William Hague: A blundering buffoon, cleverly disguised as a responsible person.

The beginning of this week saw the media headlines filled with articles titled with news of our SAS heroes' 'failure' and 'humiliation' in Libya. Here are just a few of these said headlines:

"SAS rounded up and booted out as Libyan mission turns to farce" - Daily Mail
"SAS-backed Libyan diplomatic mission ends in humiliation" - The Guardian
"Libya: SAS mission that began and ended in error" - The Telegraph

William Hague

From the outset, it would appear that it was our Special Forces that were solely to be put to blame here. Wrong. If one would invest a little time into reading a little further into the stories, it would turn out to be painstakingly obvious that it wasn't. It was in fact our superbly fantastical Foreign Secertary, William Hague. 
Yes, the SAS went in with weapons, fake passports and currency by method of a secret landing in the middle of the desert. But this is the SAS - their primary overseas roles are normally to win 'Hearts and Minds' of the locals. But they're in a potentially hostile environment,  you think they are going to just walk in with umbrellas, bowler hats and wearing pin-striped suits after asking for a letter of invitation?

So it would appear that the Conservative government have not only thrown away our telephones, gas, electric and train tracks, but our national pride in our special forces too. Granted, the planning of the mission could have been better, it was planned by the SAS; but this doesn't shy away from the fact that the Libyan rebels had openly stated that they didn't want western help at all. Therefore, Hague shouldn't have sanctioned the mission in the first place. Hague's ridiculous excuse was that it was a 'serious misunderstanding'. How can you misunderstand it when somebody clearly says, "We don't want your help." This was a mission that was clearly going to go south from the outset, no matter how it was planned. Mercifully, Hague had the sense to  admit that it was his stupid idea. But then said something about more plans being made for more 'diplomatic' missions into Eastern Libya. If they are any where near as diplomatic as the latest incident; I'm taking a trip to Downing Street myself and introducing some diplomacy to his stupid face, wrapped up in the parcel of my shoe.


Obviously, opposition MPs literally broke world high-jump records at the chance to slate this man who is so bold, that when he wears a Turtle Neck, he looks like Roll on Deodorant. Douglas Alexander, Shadow Foreign Secretary, asked if he would introduce himself to new neighbours 'by ringing the doorbell or instead choose to climb over the fence in the middle of the night'. Former Liberal - Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, said that it was 'ill concieved' and that Britain would have to 'restore' its reputation abroad. But by all means my favourite backlash that the Foreign Secretary received was the statement that British troops are being led by 'Tory ministers who have overdosed on James Bond'. There have been calls for William Hague to step down and resign - damn right should he, along with the rest of his blithering government. 

The late HMS Ark Royal

Do you remember a few months ago, back to when parliament were arguing about selling all our Harriers and our only Aircraft Carrier? Do you remember when they said that we don't need them anymore? The ironic thing here is that Iron Woman Thatcher said pretty much the same thing about our whole navy and decommissioned a lot of it back during her deluded and ideological reign of power - and then Argentina thought it would be funny to invade the Falklands. Now relate that to now; how handy would a carrier be right now to be able to sanction a No-Fly Zone over Libya if the UN give the go ahead.  Imagine if we had an offshore bit of kit that offers the sort of logistical support to quickly send aircraft in and out of an area where we don't have any military or civilian airport infrastructure so that we could extract vunerable British nationals with. 


It would seem that our Foreign Secretary is vastly incapable of his task of keeping up good relations with foreign states, and protecting our British nationals abroad. If this is the case, why the hell is he even in this position? How hard can it possibly be to approach British Airways and say "Here, guys, we've got a bunch of people who are stuck in a country that is falling to shit, we'll pay for you to send a few planes over to pick them up." Strewth, even I could do that, and I'm a stupid, lazy student. But at least on the plus side, Hague managed to get the most recent group of British Nationals out nice and speedily. 


I honestly have no idea what Hague was thinking. I mean, he's obviously as deluded as the rest of the Tory ministers that are proposing on moving May Day to October. This is because apparently in doing this, it would make the British tourism season longer, thus creating more revenue for the treasury. Bit of background info for you, May Day is "a day of political demonstrations and celebrations organised by the unions, communists, anarchists, and socialist groups". Of course the silly blue brained twits want to move it - change it's name and try and move it away from its modern meaning.


To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not exactly sure how doing this would accomplish this goal, since I seriously don't think the French or Spanish or Germans look at our calender and think, "Oh look! There's a bank holiday in England in October! Let's all fuck off over there for a couple of weeks and get rained on!". Furthermore, how does this counter the loss of the foreign tourism advertising budget? You know them nice, sunny, perfect looking adverts on telly yabbering on about how awesome New Zealand is (I mean was, it fell over recently), how stereotypical California is (until it falls over again) and how hot it is in Australia (coupled with the HUGE outdoor swimming pool they now have)? WE used to have them for other countries. Well, we did until Cameron said they cost too much and stopped their pocket money. 

Israel

Canada

Thailand

Something else that made some major news today was the issue of 'Sat-Nav Terrorism'. Well done free media. You've pulled a right doozie there. In an attempt to scare the masses into more of a sheltered existance away from technology, you've just told any potential terrorist that didn't know already all about how they can cause yet more havok. Spot on journalism righ' there. 


In more personal news, I am delighted to announce that I am up to Day 11 of being smoke free! I feel great, and I emplore anybody else who is thinking about quitting to do so. It's No Smoking Day tomorrow too (9/3/11) - What better excuse to kerb the habit?


I've also added some contact details on the bottom of this site if you have anything that you would like to contact me about; whether it's ideas on future rant- er, posts, or just want some advice on how to quit smoking - I'll be happy to hear from you. Unless you gonna' troll. Trolls can stay under their bridges, and Youtube. I also have an art blog! Just updated with some more work! 


NOTE: My sister blog has just written a review about the My Chemical Romance gig she attended the other week. It's a fantastic read if you're into that kind of music! 

BREAKING NEWS! A celebrity wears clothes!

Bit short of things to write about today. Perhaps I should turn this publication into a less frequent occurrence. I decided to have a looksie on the great provider of accurate and frightfully important knowledge, MailOnline.

Apparently some woman called Mischa Barton has put on a pair of tight trousers and knelt down. Yes, that's right. The Mail has literally written a story about a celebrity wearing clothes. Barton isn't exactly a big house-hold name either, unless you watched The OC. And let's face it. Who did? 

So here, not only has the Mail reported on this woman doing the shocking and unusual thing of covering herself, but they've also called her fat because what can only be described as the tiniest bit of skin has overspilled over the waistband of her trousers. Only the caption to this rather unfortunate picture claimed she was "bursting" out of her trousers. 

I also found this about Mark Zuckerberg being stalked. The founder of Facebook has become a victim of real life stalking by an avid admirer who bombarded him with many emails and even sent him and his sister hand written notes and on one occasion, some flowers. Zuckerberg has since filed a restraining order on his stalker's arse after the man was arrested whilst approaching Zuckerberg's house. 

Once I had finished reading the article, my attention promptly found some of the comments that the readers had posted in response to this publication. Comments such as:

Clever people don't never go on facebook though Im on it a bit, I admit but Im unusual.

I beg to differ. I use Facebook quite a bit - and I would perhaps dare to call myself clever; at least cleverer than the average Mail reader. See, I even used a semi-colon correctly. I digress, anybody who puts the words "don't" and "never" next to each other is clearly on their way to be a budding Neurosurgeon.

Caught in his own net. Now he knows what other people have to put up with.

Or perhaps don't never have to put up with if they set their privacy setting properly and only have real friends on their immediate network. Then you don't have to worry about your privacy.

What comes around goes hundreds hundreds of people every year get stalk on face book mm not a good adverticement

Ouch. Clearly not a fan of punctuation, suffixes, conjunctions or even the concept of quantity. 500million people use Facebook. It's an absolute relief that only (what I'm assuming he meant) hundreds and hundreds of users become victims of stalking in any degree through this site.

And my personal favourite:

"What comes around goes hundreds hundreds of people every year get stalk on face book mm not a good adverticement" - karl wood, southampton With all possible respect, if you can't even spell "facebook", what makes you think you have anything of value to contribute to a discussion about it? People get stalked in the street, not a great "adverticement" for town planning, but we still have towns... "Maybe it will help Mark Z to consider more carefully the effect that Facebook has on lives..." - Dave, Leeds Why should he care less? If you don't like it, don't use it, or build your own (that's what I'm doing). It wasn't built especially for you, and nobody ordered you to use it, did they?

 A man who thinks that he is higher on the horse than the two other people he is quoting, then makes himself look stupid by forgetting silly little things like readability - and saying he spelt "facebook" wrong, when it's a proper noun, and therefore spelt Facebook. Or perhaps some other method of breaking the quotes from the comment he has made about it. Like a hyphen, or a full stop. Or maybe the use of the 'return' key. Happily, however, he does understand how to use an apostrophe. But with more rhetoric coming from this man than Sarah Palin, I don't think he has knowledge about any other ways of writing critique. Try sarcasm. Or making jokes. Maybe add suggestions? Or taking a look at this blog.


Whilst reading a quality paper, I must say I am sick of reading about the woman who is suing a Plastic Surgeon for £54million because he left her with a 'monster eye' and a facial twitch. Read the full story here. She should get fuck all. Granted the surgeon himself may have been a bit dodgy, but is this a good enough reason, if there was one, as why vanity surgery is stupid - and it serves her right to be afflicted with this problem. I have absolutely no doubt that she looked totally normal before the surgery. And I have absolutely no sympathy for this idiot who clearly had too much money to spend.

Another thing I heard on the news this morning was that Clegeron (or Camegg) is going to start charging parents who use the Child Support Agency a £300 fee per year. Critics have called it child tax. I call it punishment for not having a traditional Conservative family. Westminster claim that it will cause parents to stop using it and will encourage them to sort out child support privately. Which is fair enough, but those that rely on this service the most are those that are generally the worst off in society. Am I missing the point when I say that the whole idea of a government service is for it to be free? Clearly the Tories skipped over this memo because it helps the disadvantaged.

Fucking draconian philistines.

Also, I will leave you with these two articles concerning junk food. One is from a half decent newspaper, the other from the Mail. Can you guess which is which?

Junk food diet could damage your child's IQ.

Junk food beneficial for your diet.