The fall of Max Mosley looms – hopefully…

Damnation! I wrote this this morning, and forgot to post it!

I’ve been greatly cheered, today, to discover that the News of the World has published an article alleging that FIA president, Max Mosley, took part in a bondage sex orgy with five call girls. They claim to have extensive video footage of the five-hour event, in which Mosley was, allegedly, flogged until he bled, and handed out floggings in return, all while dressed in a Nazi uniform.

I have no idea, yet, whether this is true or not. Personally, I sincerely hope it is true – it’ll get rid of the arrogant, self-righteous prick once and for all, and Formula 1, at least, will be a better place without his extreme pro-Ferrari bias and his eternal and pointless buggering about with the rules. OK – you could argue that banning traction control is a good thing, but abolishing launch control for the start of the race is so dangerous he should be hung by the nuts. Unless, of course, he’d enjoy that!

There have been, for many years, again allegedly, compromising photos of Mosley in the possession of Ferrari – if true, and we may now find out, that would explain a hell of a lot. Not just the all-too-obvious pro-Ferrari stance of the FIA, but his rabid, sustained attacks on McLaren, which went on long after the farcical trial was over, with no justification whatsoever.

Update: Mosley has moved away from denial to defence (mind you, denial is hard to sustain when the whole world can view the video on YouTube!), saying that he spoke in German because his hooker didn’t speak English. Er, excuse me, he felt he had to count out the strokes of the cane he administered in German. Why? Logic suggests the girl would have had no problem keeping count, no matter what language she spoke! He also says “…a scandal paper obtained by illegal means pictures of something I did in private which, although unacceptable to some people, was harmless and completely legal.”

Sad to say, it was legal, and the law can’t bust the old pervert, but give me a break – beating the shit out of women, with their consent or not, is never harmless, even if it was reciprocated. We all have our sexual foibles, but Mosley’s behaviour was a whole universe away from what should be considered acceptable, bearing in mind the world-wide abuse of women in the sex industry. It could be argued that the women were equally culpable, but since we don’t know their circumstances, and whether any of them were forced to be there, I shall refrain from comment. Mosley, however, was certainly not forced to be there.

Immature oiks…

The most politically significant state visit for centuries, putting an end to seven hundred years of political rivalry and, all too frequently, outright war between Britain (note for pedants – I know that, historically, the conflict has been with England), and France is taking place right now. And what are the newspapers full of? Pictures of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, that’s what – pages and pages of them – which no doubt gives our European colleagues the not entirely erroneous impression that UK newspapers are run by a bunch of 12-year-old wankers (apart from the age, this is, in fact, the case with the Daily Mail and the Sun).

There’s no doubt that Mrs. Bruni-Sarkozy is an absolute babe, and sexy as hell, but right now, the important thing is what her husband had to say about building a union between France and Britain. There can be no doubt that he’s committed to this course of action, the only question is whether or not the government can stop drooling over Carla long enough to seize the moment, and not piss about so much that Sarkozy gets brassed off and goes to talk to the Germans. I’m not putting money on it…

Grasping Harpy, Part 3…

In her post-court rant, less than a week ago, Heather Mills said:-

“I can’t leave England, I’ve always wanted to keep my daughter near her father and believe me if I tried to go, he’d have an injunction on me in a second.”

Today, she’s in America, along with her daughter. Illustrates just how trustworthy she is. Mind you, if we’re really lucky, she’ll stay there.

I did hear a rumour, though, that she’s going to open a gigantic mushroom farm in the near future – just to find a use for all her bullshit…

Grasping Harpy, part 2…

Having had a browse round the UK newspaper websites this morning, marvelling at the savagery of the kicking being handed out to Heather Mills – and rather enjoying it – I couldn’t help noticing that there was rather a lot of misrepresentation of the published judgement, so I really would suggest that you read it for yourself. It is, for a legal document, quite reader-friendly.

In one egregious fubar, many papers, including The Guardian, which really should know better, mention that the judgement covered Mills’s claim that her career crashed in flames while she was married, due in no small part to McCartney’s meddling. What they DON’T say is that, along with a great deal else that Mill’s claimed, this claim was total bollocks, and a canter through her bank statements had shown that her career had actually blossomed while she was married. But, hey, let’s not let the truth get in the way of a story guys…

The allegation that McCartney sought solace in drink and drugs is also seized on with glee but, really, if it’s true, can we blame him? Likewise, the allegation – and I stress these are allegations, not proven facts, they weren’t discussed in court – that McCartney hit Mills is given a wide airing. OK, in any civilised society violence against women is, in general, to be condemned, but god, can you imagine what it must have been like for McCartney towards the end, with this woman running her mouth at maximum velocity, seemingly unstoppable? The temptation to lash out must have been overwhelming, and I would find it very hard to condemn him if, as I say, it really did happen. And the drugs and violence claims have to be viewed in the light of the fact that little else that Mills has claimed has been true.

So, to reiterate, read the judgement for yourselves and don’t trust the papers. There’s a link to it on pretty much all newspapers’ web pages, or on the first part of this diatribe, yesterday.

Grasping Harpy Dept…

So, Heather Mills gets £24 million, plus £35,000 per year for her daughter, and she’s still bitching and whining! And, after dumping a glass of water on McCartney’s lawyer, why, this morning, isn’t she looking at the world through cell bars, for contempt of court?

By the way, I recommend this page for an insight into La Mills’s world-view. It’s not edifying. And this is a transcript of her somewhat, er, eccentric and rambling rant outside the court yesterday. For me it gets uncomfortably close to slander in parts.

Yesterday she was fairly upbeat – or as upbeat as someone so obsessed with money for nothing can be – but today, no doubt, the recriminations will start. Her first job, apparently, is returning to court to prevent the judge publishing his entire judgement because, among other reasons, she says it contains details of her daughter’s school. So what? That information is probably in the public domain already and, anyway, neither she or her daughter are important enough (at all, even), to have such information kept secret – they’re not sodding royalty, though Mills is a royal pain in the butt! Update:- She lost. Good! Here you you can find the full judgement – it makes very illuminating reading. It is, to put it mildly, very revealing, and damaging to Mills, with the judge skating all round the point and, time after time, stopping short of actually calling her a liar – newspapers, though, are much more forthright! No wonder she wanted it kept secret.

The Daily Mail, showing that it can bend the truth equally well, claims that the judgement “confirmed many details from the court proceedings including Heather’s claim that her life was ruined by her association with McCartney…”. Which is simply not true – it is, in fact, the exact opposite of what the judgement demonstrates, which is that far from being ruined, her career blossomed during marriage, and her earnings during that time exceeded what they had been prior to marrying McCartney. Is the Mail deliberately lying, or just stupid? I’ve no idea, but an awful lot of people are going to believe what they read in the paper, instead of reading the judgement for themselves, which would be a mistake.

Note: according to the judgement, in court she was accompanied by Mr David Rosen, a solicitor-advocate, and Mr Michael Shilub, an American attorney, not her personal trainer and bodyguard, as claimed in the papers. It most certainly wasn’t poor little Heather against the massed might of the McCartney legal team, as it has been portrayed.

Mills claimed, somewhat bizarrely, that she’d been short-changed, as McCartney was worth £800 million “as everyone knows”, not the £400 million on which the judge based his award (that and the fact she’d spent a mere 4 years in the marriage – hardly a lifetime commitment, more a short-term investment). The £800 mil that everyone knows about is a figure that’s been bandied around the Internet so, hey, it’s bound to be true! Anyway, it seems safe to assume that the judge did his job and found out what McCartney was actually worth, though it matters little as his fortune was amassed long before he met this dismal woman, and thus has little influence on the settlement. Whatever he’s worth, Mills contributed bugger all to it.

One wonders, too, how firm her grip on the reality of her situation is, when she said of McCartney’s lawyer, Fiona Shackleton, that she “handled this case in the worst manner you could imagine,” completely missing the point that this was not her lawyer and wasn’t on her side – from McCartney’s perspective his lawyer did an excellent job of saving him £100 million. And what sort of fruitcake, having dismissed her own legal team, goes into court backed up by a personal trainer and a bodyguard? And then accuses the judge of being biassed against her because she chose to represent herself. Actually, it was probably because she’s such a tedious, mouthy, cow.

So, bar today’s inevitable shouting match in court (Mills seems not to have any other mode than confrontational, though she has given unhinged an outing from time to time), it’s all over, to McCartney’s no doubt huge relief (hell, had it been me I’d have paid anything just to get this harridan out of my life), and hopefully Mills will now bugger off and give us, and her mouth, a rest!

Natural selection…

Across London, last year, there were 68,000 accidents caused by thick buggers walking into street furniture while texting. Think about that – 68,000 people too ‘kin stupid to look where they’re going, and sustaining injuries ranging from bruises to fractured skulls (and how many of the 68k were the same half-wits multiple times, I wonder). No fatalities, sadly, which is a pity as these pillocks really do need thinning out.

Surprisingly, no-one seems to have sued over this – and no, your own idiocy doesn’t mean you can’t sue, unfortunately. And, of course, this doesn’t take into account injuries caused by walking into passers-by (or received as the result of a consequent, well-deserved, kicking).

You might think the solution to this would be to make texting on the move an offence, just as using a mobe in a car is – at least in theory – or at least ensure these careless, self-obsessed clowns are billed for their medical care, but no, this is London, where insanity, it seems, lurks only just below the surface, because in Hoxton’s Brick Lane (which has, apparently, the highest accident rate), the council has decided to pad the lamp-posts! Which is a shame, because, as you can see here the lamp-posts are rather nicely decorative – at least the bit you can still see is. Also, as you can see from the pic, the padding isn’t quite high enough to prevent head injuries, which is immensely gratifying – at least someone there has a little sense, and is happy to give natural selection a helping hand!

Plastic carrier bags… is the end in sight?

There’s no doubt that plastic carrier bags are a planet-wide blight – the buggers are everywhere, choking turtles and dolphins in the oceans (and just who are the witless trolls who think the ocean is a good place to discard plastic anything? It floats, you pillocks!), festooning trees and hedgerows everywhere (and thank you, dog walkers, for adding to this by leaving little plastic bags of shit in your wake wherever you go – take the fuckers home!).

Now then, it’s a knee-jerk reaction to claim that plastic carriers are virtually indestructible, and they’ll linger in landfill and hedges for hundreds of years. However, I have several Tesco bags, full of bits and bobs, scattered around my flat, and one of these has spontaneously degraded and reduced itself to small, friable, fragments. Why? I’ve no idea, it’s just a standard bag, and there are half a dozen other just like it that have conspicuously failed to degrade, so presumably something – or a combination of things – that I’d stashed in it has triggered this breakdown. If I can stumble upon this quite by accident, surely researchers should be able to come up with an answer? There clearly is one. So, scientists, I have the fragments of this degraded bag – would you like them?

M&S are about to introduce a 5p per bag “tax” on carriers, in an attempt to encourage people to go back to using traditional, infinitely reusable shopping, bags (note to M&S – selling reusable bags might be an idea, if you don’t already), and – insanely – they’re getting a huge amount of flack, instead of the praise they deserve. The hard-of-thinking (and, Jesus, don’t we have a lot of them in this country!), see it as a fee for a carrier bag, not as the incentive not to use the things that it is in reality. And, really, we just don’t need carrier bags, though I’m as guilty as anyone else, as they’re so handy, though for many years, before my disability became too severe, I used a rucksack to carry my shopping – much better than carrier bags, or even normal shopping bags, enabling far more to be carried in greater comfort (a rucksack, for example, doesn’t try and cut you fingers off if you carry it for more than a few minutes, like plastic does). For larger shopping expeditions I’d use a backpack – carrying 30lbs or so of shopping that way is a breeze. And no, I’m not some muscle-bound, hairy-arsed backpacker (though I used to be), I’m just a disabled guy who walks with the aid of crutches.

About five years ago I bought a large shopping bag, around £4, from Sainsbury’s (other supermarkets are available!), made from plastic impregnated fabric – it appears to be indestructible and is still in daily use. It’s so useful that you might think that Sainsbury’s would still sell them, but no.

When I emailed Sainsbury’s head office last year, and asked, given the uproar over plastic bags (it seems to happen once a year), why they didn’t still sell such bags, or re-introduce them, I got a torrent of marketing-speak which, boiled down, amounted to “Because we don’t,”.

If stores sold sensibly robust, re-usable, bags, people would buy and use (and re-use), them, but they don’t so we can’t. At least I don’t know of anyone who does (does anybody out there know?), and I don’t mean the 40p heavy-duty plastic bags that, while better than disposables, aren’t the real answer – and am I the only one to have sustained paper-style cuts from this material?

Whatever happened to string bags? Very easy to carry, weighing little and taking up very little room but, apparently, gone for ever.

Oh, you can still buy pretend string bags, made from what seems to be string vest fabric (indeed, they actually seem to BE string vests, died green and with the bottom sewn up – thank you, Lakeland!), and after a couple of uses they self-destruct, but what I mean is those bags that were made in the same way as traditional fishing nets – knotted, not knitted.

String bags do have a downside, though – stuff one in a pocket and, when you pull it out, it’ll drag everything else in your pocket out at the same time, so either empty your pocket first, or make sure there’s nothing embarrassing in there…

Almost everyone used them when I was growing up, men and women alike yet, some time in the sixties, they sank without trace and, apart from aberrations like the “vest bag”, show no sign of reappearing. A pity, because this is surely the ideal time for a comeback. Surely there’s somebody in Bridport, that centre of net production, who could knock these out as a sideline?

What about paper? American supermarkets traditionally used robust paper sacks to pack groceries (they may still do so for all I know), and my local organic farm shop uses paper sacks, too, which are more than adequate for transporting to the car and, back home, carrying inside (they don’t fall over in the back of the car, either). And come in very handy when collecting, or even buying, mushrooms – they should never be put in a plastic bag for more than a few minutes. So why can’t we switch from plastic to paper? The vast majority of shoppers at edge-of-town supermarkets seem to be car-borne, so I don’t see a problem (but they’d be a bugger if you had to take them on the bus, though, of course, this is where a rucksack comes into its own), and almost all of them take their shopping to the car in the trolley, so carrying multiple bags across the windy acres of car-park isn’t an issue.

I see, this morning, Gordon Brown has jumped on the bandwagon. I don’t suppose he wanted to, but if he hadn’t the Tories would have been bitching and whining by now (though no doubt some of them will condemn Brown for bandwagon-jumping! Anyway, having – ill-advisedly – chosen the borderline-unhinged Daily Mail as a forum, GB has announced that he wants to see plastic carriers banned.

Fine, I don’t have a problem with that, though it’s a tad simplistic, because a simple ban isn’t adequate – he needs to ensure that a viable alternative is easily available. After all, where does one buy a conventional shopping bag? I don’t know. Maybe he can encourage proper string bag production!


In this morning’s papers the governor of the Bank of England is predicting a recession within the year – not surprising in a country that, increasingly, has trouble paying its way.

On the news, on the other hand, Britain is planning to put a man on the moon in the next decade…

Is is me?