Sorry have I missed something in this story? Iranian guards take prisoner fifteen sailors and Royal Marines. The latter are usually as hard as nails. And the Brits go meekly, submissively, into Iranian custody. Why weren't they authorised to use force to protect themselves? Why didn't the ship they were from threaten to blow the revolutionary guard out of the water? Why aren't we threatening a bombing raid on southern Iran? I can't imagine the 'merkins letting their guys be taken in the same way, can you? Shit, what's the point of having nukes if we're not dropping them somewhere? I mean, we're renewing Trident, and its always best to use up your old stocks before buying in new (environmentally sound, one might say). Tehran's a shit-hole anyway, could do with a clear out. Fuck 'not inflaming a tense situation'. You take our guys prisoner, you pay the price. This has been Fox News, UK style. I say 'bring back Lord Palmerston'.

Wait a minute. Prescott condemns the 'Saddam killing'?? Or so says all the meejah that matter (BBC, Metro, Guardian, google news sources). Sorry, but maybe I didn't hear it right. What he said was

'I think the manner was quite deplorable really. I don't think one can endorse in any way that, whatever your views about capital punishment. Frankly, to get the kind of recorded messages coming out is totally unacceptable and I think whoever is involved and responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves.

It's not the execution itself he's condemning (contrary to ALL the reports) but the fact that someone was allowed to film it and then release that film on YouTube. It's that action that he thinks people should be ashamed of. It's typical NuLab--don't care what people are doing as long as no one knows. Or have I got a stick at the wrong end?

Journalism is so easy these days. A pressure group comes along, makes a few mocking noises about someone or something, and it gets coverage as news. Hence 'Sense about Science'. All over the press this morning (here, the TOday programme, here, T'Grauniad), mocking celebrities for their lack of knowledge about science. Now, this is probably all very good. Though I can't help thinking that anyone who follows Chris deBurgh's advice on spiritual healing or 'Dr' Gillian McKeith's on nutrition deserves all they get. But then I started to wonder. Why criticise celebrities who simply want not to eat too may pesticides? Well, how about because your lobby group is funded by agri-chemical industries? Or biotech industries? Or is connected to the somewhat odd Living Marxism cult? Contrary to the news reports, 'Sense about Science' isn't an objective pressure group. It's virulently pro-GM, and the current reports seem to be part its long-standing campaign to deride opposition to GM-trials as 'anti-scientific'. Oddly, however, the BBC has frequently chosen to work closely with the pressure group (stories here and here) without explaining its actual beliefs and role. So let's list those funders (inter alia) once again-- Amersham Biosciences BP GlaxoSmithKline AstarZeneca Pfizer And remember people, you can never believe a word you hear or see on the meejah.

Blair's setting out a new social contract--things one must do in order to get education, NHS service, etc. No, mate, what I have to do is PAY TAXES. If you don't deliver the services I've paid for, then I get to sue you. Why doesn't the Sale of Goods Act apply to government services?

Schopenhauer anyone? So we once again prove our hatred of people claiming Islam is violent (or quoting people claiming it) by, uhhr, burning down churches and shooting nuns. Logic? Hey? Over here!

Yup, once again, we have murder committed by the interweb. Uhhr, no, hang on a moment. Surely a man murdered a woman here? Something that is, of course, sadly all too common. But, no, apparently, the interweb was to blame. Must be all those tubes. Be interesting how they try and enforce this one--

"acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury

Remove that 'disabling' and most piercing sites would come under scrutiny. Actually, bme would anyway. That 'appear' leaves open the application of the law (as currently with kiddie porn legislation) to completely fake images. Ie. you make an animation of someone murdering someone, its just as criminal as if you film someone murdering someone. Oh, and 'likely to result in...' Hmm, the jackass boys better not be filming round here. File under 'completely unenforceable pandering to the tabloids.''

Oh look, I can't be expected to do puns all the time. And make them work. What else would you have me do, what a farag(o)e/farag(e)o? I dunno. DK has nailed his colours to the UKIP mast (indeed, so happy is he about it his nailed them twice in quick succession). The problem, he says, though is that:

UKIP suffers from the perception that many of their members are old, racist, reactionary and insane or all four. They also suffer from their perception as a jingoistic one-issue, parochial party. If UKIP really wish to become a credible force in national politics, they need to take several steps.

And then goes on to list some. The major one he leaves out, though, is 'not to be so thoroughly infiltrated and run by the security services, that it seems new graduates at Thames Bank enter the party for a bit of basic practice in manipulation of the British political system.'

And then when the Israelis retreat, Hizbullah re-house Lebanon's people. Hmm, now which of these two organizations--Hizbullah and the Israeli state--would you choose to support if you lived in southern Lebanon? The one the bombs you, or the one that gives you a year's free rent? Congrats to Israel, the US and the UK on driving yet more muslims (and a significant number of christians---weird how such faithful xians as Blair and Bush were happy for their co-religionists to be bombed over the past few days by non-co-religionists, sort of the crusades in reverse) into the arms of Hizbullah. The only better outcome for them and for al-qaida and co. would have been continued bombing. Then everyone's aims of armageddon would have been enacted. Wonder what would have happened if, in 1973, after quite justifiably beating up all their neighbours, Israel had not taken the course of stealing all the water from the West Bank aquifer, destroying the Palestinians' land and homes, and destroying their culture. Instead if it had embarked on a policy of investment, aid and kindness, well, maye they'd have had less trouble over the past thirty years. And it might have cost rather less on the defence budget too. Oh, and it might have given them some more people well-disposed enough to inform on the tiny minority of terrorists. I know, its a dreamland I live in sometimes isn't it?

Look, does anyone believe any of this stuff anyway? (isn't that a song?) It's all put on for show...otherwise why the obvious idiocy involved in the confiscations? (note to self: no more flying on BA, EL AL or any US airline, its aer lingus from now on...no one bombs the Irish).

Must be a sign of age when war in the middle east provokes not outrage but rather the idle thought that it's probably worth investing in oil company shares. Oh, and the less idle thought that I hope Gaston Hochar's estate is okay. Life without Chateau Musar? Unthinkable.