Kevin's Watch

Interesting idea about the fox hunting, although I suspect that if it went to district, it would be illegal in the boroughs of the cities, and legal wherever people usually do it...

--A

What a load of crap some foolish people get around to 'slubbering up'. Putin gives speeches promising to keep going ahead with Russia's "massive rearmament program" [Putins words which he seems to be serious about - he announced plans for the construction of 40 ICBM's this year alone], while the US prepares to 'pre-position' battle-tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and outher heavy weaponry in Poland and the Baltic States. Putin continues to cozy up to the Greeks and is gleefully watching for any sign of a 'Brexit' in the case of Cameron f*****g it up in the coming weeks. The Chinese and Russians perform joint military manouvers in the Black Sea and the Chinese and Americans prod each other over a bunch of rocks in the South China Sea.

And all of this means shit to the average person in the street who will pick up the pieces when and wherever the crap eventually hits the fan and who wants nothing more than a quiet life to get on with doing his stuff. Why don't these guys get into the ring and trade it out over twelve rounds of gruelling slug; I can think of nothing better on a saturday night than sitting with a beer watching Putin trade blow for blow with Angela Merkel and Cameron and Obama waiting in the wings to cage-fight Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinping in their swimming trunks. Geeerrrtcha!

I would pay to see that.

--A

If Sky get hold of it you'll have to!

Totally worth it.

Have often wondered how much war there would be if the generals had to shoot it out personally...

--A

Tribes in Papua New Guinea could have a war and settle the business after the first fatality of the combat [after which every body would make up and go and get pissed] - and they are the primative ones!

Well, they did also collect heads and practise of form of cannibalism IIRC.

Anyway, yeah...if only the next time they decide to have a war, the soldiers on both sides decided not to turn up...

--A

Yes Av, but that was part of a complex ritual of balance and social obligation - not the unthinking action of a brute savage as in the past we were led to believe. When a person who had fallen in battle was eaten the consumer took on the mantle of the consumed including his familial responsibilities and thus binding ties were formed between neighbouring tribes which promoted future stability. These were cultures that had, over eons developed complex societal protocols to deal with all levels of human interaction with minimal damage to the group. I have massive respect for their understanding for the need for balance.

There is a new government incentive to vaccinate all people over the age of 70 against shingles. Perhaps I am wrong here but would be his money not be better spent providing treatment for people who are currently denied drugs etc they need because of limited budget constraints? Is shingles in the elderly such a problem that children should die through lack of say the best cancer drugs in order to fund a prophylaxis programming aimed at the oldest section of the populace. I would happily forgoe my free vaccination if the money could be better utilised on people who desperately need therapies currently beyond NHS means. Or maybe Big Pharma prefers it the way it is?

Gotta keep those Tory voters alive as long as possible, Peter!

Don't worry M. - those assholes live forever despite the odd case of shingles anyway. The Devil looks after his own! (Maybe a bit to harsh there.)

--A

Shingles? I am vaccinated against smallpox. Fat lot of good that did me - no-one gets smallpox any more.

Only because everybody got vaccinated against it...

--A

Boy George must be feeling pretty smug today with all the papers lauding his praises following his decision to institute a £9 per hour 'living minnimum wage' for low paid workers. What they don't say is that the increase [from about £6.50 at present] will largely have been swallowed by inflation by then anyway, and in the meantime the £12 Billion in welfare cuts will proceed apace as intended. Here's an idea. Why not institute the 'livable wage' across the board tomorrow and have businesses that cannot afford to pay the calculated rate apply for assistance [ie bennefits], instead of allowing them to employ people at a below survival rate [as is currently the case], and making the worker go through the ignomony of having to go cap in hand for assistance.

I read this on the blurb of a book the other day pertaining to the rise in 'buy to let' and 'investment buying' of housing stock in the UK and rather liked it.

If food were a comodity that rose in value and some people began to stockpile it while others were starving, this would not be tolerated, yet exactly this situation pertains in the UK housing market today.

It's all been done before. This is the Speenhamland System all over again.

Wikipedia: The authorities at Speenhamland approved a means-tested sliding-scale of wage supplements in order to mitigate the worst effects of rural poverty. Families were paid extra to top up wages to a set level according to a table. This level varied according to the number of children and the price of bread. For example, if bread was 1s 2d a loaf, the wages of a family with two children were topped up to 8s 6d. If bread rose to 1s 8d the wages were topped up to 11s 0d.

The immediate impact of paying the poor rate fell on the landowners of the parish concerned. They then sought other means of dealing with the poor, such as the workhouse funded through parish unions. Eventually pressure due to structural poverty caused the introduction of the new Poor Law (1834).

Replace "Speenhamland System" with "tax credits". The SS enabled employers to pay workers less because they knew that the poor law system would top up wages. This was one of the reasons for the introduction of the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834.

Interesting post Io.

--A

Yes, but why not flip the thing on it's head so that the businesses that pay below livable wages are exposed as either being rapacious, unviable or just plain badly run.

[In my local paper today, scanning the 'sits vac' columns, I saw a job being advertised that promised £6.50 an hour and 28 days holiday per year. The advert failed to mention that both are the statutory minimum allowed by law in the UK.]

28 holidays? what are they?

No, he means you get 28 days of paid time off every year.

--A