Pyjamas and fluffy slippers.

Having identified All Day Pyjama Syndrome (ADPS) in 2003, and a couple of years after a school asked parents to wear day clothes when delivering their children, a Tesco store has decided to ban shoppers who are wearing pyjamas or other nightwear.

It seems unreal, but the BBC says so, and so do the Mail and Guardian, so it must be true.

The lady chosen to be spokeswoman for the nightie-wearing folk of the St Mellons area of Cardiff could, probably, have been chosen more wisely because she complains that

"I think it's stupid really not being allowed in the supermarket with pyjamas on.
"It's not as if they're going to fall down or anything like that. They should be happy because you're going to spend all that money." 

Ah, so she thinks a shop should never turn away a customer, it doesn't matter how they're dressed - it's all about taking money.

Apparently some pyjama-wearers think Tesco is waging a class war.

One mother said: ‘This is just pathetic and shows how snobbish some people can be.
‘Do they have any idea how difficult it is to get three kids off to school when you are a single parent?

Goodness me, getting three kids off to school sounds really hard, it's probably terribly tiring too - so tiring that Mum has to go back to bed afterwards.

How is it that 'snobs' don't do this?

Let's put it into perspective - schools only have to be open for teaching for 190 days a year, not at weekends. Schools tend to open at the same time each day. It's a routine that should be relatively simple to master - especially for an adult.

Tesco employees who also happen to be parents can manage to get up, sort their kids out, and still be there to provide a service to these wannabe pyjama-wearers - and many Tesco staff will also be 'single parents'.

So taking a giant leap in logic, perhaps only a few, if any, of these pyjama-wearing 'single parents' go to work. Maybe they're just taking some time out, or maybe they are stay-at-home Mums who have never needed to go to earn - so have never had to plan ahead, never had to get themselves up, have breakfast, get dressed for work as well as get child or children dressed, breakfasted and ready for school and/or before taking them to the childminder early enough to be in work before the boss complains.

Maybe these ladies were part of the group we Rigbys breakfasted with a year or so ago - a whole tribe of them, wearing fluffy slippers, short nighties, embroidered pyjamas and so on.

There really is nothing wrong with wearing your nightwear when eating breakfast - at home. But there is something wrong when you can't be bothered to put on 'day' clothes before joining a number of complete strangers in a hotel dining room.

It looks as if our opinion is borne out by the comments on BBC's HYS.

There was a time when people made sure they were dressed according to the occasion - work clothes were for, err, work, casual clothes were for evenings and weekends, or whatever free-from-work time there was. Things slackened off, possibly at about the same time as tracksuits became 'fashionable' - but it's unlikely that those tracksuits were worn in bed as well as out of doors.

There was a time when people would make sure they got washed and dressed before they went further than either the back garden or the doorstep, and they also made sure that their nightclothes were worn only in bed - to make sure they weren't dirty, to make sure that there weren't 'outdoor things' in bedding.

It does seem incredible that 'these days' there are people who will happily get out of bed and mix with other people - strangers - in what are very public places without even making sure they are clean and tidy as well as properly covered up. Especially when every man is a potential rapist or child abuser.

To go food shopping without even bothering to wash the sleep from your eyes seems a little lackadaisical and is also probably unhealthy - but they don't seem to care.

A comment from an unnamed 'mother' :-

‘I can't see what is wrong with pulling a coat over your pyjamas to drop the kids off at school then stopping in the shop for a loaf of bread.

Sorry dear, I can, and so can people on Mumsnet .

On Facebook a group of, currently 10,640, people want to ban pyjamas from the streets of Liverpool.

The unnamed mother continues :-

‘I won't be bothering with Tesco anymore, I'm off to Aldi.’

And Aldi in Cardiff will welcome the great unwashed?

Let's wait and see, shall we.

Anthrax

Eight people, including seven in Scotland, have died of anthrax infection from using suspected contaminated heroin, European health authorities said last night, and one expert advised users to stop taking the narcotic immediately.

So says the Indy.

We're reassured that those injecting themselves with heroin read the Independent, and will stop using the drug straight away thanks to advice from some un-named official somewhere in Europe.

No other papers appear to carry this news, although it is tucked away within BBC Scotland

A further case of anthrax has been confirmed in a drug user in Scotland bringing the total number of cases in this outbreak to 15.
The new case of the potential killer was confirmed to have taken place in the NHS Ayrshire and Arran area.
So far, the number of anthrax related deaths stands at seven with cases confirmed in six NHS boards.

The BBC reassures that we can't catch it :-

It normally infects humans when they inhale or ingest anthrax spores, but it cannot be passed from person to person.

Funny how they describe it as an "outbreak" if you can't catch it - a bit careless perhaps?

Apparently Anthrax is (quote HPA).

... a bacterial infection caused by Bacillus anthracis, spores of which can survive in the environment for years or decades. It is primarily a disease of herbivorous mammals, though other animals and some birds, particularly carrion birds, can also contract it.

There's a Q+A (FAQ) here and something on DEFRA wrt animals

HPA also says this

Anthrax became a notifiable industrial disease under the Factories Act in 1895, and in December 1960 became a notifiable disease under the Public Health Act. Information about the morbidity of the disease in the general population is available only since 1961.

The last reported case of anthrax in England and Wales occurred in October 2008  ... this was a fatal case of inhalation anthrax in a man whose exposure occurred during manipulation of animal hides while drum-making. This was the first death since 1974, when there were been two fatal cases, both believed to be associated with bonemeal fertilizer. One had haemorrhagic septicaemia and generalised infection with Bacillus anthracis, and the second had gastrointestinal and pulmonary anthrax. Prior to that, the last reported case of pulmonary anthrax had been in 1965.

A death from anthrax occurred in Scotland in 2006; this was a case of atypical inhalation anthrax which probably followed exposure as a result of playing/handling animal hide drums ... In December 2009 cases of anthrax were reported in injecting drug users in Scotland.

There's more information about the cases on HPA here

It's odd that these little spores, which apparently can't be (according to the BBC) "passed from one person to another", caused an island to be abandoned and sealed off about fifty or so years ago. There was some obscure reference to anthrax to do with doing up some of the tube stations too, because the old plaster contained dead anthrax spores from either horse hair or straw - can't find a reference.

Anyhow, here's a bit more, this time from  Wikipedia

Anthrax cannot be spread directly from person to person, but a patient's clothing and body may be contaminated with anthrax spores. Effective decontamination of people can be accomplished by a thorough wash down with antimicrobial effective soap and water. Waste water should be treated with bleach or other anti-microbial agent. Effective decontamination of articles can be accomplished by boiling contaminated articles in water for 30 minutes or longer. Chlorine bleach is ineffective in destroying spores and vegetative cells on surfaces, though formaldehyde is effective. Burning clothing is very effective in destroying spores.

Absolutely no idea if this is accurate or not, because sometimes Wikipedia seems to have been written by idiots, but the science stuff is usually quite good.

Does anybody out there know a bit more?

Victor Meldrew goes to a hotel

An eye-popping idea from Holiday Inn.

Maybe they realised guests were stealing the hot water bottles and electric blankets because

Guests who don’t want to hop into a cold bed at one English hotel now have a novel way to warm up: by enlisting a staff member to do it for them.

And here's how it will be done

A hotel staffer, dressed from head-to-toe in a white, fleecy getup that looks like a cross between a footed pajama set and a snowsuit, will get into your bed upon request and move around, generating some heat between those chilly sheets

Nope! Not listed on Snopes.

Victor Meldrew and art.

The Mail reports that the BBC has decided to carefully pre-empt viewers complaints.

Let's put you in the picture with a bit of help from Flog it! presenter Paul Martin :-

'Yes, they had to have the painting moved. It wasn't a big deal but they do get complaints about this sort of thing. You'd be surprised.'

No, actually, there's little that would surprise most British people these days, but let's move on to what Mr Aldridge, the auctioneer, thinks :-

'It is absolutely ridiculous.

'This is a 19th century neo-classical work of art.

So Mr Aldridge tried to deal with the problem himself

'I tried putting a Post-It note over the offending part of her anatomy, but that wasn't good enough apparently.'

The Mail is, of course, less concerned and carries a snapshot of the offending painting - which shows a woman's nipple. And it isn't even a fresh one

As the auctioneer explained, the painting is 19th century, neo-classical, oil on canvas.

Presumably the BBC will now, when making any of their programmes, make ensure that no classical art or sculpture is in the background - nowhere, not anywhere - on case one viewer comes over all faint and nervous, or in case another gets all excited.

This isn't, sadly, quite a full-on Victor Meldrew moment, not really, because this sort of thing already happens in the online photographic world, where photographers have to label pictures of naked people, including statuary, as "adult material" - due to complaints from vociferous one or two (who could even be the same person) who threaten legal action which could take a site offline and their usual excuse is, "In case a child sees it.".

These people are, slowly but surely, suppressing freedom of artistic expression - with one place after another toppling like dominoes - as each becomes an example of "best practice" for others. They've clearly ratched up the ante now, by getting the BBC to conform.

It's not good to speculate who these complainers might be, or what their motives might be, or what their background might be, but it seems more than likely that they are not native Britons.

Sometimes people need to understand that prudity was never listed as a virtue, and children need to know that being without clothing is not a crime.

** Splutter! **

Shamelessly copied from here

!!! - Warning - don't be drinking coffee whilst reading. - !!!


Three Reported Missing After Animal Rights Activists Take "War on Leather" to Motorcycle Gang Rally.

Sunday, 3 January 2010

Johnstown, PA: Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists going missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend.

Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers "duct taped inside several fast food restaurant dumpsters," according to police officials.

"Something just went wrong," said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. "Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong."

The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activist groups, "growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats," decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event "in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats."

"In fact," said the organizer. "Motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it... Ergo, they should stop."

According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960's era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting "you're murderers" to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.

"They peed on me!!!" charged one activist. "They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me 'La Trene', and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!"

"I ... I was trying to show my outrage at a man with a heavy leather jacket. And, he...he didn't even care. I called him a murderer, and all he said was, 'You can't prove that..' Next thing I know is he forced me to ride on the back of his motorcycle all day, and not left me off, because his girl friend was out of town and I was almost a woman."

Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers "farted on their heads."

Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed "surprise" at the allegations.

"That's preposterous," said one high ranking member of the biker organizing committee. "We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party! What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome."

When confronted with the allegations of force feeding the activists meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and 'farting on their heads,' the organizer declined to comment in detail. "That's just our secret handshake," assured the organizer.

.................................

Okay, so it isn't real, but I bet it made you do a bit more than smile. Original source is here

Craig Murray writing about Iraq Inquiry

This is interesting ...

I was a British Ambassador at the time of the events covered by the Iraq Inquiry. I know many of the witnesses and a great deal of the background. I can therefore see right through the smooth presentation. Jack Straw was the smoothest of all - but he told lie after lie .....

Read on, and make your own mind up.

We're going to read it more carefully another time, this is a good way of saving the link.

Edlington and Balls

Responding to this Mr Balls said

the justice system had to ensure the Edlington brothers "get support in custody to try and turn things around for them."

... Mr Balls said, "we have to ensure they get the support in custody to try and turn things around for them."

He also says this

“The first time that the inspectors said there was inadequacy in Doncaster was December, 2008,” Mr Balls said. “When that report came back we immediately sent in diagnostic experts who reported back to us.”

So you got a report and, err, looked at it more carefully? What a waste of time, money and effort..

Anyhow, what Mr Balls said doesn't appear to be entirely true, because.

Seven children known to the authority have died in the borough since 2004, prompting serious case reviews, Ofsted inspections and a Government investigation.

Seven children died!

Seven children who were known to Doncaster Social Services and Mr Balls is suggesting nobody noticed? - Cobblers! They'll have noticed all right. 

And, referring, to the one particular Edlington family :-

"Although many services tried to work with the family, none were able to make an effective change to the behaviour and problems of the boys and their family.

"There was too much reliance on using agreements and warnings to change their behaviour. This reflected an insufficiently authoritative, consistent and assertive strategy in working with a family who were unco-operative and anti-social in attitude and behaviour.

There you have it Mr Balls - over reliance on pussy footing around, not wanting to upset the little darlings, and the end result is two vicious little thugs who knew they could do what they liked because they continued to terrorise the community, as they and their family had done for years - and got away with it, probably because everybody was too scared to challenge them. They were truly untouchable.

Mr Balls wants to make sure they "get support". Yes, they need support - they need support to make them learn and understand what punishment is all about. They need to learn, and properly learn, what happens when social rules are broken. They need a firm hand that makes them behave, and makes them want to behave, makes them respect not only others but themselves.

That'd be quite a novelty in 2010 Britain, and it's where all Mr Straw's lovely new, very petty, laws, have proved to be part of this country's social downfall - because it's likely an individual will be more harshly punished for  "disturbing a pack of eggs" than for being a thug, a thief, a murderer or a rapist.

It's the lawmakers and law enforcers who helped make these boys what they are. Look at this :-

People living on the estate where the two young brothers were brought up have described how the boys and their family terrorised their neighbours with senseless vandalism and sporadic violence. ...

... the 11-year-old brother has already appeared in court on four separate occasions for ''acts of violence'', the last being in January when he received a 12-month supervision order for an offence of battery.

The 10-year-old had been reprimanded for violence, including offences of causing actual bodily harm and common assault.

At the time of the Edlington horror he was on bail facing two charges of causing actual bodily harm and one of burglary.

The hearing heard both boys were on the child protection register.

They were also expelled from their local primary school and were being taught at a Pupil Referral Unit.

and

Just a week before the attack on the two boys, the brothers attacked another 11-year-old boy at the same place and in strikingly similar circumstances.

The boy, who also can not be named, believed he was going to die until a passer-by disrupted the attackers and he fled.

What, pray, is the point of a "supervision order" if there is no supervision - it's clearly a waste of paper, the words are trite and empty of meaning. They're there to satisfy the form fillers that something's been done.

Not only were these boys known to Social Services they were on the At Risk Register - putting a name on the list and doing nothing is little more than neglect, especially in this instance, and it is neglect by those who are paid and trusted to keep children safe. It is their responsibility to ensure that 'at risk from harm' children are safe, it's also their responsibility to ensure those who are 'at risk behaving abominably' are kept away from those they can hurt.

The Edlington boys had been in court many, many, times - yet with nothing more than a verbal warning. They could deal with that, because their parents used to thrash them. They'd been kicked out of mainstream school too - but probably didn't care - these are not 'normal' children, not by any stretch of the imagination. They may have been brutalised, but they learned to be brutal, not passive.

It's as a direct result of laxity, failure to enforce the law, failure to punish real offenders and the lack of authority on the part of the so-called 'authorities' that these boys were left free to do whatsoever they wanted - resulting in the near murder of two ordinary young lads.

There should be culpability, but we've seen it all before - people at the top are virtually untouchable - just like those thuggish boys.

There's little doubt that, unless the system gets more rigorous and less bleeding-heart, one day they will be back on the streets with their identities protected at huge cost from the taxpayer - just like those who murdered Jamie Bulger.

Street and architectural photography in London

If you're a photographer and have a few hours spare tomorrow, 23rd January 2010, why not pop along to Trafalgar Square around midday when you can meet up with other like-minded souls and take some pictures of London.

The get together is being organised by these people, and supported by Amateur Photographer.

Law of intended consequence?

Linked to one of my blog posts lurking in the drafts folder is this

In total, between 1997 and 2009, 4,289 new criminal offences were created - approximately one for every day ministers have been in office.

Brand new laws include

the ban on the sale of game birds shot on a Sunday-or Christmas Day.

This stems from the fact it is illegal, for ancient religious reasons, to shoot the birds on a Sunday - so the Government felt the need to also make it illegal to sell birds shot on a Sunday, to reinforce the point.

Logical sort of rule wouldn't you think? Closed a bit of a loophole? Just tidying up - making sure there's a double whammy for the enforcers who would, of course, know precisely when a game bird has been killed.

But let's face it, country people know the relevant laws and don't tend to break them without a very good reason - they would kill a "game bird" on a Sunday or Christmas Day if it had been ravaged by a fox or a stray dog, because they'd want to put it out of its' misery. Would they be likely to try to sell on the carcass?

This law's even better.

the crime of 'disturbing a pack of eggs',

Would this 'disturbing' of packs of eggs include frightening them, moving them from their comfortable home, making a loud noise close to them, causing them to suffer mental trauma because they were looked at the wrong way or they heard the wrong words being used?

Mr Straw said: 'Egg marketing inspectors must be able to ensure that eggs suspected of being marketed in contravention of EU regulations are not tampered with.'

It's badly worded, unnecessary legislation Mr Straw. Somebody is going to end up in court, wasting time and money, for doing nothing more than checking a box of eggs for breakages. To stop that happening maybe they could be given a 'fixed penalty notice'?

Ah, I see - money.

Mr Straw, currently Secretary of State for Justice and Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, isn't happy about the criticism of his, and his party's, lovely new laws.

He added: 'I am sorry that you regard these offences as unnecessary. In their different ways they are important pieces of legislation.'

Neat twist there, these are 'offences' - things there have to be a law against.

And, you see. There's always a reason.

Many of the new laws are backed by powers to enter people's home without a warrant to check they are not being breached.

Traumatise an egg box, terrify a yolk - get your home searched.

Law of intended consequences?

...............

Update:-

The exchange between Mr Huhne and Mr Straw can be seen in Hansard 4 Dec 2008 : Column 171. 1.28 pm

Our reaction to the Home Secretary’s speech and to the proposals is that this is another example of what the Home Office is extremely adept at: using legislation as a glorified press release. We are to have the 26th criminal justice Bill and the seventh immigration Bill from this Government since 1997. Various of those Bills have been shovelled through this House so hastily that whole sections and clauses have not been considered at all and have had to be reviewed in the other place. We now know from parliamentary answers to questions tabled by Liberal Democrats that no fewer than 3,600 new criminal offences have been introduced by this Government since 1997, yet extraordinarily, the Home Secretary—who, sadly, is no longer in her place—assures us that one of her key priorities is to reduce the need for police paperwork and bureaucracy. The extraordinary creation of offences by the Government is massively complicating the job of law enforcement and of the whole criminal justice system.

Some of these offences are completely bizarre—for example, the offence of causing a nuclear explosion. The idea that anyone might cause a nuclear explosion without killing anybody, and therefore being subject to a possible charge of murder, is extremely far-fetched. It is perhaps reassuring for some on the Government Benches that were there to be a nuclear explosion that did not kill anyone, the perpetrator could, indeed, be charged. Other of the new offences include: wilfully pretending to be a barrister; disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer; obstructing workers carrying out repairs to the docklands light
4 Dec 2008 : Column 172
railway; offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas day; attaching an ear tag to an animal where it has previously been used to identify another animal; landing at a harbour without permission a catch that includes unsorted fish. I could continue that extraordinary list of new offences.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned only one or two offences, from this list of 3,600, that he wishes to remove. On reflection, he may not really wish to remove the protections against the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, to which he made cavalier reference a moment ago. As he is so concerned, and as he has obviously done a huge amount of research on these 3,600 offences, he should make public a full list of all the ones that he would like repealed.

Chris Huhne: I am grateful to the Justice Secretary for intervening in that way. When he wrote to me in those terms, challenging me to come up with a complete list, I replied offering him the chance to repeal certain of the more absurd offences that have been put on the statute book. I have still not received a reply to that letter, in which I assured him that as soon as those offences, such as causing a nuclear explosion, had been repealed, I would provide him with a new list of further offences that he could then work on repealing.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is either making a trivial debating point or a serious point. The point that he makes all the time is that there are 3,600 new offences. I may question him on a number of those, but he says that he has culled his information from various parliamentary answers. The only conclusion to be drawn from his making that point repeatedly is that he does not think that these 3,600 offences should be on the statute book. He has mentioned about five of the offences. As it is his point, he should be responsible for providing us with a full list of the offences that he thinks should be repealed.

Chris Huhne: The Justice Secretary accuses me of making a trivial point, but I just wish he knew the difficulties we had in getting Departments even to list the new criminal offences that they have created. If he can assure me that, when we follow up those questions by asking those Departments for a full list of every new criminal offence, he will instruct his colleagues not to rule our request out of order on the grounds that it involves disproportionate cost, I will be delighted to give him a full list. If the Government can be less obstructionist in how they answer parliamentary questions, perhaps Opposition parties will be able to do that. He knows perfectly well that I have given him very good clear examples of absolutely absurd offences that have been put on the statute book, and he has done nothing to repeal them. I can give him chapter and verse and can continue through this list. Frankly, it is not good enough for the Justice Secretary to ask the Opposition to do something that he, in government, ought to be able to do.

There's a bit more to the debate that's worth reading, and other MPs are involved.

Why doesn't Mr Straw know which offences are new? He's the Justice Secretary and has staff who should at least keep him up to date - or doesn't he get told either?

One point made is the same as something John Redwood** has said several times and it's basically - under the current Government Parliament is not allowed enough time for robust debate, which lets new laws to slip onto the statute books without scrutiny.

** For example :-
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Hot shingle.

According to a report in the Times Branscombe beach in Devon has lost a lot of shingle this winter. So much has gone (been washed away by winter storms) that the level of the beach has dropped by 4 ft, exposing bits and pieces from WW2 as well as the wreck of the Napoli which foundered in a storm in 2007.

Some locals think the new groynes at Sidmouth might have something to do with this, because they change the direction of water movement.

A lady who lives in the area might have the true answer though, because tucked away in her comment is this gem :-

maybe it’s global warming,

I wonder how many people they had to ask before they got the right words to quote?

It's going to be a long time before either "climate change" or "global warming" are unfashionable excuses for nature's idiosyncrasies.