How Very Interesting

Over on the right hand side of the screen (if you scroll down a bit) you should be able to see a graph entitled ''My Political Views". Now I know you, reader - I understand that you can read - but just for the sake of reference, allow me to just write here what the graph said about me:

'I am a centrist social moderate. Left: 0.8 Libertarian: 0.63'

When I was messing about on here the other day, I noticed the graph and realised it had been a wee while since I had actually done that test. A quick rummage around my archives (steady) confirmed that - it had been late August 2009, almost two years ago, when I had given my opinions on two pages worth of statements. So, I did it again. The results surprised me slightly:

My Political Views
I am a left social moderate
Left: 4.04, Libertarian: 0.95

Political Spectrum Quiz

So I've gone from being a Centrist to a Lefty. Naturally this appals me, so here's my comprehensive plan to sort myself out:

1) Stop being corrupted by The Vole
2) Devour all the Clarkson books I haven't got round to yet
3) Look at more pictures of Nicola Blackwood
4) Play more golf
5) Hope that time does its thing and I get more right-wing as I get older, as most people do

How difficult can all that be?! Not difficult at all, so I'm now off to find a friend called Tarquin. I'll be having affairs with Jodie Kidd before you know it!

Tally-ho what!

In Memoriam

It is Monday morning, and I am spending the day chillaxing (sorry) after a weekend away which contained little sleep, lots of fun and an excellent lunchtime meal. When I'm at home I love to stay informed and up to date with the news via my laptop/TV/phone/radio, but that wasn't really an option for me these past few days. In the car we only listened to the cricket, I didn't bring my laptop with me, we didn't turn on the hotel TV and it's not really good etiquette to check your phone all the time.

So when I checked Twitter just before bed on Saturday evening, I was desperately sad to see the news about Amy Winehouse. Desperately sad not because I was a huge fan of hers (I'll get to that a little bit later) but because it was all so depressingly predictable. Was anyone really surprised by the news? There was another thing that made me sad, though. Whilst perusing my Twitter timeline, a theme quickly began to develop which I found very odd - the inclination for people to automatically connect Amy's death with the atrocities in Oslo. Please let me take a moment to just briefly talk about both:

What happened in Oslo demonstrates quite clearly the abhorrent and despicable depths to which a human can sink to, and has made me despise the human race just a little bit more. Nobody - except the scumbag himself - can say what has been going through Anders Behring Breivik's mind in recent times, but it seems he is close with Neo-Nazi far-right organisations and has spent time co-ordinating and planning these attacks based on some sort of political protest. At the time of writing, over 90 people are dead, roughly the same are injured. The date of these atrocities - Friday 22nd July 2011.

Amy Winehouse was a musician, but also a very troubled young lady. I'm not into music, hugely, so it is not up to me to say whether Amy was wonderfully talented or not. To be honest, I could only name two of her records - one being a cover and the other being 'Rehab' which I never really liked. However, I've seen enough tributes from music journalists over the past two days to recognise that she was hugely talented, and is a desperate loss for the British music industry. The date of her passing - Saturday 23rd July 2011.

I have referenced the dates for one reason and one reason only - they are the only things even remotely plausible to cite when comparing these two events. In ten years time, perhaps we can look back and say "Yes, these two events in history happened on consecutive days" - but let us be very, very clear on this one. The comparisons end there. Why then, on Saturday night, was Twitter (and later Facebook) riddled with tweets/status updates bringing the two events together?

From a dickhead on Twitter - "Alright, Amy Winehouse made a good song once, but how is her self inflicted death more sad than the terror attack in Norway? 92 people died."

From a dickhead on Facebook - "5 days ago a true British hero was killed fighting for our country. Did you know this? Do you know his name? Did you care? A singer addicted to drink and drugs dies and its all over the news, Facebook and Twitter in minutes!!! RIP Corporal Mark Anthony Palin from 1st Battalion The Rifles!"

One more - "okay I know its sad about Amy Winehouse dying but what about all of the 92 people who have been shot and killed in Norway? Oh yeah that's right, they are not famous!"

People. Seriously, what is this? What on Earth is compelling people to write stuff like this, or think this? Am I completely alone in being able to feel sad for different people in different countries? Can we all not just think like this:

• I'm very sad that many people have died at the hands of a madman in Norway.
• I'm very sad that a talented young woman has died.
• I'm very sad that a soldier has died doing a very difficult job in Afghanistan.
• I fully understand that these events are in no way connected - other than perhaps time frame - and shouldn't really be talked about in the same sentence, never mind compared and contrasted.

Or is that seemingly too difficult? 

I'd like to finish this post on Amy. What some people don't know is that before the heavy drug use, before the silly hairstyle, before the horrible and odd tattoos, before the "out of it" stage appearances - she was actually a very beautiful young woman, and one who has gone far, far too soon. Don't do drugs, kids.

Uppal in Arms (Again)

Alright? Alright at the back?

Followers and long-term readers of TRAROTL may remember that a few blog posts ago (scroll down, you'll find it) I expressed my displeasure at the Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West, the Rt. Hon. (Arf!) Paul Uppal MP. If you want daily critical analysis of the Uppalster, obviously Voley is your man, but once again Uppal has infuriated me so much I just cannot let his ignorance and stupidity slide. He's not the only Tory MP who's caught my eye in the past few days, mind. In the case of Mark Pritchard MP, I'll get to him at the end of this post. But how about Nicola Blackwood, eh lads? Eh? Eh? Know what I mean?! I wouldn't mind showing her my Black Rod, geddit?!

I'm not black, just to clarify that one.

ANYWAY, yes. Paul Uppal. On Wednesday our leader, David William Donald Cuthbert Pontesbury Blythe Cameron made a statement on "Hackgate" before answering any questions (lol) that were fired in his direction. Let's see what question the great man asked our leader, eh?

'There are very few places in the world where the leader of the Executive would subject himself to two hours of questioning.'


Really, Paul? I heard someone say the other day that all of this furore is our equivalent of Watergate. Now, I don't know whether it's that big or not, but it's pretty damn big right now, isn't it? It's seen a 160 year old newspaper brought to its knees. It's seen the (pretty scary) revelation that very, very senior people in the Met are incompetent, and perhaps worse (please don't sue me). It's seen Rupert Murdoch turn up to a Select Committee/episode of Tiswas. It's seen Rebekah Wade-Brooks leave News International.

You know what I'm saying? Now when it comes to Cameron, the pressure is on a little bit, due to his (rather cosy, it seems) relationship with Andy Coulson and everything that's entailed. As the top man, it was absolutely right that Cameron faced the questions of his peers (even if he dodged most of them) and it's absolutely right that he rode it out for as long as it took. Two hours? That's hardly a ridiculously long period of time, Paul. 'Very few places'? We all know the naughty boys of the world's political stage - Gaddafi and Mugabe and President I'm A Dinner Jacket and those lads - but most countries have accountable leaders. I think 'very few places' is a tad OTT. Anyway, let's have a gander at Uppal's question:

'One thing that shames our democracy, though, is that there are elements in the House that seem to want to make political capital out of the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone.'


Now I don't want to criticise Voley, but in his post about this nonsense, I cannot believe he missed this. It's basically left an open goal for me, yet one that's made me very angry. Because what Paul Uppal is thinking when he says this - and remember that this man represents 60,000 people - can be simply boiled down to this:

"This is good. I now have an opportunity, live on TV, in front of my exalted leader, to make petty political capital out of petty political capital."

Because that's what that is, no? Just sheer, blatant hypocrisy. "They've shamed our democracy with their political pettiness!" he cries, whilst shaming our democracy with his political pettiness. Once again, I'm left astonished by this man, and not in a good way.

And as for the question? There simply isn't one. Now I know I'm stressed at the moment, and I know I haven't slept much recently, but I find this pretty fucking poor. Once again I'm left reading something from Paul Uppal and thinking "Dude? Really?" before getting pissed off with him. Happily, I'm not the only one, as Margaret Curran, the Labour MP for Glasgow East wasn't too impressed either:

'May I ask the Prime Minister, in all sincerity, to dissociate himself from the comment of Paul Uppal?


Naturally, Dave duly dodged that question.

One final thing - I was reading a VERY interesting webpage the other day which listed and detailed MPs remunerations and sponsorships. Did you know that Diane Abbott receives £800 for every 'This Week' appearance? Or that Ed Miliband was sponsored by Lord Sugar in the lead-up to the Labour leadership election? If you fancy a browse yourself, it's here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?d=2011-07-06

It was perusing that page that led me to this interesting little titbit about Mark Pritchard, the MP who stands in my constituency:

Payment of £500 for article for News of the World newspaper, 1 Virginia Street, London E1 9XR. Hours: 5 hrs.(Registered 24 January 2011)

Having not hassled the letters page of The Sloppy Star for a wee while, I thought firing off a quick, rather smug letter based upon this information was a good idea. Sadly, it seems the editorial people don't agree - letter was sent via e-mail on Monday, at the time of writing (Friday) it has not been published, and I suspect it won't be considering how Conservative leaning the rag is. But I shall not be silenced! Here is the letter in full. I'm tempted to write another version and send it to Mr Pritchard directly in the vain hope of a reply.

Sir,


The allegations against the 'News Of The World' have made for depressing reading over the past fortnight. From a murdered schoolgirl to victims of terrorism, there were, allegedly, no depths to which this deplorable rag wouldn't stoop to when hacking into phones. These revelations have been brought to light recently, but the allegations against the paper on this subject have been simmering for at least two years now. How interesting it is to read then that Mark Pritchard MP received a payment of £500 for an article in the paper registered on 24th January, 2011 (information taken from TheyWorkForYou.com http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?d=2011-07-06) - just two weeks after it had suspended associate editor Ian Edmondson over the hacking allegations! I trust Mr Pritchard will be giving this money to charity, if he has not already done so?

Editing Does Not Get Tougher Than This

Hallo folks. I know I haven't blogged for a while, but right now nothing is really jumping out at me in terms of what I can write about. As you can probably understand, so much has already been written about the News International saga - and by more intelligent folk than myself - that adding my voice is a bit pointless. So, let's have a change of pace. I try to mix things up here at TRAROTL, so instead of lengthy blocks of text, how about we all sit back and enjoy a nice video?

I don't really watch 'Masterchef' - I'm more of a 'Come Dine With Me' man, to the chagrin (great word) of Cynical Ben. But I've seen enough of the programme to know that this is pure, pure genius - particularly the last 20 seconds or so. Now, good luck getting it out of your head...

Uppal in Arms

If you're a long term reader of this fine blog, chances are you also read the tremendous blog by professional Stoke City fanatic The Plashing Vole. Ever since the General Election, you may have noticed that Voley has had it in for the newly elected MP for Wolverhampton South West - his constituency - Mr Paul Uppal MP, a Conservative.

As the tirades began, I mostly ignored them. Voley is a rabid leftie, and I took his rants to be exaggerations - portrayals of Mr Uppal which were unfair and inaccurate and at times callous. Nevertheless, I was curious about the Uppalster, so I went to the (excellent) 'They Work For You' website and signed up to e-mail notifications about the great man. This basically means that when Paul Uppal asks a question or makes a speech in the House of Commons, I get an email the next morning notifying me of the content. You can do it for any MP you like, and it's cool, providing you're a nerd like me.

Here's the kicker. On Thursday morning I received an email because yer man from Wolverhampton had asked a question at Prime Ministers Questions the day previously, the full transcript of which can be found (and laid out really well) here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-06-22b.313.5#g323.2

It's perhaps fair to say that this question did not please me greatly. Here it is:

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister demonstrated his strength of character in talking about multiculturalism. In view of the fact that I have a Christian first name and a Sikh surname, I try to combine the best of my traditional Indian values with my core British values. Does he agree that we can learn a lot from our Indian partners in this respect, many of whom define themselves by their nationality first and foremost, regardless of their ethnic or religious background?

With all due respect to Paul Uppal MP, what a bucketful of shit that is. A thorough fisking of it can be found here but the thing that angered me about it was that Uppal seemingly felt the need to ask this probing, thorough and intelligent "question" at PMQs. Seriously. For folk like myself, who are interested in politics but not overly so, PMQs is pretty much the one time we have to watch the Prime Minister answering questions on the big national issues of the day. Some MPs don't focus on the national side of things - they highlight an issue in their area, or a note-worthy constituent of theirs, and that's fine. Uppal does neither. What he does do is ask a question which doesn't actually make a great deal of sense. I'd love to know what "core British values" are.

So at this point I've got Uppal's card marked, but sadly worse was to follow. Last week I was lounging around watching tennis when a tweet caught my attention - Tory MP Mark Pritchard was going against his own party/leader in trying to get a ban imposed on circuses employing wild animals as part of their shows. I flicked over to BBC Parliament instantly, not because I was particularly interested in circuses, but because Pritchard is my local MP and seemed to be stirring things up a bit. I proceeded to sit and watch the debate for about 90 minutes, as it proved to be rather more interesting than I thought it would be. During that time I witnessed:

a) Several Conservative MPs congratulating Mark Pritchard on his involvement with the debate, and agreeing with his viewpoint.

b) A very thoughtful and intelligent speech from Caroline Lucas.

c) A speech from Zac Goldsmith(!) where he put on record how he was pleased David Cameron had stepped down and allowed the debate to be a free vote.

d) A cross-party consensus on the issue.

During these speeches, I spotted the great man himself, the Uppal, sneaking into the Chamber. I suddenly got excited. Would he speak on this issue? Would he join Zac Goldsmith (still can't believe that) in subtly criticising his leader? Would he join everyone else in agreeing with Mark Pritchard on this issue? Well, the answers are as follows - Yes. No. No.

Those are fine words, but will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Labour party did not do something about the issue when it was in power?

And now I know that Vole is right. Because this is disgustingly cheap political point scoring from someone who should know better. I appreciate politics is a dirty game sometimes, but at that moment in the debate, there was no need for an interjection as snide, unintelligent and pointless as what we see above. Mercifully, as we can see here (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-06-23a.548.0&s=speaker%3A24886#g579.0) Uppal was soon slapped down by Labour MP Gavin Shuker. There we have it folks. That's the mark of the man, right there. When even the poshest of posh Tory boys can admit that his leader is worryingly wrong and contributes successfully to a debate, Paul Uppal barges in with his finger pointing with nonsense that helps precisely no-one.

Will I ever blog about Paul Uppal ever again? Probably not - I know someone who will, and they do a better job of it than I ever could. But the more blogs like this which can be found when a person googles his name, the better, quite frankly. People of Wolverhampton South West - when the election next rolls round, don't tolerate this man's rubbish any longer.

MOAR Letters!

No small talk. Let's rattle on through some more bonkers letters.

===========================================================

What a wonderful wedding.


As mentioned last time, I've taken these letters from papers over the last month or so. This one is from May 11th so we're on the William/Kate wedding here. I'm sure you realised that already but hey ho.

A handsome prince, an accomplished and beautiful bride. Our Queen and Prince Philip looking happy and immaculate. 


I did not watch it, but from the pictures I've seen it looks that way. I'm pleased for William and Kate, I really am. Thankyou, Peter Hollingworth, for writing in this lovely letter about a lovely wedding. I like this letter a lot, so far, and as long as you don't do something mental like use the Royal Wedding to shoehorn in a criticism of the EU, I'll be with you every step of the way.

Lots of ordinary people in the congregation with foreign royalty and leaders of the Commonwealth countries - and not an EU representative in sight.


I give up, I really do. This is like the "Nick Clegg's fault" thing which went around Twitter a few months back, except this isn't tongue in cheek. This is horribly, nightmarishly real.

It's just started raining here. THAT'S YOUR FAULT, ANDRE AGASSI!

A truly British event and a day to be remembered.


So you shouldn't be moaning. By the way, wasn't Clegg there? And wasn't he an MEP?

Why can't our MPs realise it is time to change tacks and to get back with the Commonwealth we created, before Heath turned his back on it.


Bring back the Empire, what I always say. Sort out these funny chaps with a right British slap, what!

What made him want to be a good little European? Was it his own way of getting his own back on General de Gaulle who, as President of France, not only said "No" to our first application but added: "The British people will never be European". Now most under 60-year-olds think they are European - their passport tells them so.


Anyone still trying to work out the connection here between this guff and the wedding? Anyone? Bueller?

But if they look at a map they will see that the nearest point of the European continent is 22 miles from us across the sea.


I know I say this every time, but this must be the shittiest thing ever written. TWENTY TWO MILES! OH MY GOD! Can you even IMAGINE that distance? Wow, mainland Europe is SO FAR AWAY.

We can't afford the £45m plus which we give Brussels every day, nor the 70% of laws being imposed on Parliament by Brussels. Get us out. I enjoyed being British again.


Peter Hollingworth
Harborne, Birmingham


And you are writing into The Shropshire Star because......?

===========================================================

So that's why we're in Afghanistan...to kill Bin Laden.


Well, there's a number of reasons we, and others, are in Afghanistan. These reasons are valid and I completely support the troops that are out there. Bin Laden? Well, as a key member of Al Qaeda, he was always going to be in the firing line (literally). I have slight reservations about how he was removed, but I understand, with some regret, that Army boys don't mess about. In the long run his death doesn't change anything, really, but it was a powerful, highly symbolic moment.

I see, how clever. I thought it was to give democracy to the Afghan people, to control the cocaine market and put two fingers up to the Russians. 


You thought right! Well done. The influx of nasty drugs from Afghanistan and it's neighbours (nudge nudge, wink wink Pakistan!) presents the biggest danger to our young people, in my opinion.

So that's why British troops have died, revenge for 9/11. I see, so Obama can be re-elected.


Dude, you've now given us six possible reasons for why we're in Afghanistan. You were correct with...I'mma say three, with the Obama thing a tad cynical but probably true.

It only took them four years to plan and execute the killing of the most wanted man in the world.


Quick summary of this letter: "It is a disgrace that troops were in Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden. What took you so long you muppets, why didn't you kill him STRAIGHT AWAY?!"

I know we should have invaded Zimbabwe and got rid of dictators. Not played up to them like Libya, Pakistan and most of the Middle East.


I've addressed this before, so I shan't again. But, John, please please please tell me how we could have/can invade Zimbabwe. Please do!

Clue: You can't.

Yet we must obey our masters, the Americans. They know best.


John R Brown
Shrewsbury


I dealt with you last time - I remember the name. Will have to keep an eye on you.

===========================================================


Now is the time for the Conservatives to demand Mr Cameron call an election.


?????????????????

It is quite obvious that this country can no longer be governed by a coalition.


?????????????????

We must remove Mr Clegg and his Lib Dems. No more immigration. No more EU. No more windmills.


GT Inwood
Shrewsbury


Fuck windmills. I'm serious.

I was stopped by a man in the street the other day, doing a survey on the threats of society. On his list of options he had: Drugs, climate change, terrorism, global pandemic, nuclear weaponry, the EU (naturally). I realised then that he was a complete amateur.

"Windmills" I softly said to him, as I handed his clipboard back to him without ticking any of the boxes. "Windmills" I repeated, before turning and slowly walking away.

===========================================================

One more letter for you now, and I've deliberately left this one till last. If anyone has ANY idea what the living fuck this is all about, please, leave a comment below. If you can, you're a better person than I am. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you....this.

One has often wondered how Dr Samuel Johnson, the eminent lexicographer, managed to compile the wonderful dictionary.


This is a very fair point - seriously. When you sit and think about it, what a staggering achievement. How DID he do it? It's a real shame that when I see his name, I automatically think of Robbie Coltrane and that Blackadder (III?) episode, instead of the man himself and his fine, fine achievement.

The term happiness is a state of mind and the word utopia enters our picture.


The term 'happiness' is a state of mind....okay, right....and the word 'utopia' enters our picture...

Not entirely sure about the second bit, but go on.

Numerous citizens "ate" political correctness as a base for a form of reasoning, drawing comparisons to the days before New Labour's Human Rights Act - a misconception surely?


Emyr Davies
Wrexham


Is it me? Am I being thick, and just not getting that?

I've read that letter about 15 times, and I'm still none the wiser. Congratulations Emyr, you've silenced me. Answers in the comment box please.

Killing Two Birds

Just a quickie for you this time folks. If you roam around on the internet a lot then you may have seen this already, but if not then it's worth a watch. It appeals to me as a hopeless romantic greatly:



Of course, if you follow my relatively new Tumblr page, you might have seen it already! Yes, I have a Tumblr account. I'm still trying to figure it out, and it will never, ever be the priority compared to this blog, but for stuff too little for here and too big for Twitter, it's perfect. I don't update it that frequently, but feel free to check it out over at:

http://thefallandfalloftimlovejoy.tumblr.com/

See what I did there?