A brief brief and beef about beef

If we ever needed proof that regulation is a tool of big business and not for the protection of consumers, the horse / beef fiasco proves it.

A massive infrastructure dedicated to making sure that our food is good and safe has failed, despite the regulation applied specifically to large corporate suppliers and supermarkets. Every day seems to show another crack in the edifice.

And what are consumers doing? Well, those who can afford it have always used butchers. Parsimonious types are now migrating to butchers where the food chain is known by actual people and not by regulation.

I strongly contend that people who actually know the food chain and the history of the food being bought are far more trusted than any ticked boxes or paperwork that has been completed. Regulation is no substitute for knowledge.

But no, for the average statist, there is no substitute for more regulation, no matter that the failure of regulation is evident to all, the answer is always more regulation.

Monarchy in the UK

I have, in the past, been accused of being the first anarchist monarchist. I don't think that it's a fair comment, I genuinely don't believe that we need ANY kind of government to get along and live together.

And certainly, historically, when monarchy was the dominant form of government around the world, they were no better at things like venality, corruption and warmongering than democratically elected governments are today.

But I genuinely do not understand the obsession that many people have with a) doing away with the monarchy and b) the idea that the royal family are a bunch of indolent layabouts.

As to the former, what would getting rid of the monarchy achieve? Given the corrupt, venal, warmongering, bubble-inhabiting FUCKS of all parties who would be setting up our new political establishment if we sacked the royals, what the hell does anyone think we're going to get to replace it? Something better?

As to the latter, I'm quite sure that there are possibly a large number of minor royals who are indolent fucks who sponge off their family. Like this doesn't happen anywhere else. But to have a go at the Queen for not working to me seems incredibly petty:

The Queen serves an important role in reminding us that no matter how much we achieve, there's always someone who got more by doing less

-- cyriakharris

Now, a quick glance here will show that most days, the queen has to drag herself out of bed and travel to exciting places like Nottingham and Corby to attend tiresome functions that would have most of us screaming within 20 minutes. She has to endure looking at schools and old age homes and community centres and appear to be interested. She has to nibble on mass catering day in and day out. She has to endure speeches about how wonderful she is for the whole year this year.

Tell me if that doesn't sound like your idea of hell. Tell me if there is any amount of money in the world that would get you to exchange the relative freedom of your life for a life where your every move is planned out years in advance, where if you farted publicly, it would make the front page of the papers. 

And that's just the functions that the Queen attends. This is a typical day in the life of the Queen:

The Queen's working day begins like many people's - at her desk. 

After scanning the daily British newspapers, The Queen reviews her correspondence. 

Every day, 200-300 (and sometimes many more) letters from the public arrive. The Queen chooses a selection to read herself and tells members of her staff how she would like them to be answered.
This enables Her Majesty personally to see a typical cross-section of her daily correspondence. Virtually every letter is answered by staff in her Private Secretary's office or by a lady-in-waiting. 

The Queen will then see, separately, two of her Private Secretaries with the daily quota of official papers and documents. This process takes upwards of an hour. 

Every day of every year, wherever she is, The Queen receives from government ministers, and from her representatives in the Commonwealth and foreign countries, information in the form of policy papers, Cabinet documents, telegrams, letters and other State papers. 

These are sent up to her by the Private Secretaries in the famous 'red boxes'. All of these papers have to be read and, where necessary, approved and signed. 

A series of official meetings or 'audiences' will often follow. The Queen will see a number of important people. 

These include overseas ambassadors and high commissioners, newly appointed British ambassadors, senior members of the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces on their appointment and retirement, and English bishops and judges on their appointment. 

Each meeting usually lasts 10 to 20 minutes, and usually The Queen and her visitor meet alone. 

The Queen may also meet a number of people who have won prizes or awards in a variety of fields such as literature or science, to present them individually with their prize. 

If there is an Investiture - a ceremony for the presentation of honours and decorations - it begins at 11.00am and lasts just over an hour. The Queen usually meets around 100 people at each Investiture to present Orders, decorations and medals. 

The Queen will often lunch privately. Every few months, she and The Duke of Edinburgh will invite a dozen guests from a wide variety of backgrounds to an informal lunch. Occasionally, the guest list may consist of far fewer people, such as a newly appointed or retiring Governor-General and their guest. 

If The Queen is spending the morning on engagements away from her desk and other commitments, she will visit up to three venues before lunch, either alone or jointly with The Duke of Edinburgh.
On a regional visit, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh lunch with a wide variety of people in places ranging from town halls to hospitals. 

In the afternoons, The Queen often goes out on public engagements. 

Such visits require meticulous planning beforehand to meet the hosts' requirements. 

And The Queen prepares for each visit by briefing herself on whom she will be meeting and what she will be seeing and doing. 

Royal engagements are carefully selected by The Queen from a large number of invitations sent to her each year, often by the Lord-Lieutenants (The Queen's representatives in counties throughout the United Kingdom). 

This helps to ensure the widest possible spread and to make effective use of The Queen's time.
If the engagement is outside London, her journeys are often by air using a helicopter or an RAF aircraft. 

The Queen carries out around 430 engagements (including audiences) a year, to meet people, open events and buildings, unveil plaques and make speeches. 

Such engagements can include visits to schools, hospitals, factories, military units, art galleries, sheltered accommodation for elderly people, hostels for the homeless, local community schemes in inner city areas, and other British and Commonwealth organisations. 

The Queen regularly goes out for the whole day to a particular region or city. If the visit is a busy one, or if it lasts more than a day, then The Queen will travel overnight on the Royal Train. 

The Duke of Edinburgh will often accompany The Queen on such visits; when this happens, they will carry out some engagements jointly and others separately to ensure that the maximum number of people and organisations can be visited. 

The Queen may end the afternoon seeing a number of Government ministers in a meeting of the Privy Council. 

The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon. 

Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year). 

This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential. 

At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings, written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always reads this the same evening. 

On some evenings, The Queen may attend a film première, a variety of concert performances in aid of a charitable cause, or a reception linked to organisations of which she is Patron. 

The Queen also regularly hosts official receptions at Buckingham Palace (usually with other members of the Royal Family), such as those for the Diplomatic Corps and The Queen's Award for Industry. 

Her Majesty may also hold receptions ahead of overseas visits. In 2007, prior to attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a reception at Buckingham Palace for Commonwealth Africans living and working in the United Kingdom. 

Other receptions mark the work of particular groups in the community, such as those recently given for members of the British design and music worlds. 

The Queen has numerous private interests, which can coincide with her public work, to complete her working day. 

Her Majesty also attends the Derby and the Summer Race Meeting at Ascot, a Royal occasion. As a keen owner and breeder of racehorses, she often sees her horses run at other meetings. 

As owner of private estates at Balmoral and Sandringham, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh oversee the management of the estates which are run on a commercial basis. She takes a close interest in all aspects of estate life, particularly in the tenant farmers and employees who live and work on the estates. 

Through her public and private work, The Queen is well-briefed and well-known. She has met many more people from all walks of life both in this country and overseas than her predecessors. 

This takes time and effort. Often, one of the last lights on in the Palace at night is The Queen finishing her 'red box' of official papers.

Now, even assuming that not every single one of those things happens every single day, that hardly sounds like a life of indolent luxury, does it? Yes, the queen might have a lot of money that you could argue was stolen from our ancestors in the same way that Gideon and Ed Balls and Gordy McSnot steal from us today, but to argue that the Queen does not work hard is fatuous and more importantly, completely wrong.

The difference between the Queen and an elected thief is that sooner or later, the elected thief escapes to spend more time with his money. The Queen may be buried one day from a gold-plated carriage, but has she really enjoyed the benefits of "her" money? Is she unjustly rewarded because of an accident of birth, or is she an unjust prisoner because of an accident of birth?

I know which one I'd go with.

Instagram under attack

In case you don't know, Instagram is an iPhone app that applies a number of pre-set "filters" to photos that you snap. It's incredibly limited but can "lift" a photo from banal to something visually interesting.

There is no substitute for a "photographer's eye". I frequently go walking round London with a young lady who has a lower-spec iPhone camera but a much better eye than mine. We will often be right next to each other and take the "same" photo, but hers will almost always (ok, always!) be nicer than mine. No amount of filtering can change that. Composition and spotting something interesting is what makes a photo special, irrespective of the buggering around you do afterwards.

But that doesn't stop professional photographers from moaning like stuck pigs:

But every time I see one of these "news images" -- subtly altered to resemble images taken on vintage film stock or using expensive lenses and filters -- I feel cheated. And so should you.

The app photographer hasn't spent years learning his or her trade, imagining the scene, waiting for the light to fall just right, swapping lenses and switching angles. They haven't spent hours in the dark room, leaning over trays of noxious chemicals until the early hours of the morning.

Nor did they have to spend a huge chunk of their income on the latest digital equipment ($5,999 of my hard-earned cash just went on ordering a new Nikon D4) to ensure they stay on top of their game.

The app photographer merely has to click a software button and 10 seconds later is rewarded with a masterpiece.

I've just, as a confirmed Instagram user, denied that this is the case. I can take hundreds of photos and post them, the filter having lifted the from the banal to the merely mediocre. But to take a true masterpiece, you have to be in the right light, you have to have an eye, you have to still be a good photographer or be very lucky to take a good photo. And, in fact, because Instagram is a one-trick pony, all you can do with it is apply one of a set of filters. I'd actually argue that Instagram makes it more difficult to take a good photo, because of its inherent limitations.

Professional photographers whingeing about Instagram remind me of the furore when it became apparent to professional journalists that bloggers were writing rings around them. It's easy to write about something after the event, but it's a rare blogger who actually breaks a story. It does happen, and it's probably happening more than ever, but in truth, it's probably less than 1% of all news. Not to be sneezed at, but journalists are still largely breaking the news.

Similarly, a good photographer with a less capable camera and no post-production faffing will always beat a ham-fisted cunt like me, no matter what toys I have. But for me, the hope is that I'll put out something that will raise a smile or lift spirits or something. I'm not looking to change the world. The pros will always have the edge, and people like Nick Stern should really loosen their ties before the blood flow to their brains cuts off completely.

In praise of the Z-list celebrity

They are the bane of our lives, aren't they? An endless parade of nonentities and makeweights who are famous, merely for being famous, in a kind of Möbius strip of incomprehensibility. And yet, there seems to be an endless supply of complete nobodies who are willing to line up and subject themselves to eternal scrutiny, people rummaging through their bins, deals with devils, etc., in exchange for the dubious benefits of celebrity.

But for the right person, those benefits are not at all dubious. I've previously blogged about how Jade Goody parlayed no obvious talents or skills into a huge sum of money before her untimely demise.

And then you read the bald life story of someone like Kerry Katona and all you can do is respect someone that has overcome all that and still stand up and make a life for themselves and for their kids.

And perhaps we have to wonder about the kind of society we have, where the only way for these broken, damaged people to make a living for themselves is to prostitute their souls to the world of media. Why is it that in the caring, considerate, decent society we have after decades of social justice and welfare, this is the only way these people can make a decent life for themselves?

Why is it that after so many years of welfare, social justice, every child matters, and every other bullshit piss-money-against-a-wall bit of socialist meddling, people are still in a place like this?

Why are socialist advocates so sure that channelling more money from one group to another is the way forward, rather than a society where there is genuine interdependence, where people have to rely on each other, rather than faceless bureaucrats, to make things happen and get through life?

As ever, I regard the welfare state as the cause of dreadful stories like this, rather than the solution.

Border Bollocks

I went abroad last week. For work, natch, I don't have the readies to swan off for jollies in 5-star hotels for fun.

And I was reminded again of what a fucking miserable business it all is. From the moment you start queueing for checking, through the several pointless and unpleasant "security checks" where bored cunts are clearly just seeing how far they can go and keep a straight face.

Take your belt off (It's leather and has a tiny buckle), take your shoes off, take out your laptop, do this, do that, stand over here, have you got your toothpaste in a bag, blah blah blah. It's all fucking bollocks. I'm bloody sure if I put my mind to it, I could find a way to subvert it, and I'm the least devious, most open person I know.

So I'm amused to hear that not only has Theresa May had to defend herself because someone at the UK Borders Agency decreed that people should be waved through to reduce queues, but that there is also an immigration debate (I caught the tail end of the exposé on the idiot lantern and there was the predictable bollocks that they had let through some people who were claiming benefits and weren't entitled to them - why is this UKBA's problem and not the problem of the FUCKING WELFARE DEPARTMENT?)

Now there has been a 100,000-signature e-petition which means that the government needs to debate tightening up border controls. This is fucking bollocks. Most of the migration coming into the UK is from the EU and there's nothing that anyone can do about that. And the vast majority of immigrants who come here, add something to the UK.

Yes, there are dole-bludging cunts and murderers and rapists, but fuck knows, we have more than enough home-grown of all of the above. I'd rather have a hard-working Somali cock-washer than a dole-bludging Northern gimp any day of the fucking week.

This is just more pandering to people who won't or can't think about what is going on here, or are just old-fashioned bigots. And conclusive proof that even the most direct democracy is just a festering pile of cock. Just because the majority or a significant minority believe some horseshit, doesn't give them the right to force it on the rest of us.

Oh bloody hell, here we go again!

I realise I'm going to be as popular as fuck for saying this, but really, does the fact that Stuart Walker was gay make him any deader?

Following reports Mr Walker may have been targeted due to his sexuality, Strathclyde Police said they were looking into all aspects of his life.

If people suspect that he may have been targeted due to his sexuality, then they must have some idea of who was targeting, mustn't they? Why are we even discussing his bedroom habits when we should be focussing on who committed this unspeakable act?

But more to the point, Stuart Walker, a human being, was slain. If he'd been shot in a random gangland slaying or knifed by a jealous lover or whatever, would that have been OK?

Is it especially bad to kill people because they're gay or black, or is it especially bad to kill people full stop? I can't help but wonder if gays and blacks are somehow better than the rest of us, because somehow when you're killed because of a label, it's worse than being killed for no reason at all.

If it's especially bad to kill people because of a label, why is no-one screaming blue murder about a thousand white people being killed in South Africa every year, specifically because they're white? With the tacit approval of the government?

Murder is murder. The motivation is irrelevant. The act is the unspeakable thing.

In defence of chuggers

Chuggers, or "charity muggers". We've all seen them, we've all averted our eyes or plugged our headphones in to avoid being accosted by them. Usually dressed in jeans and some funky t-shirt emblazoned with the logo of their charity, they are annoying and rarely take my heartfelt "fuck off" well.

They invariably work for very well-known and very well-off charities, the kind that can afford loads of paid staff and whose chief executive earns a six-figure salary. The kind of charity that probably also suckles quite hard at the teat of the state, "delivering services" for the government.

Everyone I know hates them. But really, they're just salesmen, doing a hard sell. They're no different from the guy knocking on your door with his "we're just in the area" double-glazing pitch.

They're just salesman.

And the product they're selling is a salved conscience.

OK, that's just weird...

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 16

Fin.

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 15

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 14

Too late!

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 13

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 12

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 11

I didn't predict a riot

Lord knows how many days of riots now. Spreading like a rash over London, with sporadic incidents of related violence in Birmingham and Leeds and Bristol and Lord knows where else. People have died.

I am acquainted with a local rozzer and if what she's telling me is true, it's either going to, or already has kicked off in some unlikely, sleepy places.

Out of nowhere, mass uprisings of what really do appear to be nothing more than well-organised scrotes are going out and indulging in some high-impact shopping.

It's quite mind-boggling. Lefties have been quick to leap on the bandwagon of "Tory cuts", but since I see no evidence of cuts anywhere, I am forced to conclude that they're talking bullshit.

In fact, I want to say some more about this. When I was a kid, my parents were not, by any definition of the word, rich. I went to a "theme park" exactly once as a child, and we literally had just enough money to get in. We trudged around the park looking at the exhibits and stuff, did all the free things and then left. We didn't even have enough money to buy a cold drink. I was not inundated with the latest consumer playthings. As soon as I was legally able to, I went and got a job.

My parents provided me with clothes, food and a roof over my head. I never went out to riot, the idea never even occurred to me.

This just looks like a mad surge of thugs out to help themselves to new TVs and various other bits and pieces. Expect a massive surge of cheap electronics on eBay next week.

I am actually quite angered by "the left" blaming this on social deprivation and a lack of role models. First of all, the state has, for decades been visibly throwing money at "social deprivation" at the behest of the left, and now it's clearly not working and the argument is that we need to throw more money at it, because it just wasn't enough? By far the biggest component of state spending is on welfare. And now more spending on welfare will have a better result?

And the lack of role models thing really gets on my tits. By making it viable for any woman to be a single parent, by making it reasonably easy for a single woman to raise children on their own, what the cunting fuck did they think was going to happen? I mean, you can argue the case for single mum-ness, and you can argue the case for lack of good role models, but you can't have that particular cake AND eat it. All the single mothers I know take their parental duties seriously, and that included not having an abusive or useless father in the house.

And fair play to them, it's easier to be a single mother than make the effort of going off to find a decent father figure who can also provide. I don't make light of the effort required to find a decent and compatible man. But then you can't wring your hands and say that somehow this violent behaviour is excusable because the perpetrators don't have a good role model in their life. Your policies have made it much more likely that they would grow up like this.

Some of the stories I've read have been horrifying, like this tale of an injured boy being casually mugged by looters.

It is one of our worst nightmares, really, a mass insurgency of violent, amoral thugs, storming homes and shops, casually burning buildings and cars and looting with apparent impunity. And it came out of nowhere. The ostensible cause of it all, the shooting of an allegedly armed man, bears no relation to the scale and delightful social inclusiveness of the subsequent rioting.

Scuttlebutt is that the looters are using a number of social media sites and tools to organise the looting with nearly military precision.

The police have been rocked back on their feet. BoJo and the massively-foreheaded cunt have curtailed their summer holidays. Cameron has been photographed repeatedly looking serious, pensive and statesmanlike, while BoJo has apparently disgraced himself completely and made a laughingstock of himself. Both of these underscore just how much use modern politicians are.

Of course, far be it from me to point out that one of the great advantages of a state is that it protects us from things like this happening. Or so I'm told, repeatedly. Without a state, we would descend into mayhem and nihilism. Mindless violence and thuggish theft would rule the day.

I'm so glad that the state has prevented this from happening out of the blue.

The truth is, the inability of the police to bring this under control underlines the value of the state quite clearly. Eventually, the thugs will get bored and run out of easy prey and it will quieten down and the state will claim victory.

Sadly, that will not be the case.

The state has been systematically removing the normal tools of ensuring civility and cooperation from us. They claim a monopoly on defending us from violence, exhorting us not to resort to evil vigilantism. But if you look at how useless they've been at stopping this from happening, it's abundantly clear that it really cannot protect us from the one thing that "everyone" agrees that we need a state for.

The thugs will eventually get bored and go do something else. The police will arrest a trivial number of them and by the time they get to trial, the usual hand-wringing bollocks will kick in and nobody will get an appropriate punishment. Insurance and the taxpayer will pick up the pieces and a couple of businesses will be shut down, further destroying jobs and inflicting poverty and misery on innocent people.

We will be told that the state has sorted things out, when in truth boredom and apathy will be the only things that actually stop the mindless violence.

The only people who will wind up paying for this will be taxpayers and anyone who actually pays insurance. Thugs will be reassured that no-one will actually do anything to stop them if they ever feel the urge again and we will all be worse off.

And still the sheep will cry out that the state is necessary to protect us from this exact thing, that the state prevents it from happening more. Therefore we need more state, so that the state can protect us even more.

It makes me weep.

Strangely Apt

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 10

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 9

I'd see a doctor, myself!

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 8

Dining out - an occasional series. Part 7