot for carrying chair/table legs, mistaken identity and then the most heinous crime, a man murdered by Police after a shoot to kill policy was allowed by the Government. These mistakes are just that mistakes, but if the Police were not armed they could not have happened. Now don't get me wrong if an armed blag is going down, then an Armed response is warranted, but I have a do problem with armed police as I believe that the training is insufficient! They seem to lack any common sense and appear to be policing in fear whilst armed!

The papers recently reported that one woman was killed, whilst the police waited outside, the suggestion was that whilst there was a chance of them being shot or injured, they wouldn't make a move and the woman died, whilst across the pennines a man was shot for carrying a samurai sword, when the neither the police not the general public were in any danger!

I noticed this starting about 9 or 10 years ago, my youngest, well he was then, was just an eight year old playing in the street, with a plastic gun borrowed from a friend, when a routine police car pulled up and told him if he didn't put the toy gun away he could end up shot and dead, no niceties, just plain terrifying to a youngster, bringing a climate of fear to a youthful mind. This in an area where gun crime is very very rare.

I believe that all guns should be outlawed completely, anyone found with a loaded weapon should be given life, but at the same time, any officer shooting an innocent person should also be given life! Back when I think it was the Forest Gate arrests in London, a youth was shot, the officer concerned was involved in another shooting a short time after, and nothing was done, no reprimand... nothing.

I ask can the Police be trusted with firearms.. No I think not!

Boozing at Home part 2......

The Times has the latest proposals from our sad, tired, neglected, work shy and corrupt government.

Personally I like the odd pint or two with the lads on a Friday night, nothing to heavy, a chance to put the world to rights, have a moan, even discuss politics and occasionally women! etc etc.

Now the Royal College of Physicians have commented on the fact that we as a nation are supposedly drinking too much at home.

Not content with the just the Royal College of Physicians, now the BMA are butting in, the esteemed Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science and ethics at the BMA, has said "It is not the nanny state. It is about informed choices. It is hard for the average person to work out how many units are in a drink these days. Glasses of wine are much larger than they used to be and many beers and wines are much stronger”.

My my, what a patronising windbag! So it is hard for the average person to work out how many units are in a drink these days? Like fuck it is you stupid twat, what Professor Nathanson, and all the other fuckwits (Fuckwit = lots of degrees/qualifications but unable to tie own shoelaces) fail to realise is, ITS NONE OF YOUR DAMM BUSINESS!!!! I mean when will you learn, we like to have a drink, we like to be sociable, even the romans, called us a nation of pissheads!!!

Right the revenue from 2006 for all booze Just to get the costs out of the way!

Beer & cider duties: £3.2 bn
Spirits duties: £2.3 bn
Wine duties: £2.3bn

A total of 7.8 Billion pounds, not counting the VAT on top which would take it to a massive revenue earner of over 10 billion pounds, paid to the scrounging scots git brown. This amount dwarfs the minuscule costs of 1.7 billion treating Alcohol related diseases on the NHS!


Purely from my own fiscal point of view, if I purchase a drink in a Pub, be it beer or wines/spirits, it is understood that I pay more than the said drink is actually worth, I pay a higher price for the comfort of drinking in the pub. If I wished for cheap ale, I could and can go to the local Tesco, Morrisons et al.

Now as we age and head into our dotage, the local pub is less and less our "type of place" too many youngsters, too much loud music etc etc. Just as in our 40's we realise that clubbing is silly and make way for the youngsters coming through, as we get older our intake levels drop, we grow up and cease to be clubbers. The occasional forays to the dance floors begin to take place at weddings and birthdays.

However just because we are older and less inclined to go to the local, does not mean we dislike drink, we can still have a drink at home, but the Royal College of Physicians and now the BMA have called for drink prices to be increased, to stop the older elements of society "drinking to much"!

My parents ran pub's both managed and tenanted, when they left the pub trade, that didn't mean they gave up drinking, for years my dad brewed his own wine, and a very potent brew it was! Who needed beer when three glasses of his home made wine could put you on your back! They never drank to excess, just a few drinks whilst watching what passes for entertainment on the TV.

This as we get older is getting to be, if it was ever anything else, the norm. We have paid our taxes, our dues, contributed to the fabric of society, we do not go out and get bladdered, steaming or pished as a fart. We do not call on ambulances, we cause no fights, we do not urinate in the street, we do not go round effing and blinding it at the top of our voices. We remain safe in our homes, drinking and relaxing, in front of the TV watching the dumbed down dross that passes for entertainment or playing cards, even the odd game of scrabble.

So why this insistence from those who always presume they know better, to once again try to foist their values upon us. If they are short of friends, have boring lives, that is their fault, they failed to mix, failed to have any personality. Because the oh so righteous do gooders who infest our country are really just a lot of aging sad sack bastards who do not know when to keep their collective gob's shut!

If our elderly and pensioners want to drink at home, what the fucking hell makes it your business. During their working lives they had to put up with all your stupid petty rules and regulations, they jumped through your stupid hoops, they paid for the NHS, they paid for your schooling, they were lied to but paid anyway for the EU.

Now they have retired, they Do Not have to put up with you! You have not earned the right to comment on their lives, they are above you, you have nothing to teach them, and even more so, you talk of nothing that they need to know! Other than perhaps giving another reason for the (robbing bastard) chancellor to raise more taxes, by upping the prices in the supermarkets and off licences, to pay for an illegal war! Plus now that the smoking ban is to come into force, which will induce more people to give up, the revenue from fags will go down, and the tax on booze will go up. After all we have to pay for Tony's pension pot don't we?

Apart from the cheerful people who can afford to pop over to France on the ferry and thus stick two fingers up at Mr Brown, as they smoke and drink themselves merry on cheaper fags and booze, the less well off will buy even more off the so called smugglers, and brown will again attempt to convince us all that it pays for terrorists and aids organised crime. (Well sorry to say the most organised criminals in this country are the current crop of NuLabour Scottish mafia, who are bleeding the country dry as well as selling it to the EU) Some of us will just brew our own, which is more likely to be stronger and a hell of a lot cheaper, ooerr and no revenue to pay either. See that's whats so special about NuLabour, they cannot think through the consequences of their not so clever ideas.

But I digress, if my mum wants to drink a bottle of vodka over two years, two months, two weeks, or even two days, who's fucking business is it? After years of paying into a system, which repeatedly shafted her for more and more of her hard earned money. Has she not earned the right to do whatever the bloody hell she wants?

So to all you Physicians who profess to know so much, get off your fucking high horses, get out get a hobby, or even try and get a life. Stop kowtowing to the politicians, begging for knighthoods. Bloody hell, you should have bought one like the rest of tony's mates. Just leave me and mine alone, if nothing else all the do gooders have proved, is once they are let loose on anything they, as politicians ( who have no room to talk Re: Boozing) do, fuck it all up. It ain't broke, it don't need fixing..... now piss off and die!! I mean have they ever stopped to think, its these petty rules and regulations and the do gooders that are driving people to drink? We have a life, and we also have the freedom to live it as we see fit!

First they came for the smokers
Then they came for the obese
Next they started on pensioners
Then they came for the motorists
Now they're after those who drink.

WHY ARE POLITICIANS ARE ALWAYS EXEMPT. They get huge, tax free salaries, perks, can smoke and drink at work, can claim up to £131,000. expenses! They also have fantastic gilt edged pensions!!

AND NO MENTION OF THE £1.5 MILLION BOOZE MOUNTAIN CONSUMED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS BY MPS!

20 MPH speed limits on the roads?

Lets see, do drivers drive on the pavement? No didn't think so.

The majority of accidents are caused by people walking into the road without looking! Whilst speed could contribute slightly, the simple fact is the pedestrian should not have been there!

Be it a youngster dashing between parked cars, running across the roads, or even city centre pedestians and their refusal to walk an extra 30 yards to the nearest pelican/zebra crossing.

Lets put the blame back where it truly belongs, at the feet of the pedestrian. 50% of deaths of 18 to 25 years olds is caused by them drunkenly walking/stumbling into the road, after kicking out time at the local pub/club yet its always the motorist who is demonised, always speed put on trial.

If there was a crime of jay walking as in America, would the incidences of motorists hitting pedestrians reduce, of course it would, it would force pedestrians, to use the pavements and designated crossings.The very place that they are safest, yet they insist on encroaching onto the roads in a mistaken belief it is every motorists responsiblity to watch out for them.

Whilst I can and do accept that a car travelling at 30 mph is more likely to seriously injure a child than one travelling at 20mph, if the child takes the risk and gambles on being able to run cross the road, and then loses, whose fault is it? Should the child and his her parents castigate the driver, when its the childs own fault?