I mean WTAF?

A picture of a fat toddler who apparently picks her own footwear and goes food shopping on her own and is upset because of reports (Reports!?) her teddy bears have split up.

What on earth is going on at the Daily Mail? WTF is happening to the world?

(I didn't click the link to the story. Too worried that what I see, may never be unseen).

Vote now!

Once again, the petty, small minded little control freaks are winning:

Why would anyone want to ban ecigs in public unless they believe the 'Public Health' scaremongering? Bloody sheep, the lot of them.

Vote here.

Shakespeare was a peado

It seems everyone who was famous in the past is now a suspect in the great peado witch hunt. Well Shakespeare was definitely famous and I've got it on good authority that he like to roger young girls.

Well the average lifespan was about twelve or something back then, so he must have liked them young.

But that's no excuse to modern puritanism.

If I can make this rumour take flight, maybe Shakespeare will be taken out of the school curriculum and I can spare kids everywhere, the tedium of A Midsummer Nights Dream. That would be a good thing for everyone. Let's face it, the only reason Shakespeare is still discussed and read, is to torture school kids. There's no other excuse for it.

Maybe the police could raid his house along with the BBC, to look for 'evidence'. I believe it's still standing in Stratford, is it?

Or is that some other peado? They were all as bad as each other, you know.

Minimum excise tax on fags - The silliest argument I've ever heard.

Spotted over at Ken Frosts place, here's a consultation by HMRC for the introduction of a minimum excise tax on tobacco.

So what does that mean? Get this:

Tax on fags is a good way to get people to quit.
Therefore, tax on fags is high.
Therefore, consumption of (UK taxable) fags is going down.

...Tax revenue is going down.

So what do they want to do about the missing money? That's right, they want to put the tax up.

Don't just take my word for it, go have a read yourself. It's hilarious.

A recent trend in the cigarette market has been the significant growth of the cheapest cigarette category. If this trend is indicative of a market shift towards cheaper cigarettes, it presents a risk to the effectiveness of tobacco policy in its role to protect future revenues and reduce smoking rates.

Protect future revenues and reduce smoking rates, the two being obviously mutually exclusive.

Our hard or thinking HMRC want to change the tax rules so that tax isn't chargeable on the value of the tobacco, but is rather charged at a flat rate. That flat rate being the highest rate applied to all tobacco.

Estimates of cigarette category market shares, as at 2009, suggest that consumers are switching away from more expensive cigarette categories, in favour of cheaper cigarette categories. This switch is often referred to as “down-trading.” As described in a recent study of the UK cigarette market, between 2001 and 2009 the market share of the cigarette categories at the higher end of the market broadly declined while the market shares of the lower end of the cigarette market broadly increased.1 Graph 1.A is replicated from this study and illustrates these trends

Yes, as prices go up, people pick cheaper options. This reduces tax take and in order to protect that take, they want to respond by removing cheaper options.
Except they cannot remove the cheaper option of buying your tobacco abroad or even from a man in a van. Or quitting, which also doesn't help revenues.

These people are supposed to be intelligent.

So let's bring in a minimum fag tax and watch the tax take begin to plummet. You know what their response to that situation will be?

My money is on another tax hike. That should sort it!

Always milking it

Oh F...!

So a road sweeper is driving down the street, when it makes a rather ambitious attempt to get through a narrow gap and ends up damaging a car. For reasons unknown, the driver doesn't bother to stop. Fortunately, one of the neighbours has CCTV which caught the whole thing.

An old bird wrote Mrs Buckos car off last week by crashing into it and another one, while they were parked up. Mrs B has just replaced the wreck with a £1500 Land Rover Freelander, the most expensive car we have ever owned. She's pig in shit, happy.

Anyhoo, that story never made the papers. Why? Because quotes like...

No bother, the insurance company are taking care of it.

...don't get you your fifteen minutes.

You want something that gushes emotion. Oh, here's a good one:

The 31-year-old mother-of-one, who is seven months pregnant, said she had been visiting an ill relative when the crash happened.

Mother. Pregnant. Visiting ill relative. That ticks a few boxes.

Why are they always pregnant or ill or both? And what difference does it make to the insurance claim?

Just bloody milking it.