In Clarkson’s Saturday column in The Sun:
HERE’S a cheery observation from my doctor.
“The problem is that in the first lockdown, when we didn’t know how to treat the virus, people came into hospital and died quite quickly. Now that we know how to treat the virus quite well, people come into hospital and stay there for weeks.”
That’s why there’s such a shortage of beds then. Too many people aren’t dying.
Swimming in the scummy side of the news I find this written in the Daily Mail regarding the budget:
By contrast, average households with net incomes of less than Â£30,000 have been winners under Labour – with the poorest, on Â£10,000 a year or less, now 12.6 per cent better off than they would have been. Daily Mail
What precisely is the problem here? It is part of the budget to help society as whole isn’t it? It is part of the budget to address inequalities be that in the tax on cider compared to beer just as it is that living costs have risen and those with less need more just to be able to stand still. And yet the Daily Mail cries because it’s readers – it aspires to the middle class I suppose even though it is definitely embedded in red-top land – will be worse off by a fraction of that 12.6%. So who the hell does it want to pay?
I believe we should tax more to redistribute wealth, that the 12.6 percent is far too low (12.6% of a small number is an even smaller number. Junk like the Daily Mail always use the dramatic over-inflated figures) and that unless we do more for those targeted here that the whole country will pay. And yes, that means I believe I should give more of what I earn to the taxman.
For the Labour haters go read Every Child Matters. Then find even one credible source that says it is a waste of money, find one credible source that says it does not benefit the whole of society and then email the Conservative leader and ask him why he will be killing that dead. Why? because he’ll probably use the money to make changes that crap like the Daily Mail will trumpet as a victory for common sense. Nasty paper is that.
Big freeze turns roadside tree into a giant artwork
Skelmersdale Walkers stumbled upon a winter wonderland in Skelmersdale, Lancashire, when they discovered a spectacular 10ft (3m) natural ice sculpture on the outskirts of the town on the road to the village of Newburgh.
In a sign of how low temperatures have fallen recently, the extraordinary phenomenon was created by cars splashing in puddles at the side of the road. The water spray quickly turned into icicles hanging from the branches of a tree.
There is no picture with this. No photograph, no video, no artist’s impression. Nothing. Which renders the report pretty much useless. (Image free link)
Out of thousands of images they choose this one.
And supposedly The Times is an intelligent paper.
I’ll be watching him, unlike The Queen. I have not sat through a single one of her outdated and out of touch programmes. Channel 4’s messages are far superior in every respect.
“We’re a hoax” admit Facebook party crashers in The Times.
Late this morning:
“The full chilling story of a precocious girl and a ruthless internet gang” in The Daily Mail.
You get better quality news in The Daily Star than the Daily “We will save the middle classes and lie all the way” Mail.
Almost two-fifths of viewers support a total ban on swearing on television …
Some 30% of people believe the F-word should be banned, while 55% think the C-word should be outlawed.
However, nearly half of all viewers (49%) believe there should be a place for some swear words ? albeit mild ones ? in programmes. Times Online
– there is no link to the survey
– the number of people asked is not stated
– ‘almost two-fifths’. Given that the other numbers are %, why use a fraction?
The F word should be banned, the C word should be ‘outlawed’. Is one different to the other?
Define ‘mild’ ones. I want swearing that is appropriate. If I’m watching something with Ray Winston (for instance) I do not want to hear “Blimey” or “Darn it” or “Oh my word”. Dot Cotton can have those, Ray can have every word he wants if appropriate.
I could post a link here to 2girls1cup, or 2men1horse, or tubgirl or anything like that and surround it with warnings about being offended, you cannot unsee this etc but someone would click it and someone would complain. Why do people do this? Why do they watch TV that they know will offend and then complain when they are offended?
And the Times Online should really do better. Or add Tabloid to their title.