Hard of Understanding

Am I the only person in Manchester who absolutely bloody hates the Metrolink system?

I mean, what sort of mentality does it take to turn a functioning railway line (at a cost of millions) into a system that costs twice as much, makes as much profit (i.e. NONE) takes longer than trains did and in October means putting Oldham and Shaw into the dark ages for 3 years whilst their railway line is converted.

To add serious insult to the inconvenience, when it reopen as a tram line, journey times will take longer and cost more, and passenger safety will be compromised as it is only operated by a driver (no guard.)

Go on someone, tell me why, please. I just can't get my head around how or why this would work.

Good, about time.

Basically, they will be helped to roll out a faster service to about 40% of the population by 2012.

Just one thing (as always with me.)

Can it be the 40% that hasn't got the option of cable already?

If not then it will literally split the country in two (and piss a lot of us off in the process!)

I believe it, every word of it!!!!!!!!

There's no WAY that something so boring is an English invention!!!!!!!!!!

Gordon Brown has announced that he is selling a 30% stake in the Royal Mail to raise cash.

How deliciously ironic.

He's just nationalised (or part nationalised) a load of high street banks because of funding problems.

What's wrong with investing in a network that we already own as well then?

"Being overweight is as dangerous as smoking 10 cigarettes per day."
"Eating "superfruits" can combat the effect of obesity."

"A drink a day causes cancer."
"A glass of red wine per day can help prevent heart disease."

"Smoking causes any number of fatal diseases."
"Within 10 years of stopping smoking your cancer risk is reduced to that of a non-smoker."

"Not eating breakfast can cause stomach cancer later in life."
"Breakfast can cause cancer later in life."

"Too little sleep can cause health problems."
"Too much sleep can be as dangerous as too little sleep."

"Leave your kids outside and they'll get abucted."
"If you leave a child at your front gate, statistically it will take more than 200 years before they get abducted."

Mostly based on statistics and scientific study.

Note to the institutions that knock out these figures, and more importantly to those bloody media outlets that are peddling misery.

STOPPIT!!!!!!! Just leave it. I've had enough of the "Dad's Army", "WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!"

Just chill out and enjoy things for once. I'd like to see/hear/read something bloody positive for once, is that so much to ask?

You've established that we're damned if we do, damned if we dont, so get a grip and stop trying to put us in a culture of perpetual fear and misery. Perhaps the scientific reporting ought to get left to a specialist rather than some hack loking to fill column inches?

Or, more to the point, we already have an institution that is hell-bent on making us miserable about our existance. It is called the government.

An interesting story, but not entirely sure how it has become news. See here

So, he's been told, ignored and been convicted based on a council bylaw prohibiting skating in the town streets.

He has a few interesting points in defence:

• In seven or so years he hasn't harmed anyone

• He abides by a "code of conduct that gives pedestrians an unconditional right of way."

So, why the conviction? He's obviously a stand-up bloke. He's a retired youth worker, a pillar of the community and no "hoody menace". So why go after him?

Well, why not? As unfortunate as it is in many circumstances, laws are (mostly) there with good reason.

What would you say to the driver who wasn't insured or ever passed a test but had a "code of conduct"?

Would you think the same if the skater in question was 14?

Whatever the initial motivation, the law here looks to be in place to protect vulnerable members of society, and to help in reduce the taxpayer's burden (where there's blame, there's a claim, don'tcha  know?)

If he had been allowed to carry on, code of conduct or not, it would have been discriminatory. I know, but if you are going to apply something, it either includes everyone or no one.

In particular healthy Juice drinks.

I have just spotted in my mocchings about the information super highway a petition that was sent to Downing Street. The request was for healthy juice drinks (the juice only, no e numbers, extra sugar etc) to have the VAT cut to the minimum permissible amount (5%.) Sounds reasonable?

Well, let me put it another way - cakes, chips, milkshakes and several other food products command a 0% VAT.

Or let me put it another way - if this fruit was fresh, frozen or tinned, it would command 0% VAT.

So, a little odd that in juice form you have to pay the full VAT rate? I thought so to. And this was the response of the Government:

To date the Government has been sparing in its use of VAT reduced rates and has only applied these where they are affordable....
... Dietary based taxes were considered by Derek Wanless in ‘Securing Good Health for the Whole Population’ - published in 2004. The report highlights a number of difficulties of principle and practice in any attempt to use the tax system to influence diet. Furthermore, European VAT rules require that in most cases...
... Outside the tax system, the Government is taking a number of targeted steps to encourage people to eat more healthily, and especially to protect children from unhealthy choices.

To read full response follow this link

So, in English what does it mean (and of course this is only my view)?

Well, firstly it smacks of a jobsworth with a "too much like hard work" attitude. And then you move onto the last part of the response, "Outside the Tax System".

I just love that bit. We're spending your tax to encourage you to buy more products which generate this funding. Catch-22 anyone?

Difficult, it may well be. Nobody told you that governing a country would be a walk in the park. And to be honest, Gordon Brown is in part responsible for the mess that the tax system is in, after all under his watch as chancellor he created extra rules and red tape, so sympathy to his government's plight in navigating its way round the English Tax system isn't going to generate sympathy from me.

So, instead of telling us how you are spending our tax to try and convince us to be healthier, you just cut the rate on the healthy foods to give the carrot and stick approach to those who need it?

After all, in the long run it'll do the NHS a favour and save money somewhere else.

Sometimes I wonder just what they're doing with my money

Virgin Trains has created a "no kissing zone" at its Warrington Bank Quay station.

The area around the drop off point has been created as many amourous couples have been holding taxis up.

Couples who wish to kiss now have to do so at a specially designated "Kissing Zone."

Kissing banned at a Virgin Station? You couldn't make it up!!!!!!!

Just one question, is the kissing area indicated with a red light?

Could somebody explain to me how it is that more foreign governments have interests in our public services than our own?

Give you an example:

On the UK railways Dutch operator, Nedrail is part owner of the Northern Franchise and Deutsche Bahn, the German State Operator owns the largest freight operator in the UK as well as a passenger outfit.

And the UK Government?

Holds the guarantee on Network Rail (who own the infrastructure) and that's only as its predecessor went to the wall.

So, what do hese governments know that ours doesn't, or are they simply smarter in making money directly out of our tax contributions.

Christ I just thought of that, IT'S BRILLIANT. How to generate tax from a foreign sovereignty........ own part fo the public services!!!

And now the Tories have even more to answer for......... nearly as much as the present shower in fact!!!!!!

Clip from the Guardian,

Women's minister seeks to build on poll showing population overall condemns selling and buying sex - but warns that less than half of men regard it as wrong.

They needed a poll to figure this out?