The Richard Timney Support Group

Sorry? Sorry for embarrassing your wife?
Darling, that woman wouldn't know embarrassing if it smacked her in the face!

What's embarrassing about watching porn? I'd be ready to bet that at least 80% of the adult population has watched porn at some point in their life. The weirdos are those who never have, if we really want to go into it. Ok, there has to be said that most porn (at least the kind I've seen) is somewhere between hilarious and pathetic, but so's most of the crap that passes as news these days, so what's the difference?

Sorry for getting caught? Well, you know, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. If you think what you're doing is wrong, you shouldn't do it to start with as it's wrong whether you get caught or not. But as we've already established that watching porn isn't intrinsically wrong, hey, where's the problem?

Wrong for passing it off as parliamentary expenses? It wasn't your expenses, it was *hers*, and the buck stops in *her* lap. She should make sure she reviews her own claims before they're submitted. As Stephen Pound rightly points out,

"Nobody's responsible for what their partners do to that extent but it will be embarrassing".

Exactly! She's not responsible for what you watch, and you're not responsible for how she deals with her own expenses. And yes, it's embarrassing that she doesn't actually know what she claims for until someone points out to her that you were watching porn and *she* claimed for it.

But that really is peanuts compared to claiming on her sister's home when it's obvious she's taking the piss. Like Mark Field says, it may be within the rules but it's definitely not within the spirit - although I disagree with the conclusion that if she doesn't see that she's too stupid for the job. Stupid she certainly isn't... sleazy and a piss taker we can discuss, but stupid? No.

And talking about sleaze... isn't it so very sad that watching porn is deemed more morally wrong than systematically fiddling claims on the public purse?

And the news is?

Ms Smith has no intention of resigning over the matter.
That's hardly worth mentioning, isn't it?

What we do want to know is the titles of the two adult films!

Earth Hour

Apparently this should have been blogged during the event, but I figured there wasn't much point in switching off a small light if the computer, monitor and everything else was still on so I went electricity-free for the hour. Well, almost - the fridge stayed on :)

And here's how I kept myself entertained for the hour. In fact, I was enjoying it so much that next I knew it was 10 o'clock!



Now I'll go back to my book - it was just starting to get interesting when I put the lights back on!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Yesterday I went shopping with my friend. On the way home I stopped at a cashpoint to withdraw some money as I'd run out. I put the card in, punched the PIN, requested the desired amount and a receipt. After a short while I was walking away tucking my card back into my purse. "Hey! Your money, your money!"
I turned around to see this rough-looking bloke chasing after me, waving my £50 - which I'd left in the slot.

Today I posted an application for an interpreting course that I'm hoping to do in the summer. As the envelope was falling into the postbox I realised with horror that I'd forgotten the stamp. I had until May to send the application, so I could have rung the company to tell them they'd be receiving a letter in the next few days that they'd have to pay for as I'd forgotten the stamp. I could have explained what had happened and asked them to ignore it as I'd be sending another application. However, there was an essay question in the application that had taken me a couple of weeks to write (and I still managed to make a mess of it as I really had no clue what to say). Of course I couldn't remember a word of what I'd written so it would have taken me another two weeks to re-write, with the likelihood that it'd be even more crap than the first version. On top of that, there was the risk that they *wouldn't* ignore the letter, so they'd pay to see my crap first essay, followed by my crappier second essay in a few weeks. This course is highly oversubscribed and *that* really would not have helped me to get on it!
I looked at the collection times on the postbox and set out to wait a couple of hours in the hope that the postman would let me retrieve the letter and affix the stamp on it. I didn't have much hope as I know they can't do that - once it's in the box, it's gone. Guess what, he let me have it back! Shame I can't write to his bosses praising him as I'd probably put him in trouble for doing that.

While I was waiting in the cold and rain, the guys from the local cab office (right next to the postbox) took it in turns to keep me entertained, offering me bowls of nuts and dried fruit and buying me coffees at the deli next door to keep me warm and out of the rain. How nice is that!

Enough to restore faith in humanity. It's definitely not all bad :)

We are sorry...

The Prime Minister can't answer your emails right now, as he is otherwise engaged.

Normal service will be resumed as soon as he's run out of headline-grabbing opportunities.

And is anyone else thinking "Diana"?

The irony!

At the same time Hazel Blears wants to charge immigrants 50 quid extra for a visa, the Nottingham Racial Equality Council gets its knickers in a twist about a postmaster who refuses to serve people unless they speak English.

Here's the news: if immigrants were made to integrate by at the very least learning the language of their adopted country, there's a good chance they'd put much less of a strain on the services they use. Mr Kumarasiri has it right - but then again, if Ms Blears followed his example she'd have no excuse to get £50 from everybody coming, that she can then allocate to various councils to waste as they like.
If she's so keen on local people not feeling the burden of immigration, why not start with immigrants not holding up post office queues while the counter person tries to figure out what they need? And why not extend the same principle to every council and public office? And if she really wants to make a gesture and charge people, why not use that revenue to sign them up to English classes?

No, that would make too much sense.

The final countdown

It beggars belief. I can see how knowing the lights are just about to turn red is helpful, so you you don't step into the road too late, but how on earth does the man think that *shortening* the duration of green lights is going to help anyone??? Some of them are already too short as it is! And what about the elderly, or disable people? Watch this space for the 30 metre wheelchair dash at the next London Paralympics.

Seriously. Livingstone, love him or hate him, but he did a great job for London's non-car travel and London as a whole. Ok, he did make some mistakes, but nobody's perfect and on the whole he really improved the quality of life in town.
And what does Boris do, almost before the votes are in? Remove the 50% discount on public transport for the unemployed. Fair enough, people can walk, much healthier and cheaper. Errrr... wait a moment... you can walk, as long as you keep to the same side of the road you started from, that is.

And how is that going to help make and keep London eco-friendly? Really shows who his friends are - and no, they're not London pedestrians.

Harman revisited

I think it's pretty obvious I'm no big fan of the Harperson, but I've just watched a snippet of Prime Minister's Questions that she chaired yesterday for Gordon, and I must say, she's a good stand up number.

Watch it here, or here.

I'd like to draw your attention to minute 2:50 and onwards on the BBC video, and the few seconds starting from around 0:26 on the YouTube one.
Just check Miliband's and Darling's faces.

That's comment enough, I think :)

One more thing...

Religious or not, it's still cheap moralism.

Mr Harris seems a bit confused about "back to basics" and morality, and real life and motivation. Because the Tories used the phrase first and it bit them in the arse, it doesn't mean that these comments of his aren't stooping down to the same level.

Teenage girls shouldn’t be having underage sex. Why? Because it’s wrong.

Try this Mr Harris:
Teenage girls shouldn't be having underage sex because sex is a lot more fun when you have it when you're older and better acquainted with your own body, let alone that of the first grunting ape that comes along.

Or maybe this:
Teenage girls shouldn't be having underage sex because it's a lot more fun to go out with your mates to the park, or to a concert, or wherever, and have a chitchat about the latest boys/girls band, or that nice little top you saw in the shops the other day, or even a good rant about their parents, teachers, or whatever's bugging them at the moment.

Or even this:
Teenage girls shouldn't be having underage sex because it's a lot more fun to get to know yourself and the world before you get stuck in a rut.

But Mr Harris, has it ever occurred to you that these teenage girls you're so incensed about need boys to have sex with in the first instance?

Teenage girls shouldn’t choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career. Why? Because it’s wrong.

Try again Mr Harris:
Teenage girls shouldn’t choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career because education and careers will set you up for life and allow you to achieve whatever else you want.

And again:
Teenage girls shouldn’t choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career because babies at such a young age will prevent you from living your own life.

And again:
Teenage girls shouldn’t choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career because while the friends you'd make at college or in your first job are out on the town late at night, you'll be kept up late by a screaming little thing.

Parents shouldn’t teach their children that a lifetime on benefits is attractive or even acceptable. Why? Because it’s wrong.

Consider a different approach Mr Harris:
Parents shouldn’t teach their children that a lifetime on benefits is attractive or even acceptable because while on benefits you may survive, you'll never have the freedom to really make your own choices.

Alternatively:
Parents shouldn’t teach their children that a lifetime on benefits is attractive or even acceptable because when you get fed up and want a break from drudgery, you won't be able to afford one.

Or perhaps:
Parents shouldn’t teach their children that a lifetime on benefits is attractive or even acceptable because having some pillock erect himself as guardian of my or the nation's morality is, quite frankly, such old news that all I can do is yawn myself to the next signing on day.




You see, I actually agree with all of Mr Harris's statements. Teenage girls (and boys!) shouldn't have underage sex, they shouldn't choose to have babies as an alternative to anything, and parents shouldn't teach their children that there's nothing to life but benefits. But that's not because of morals (religious, society or economic). It's not even to do with which side of the political fence you sit on. It's because there should be better alternatives.
And what I find truly wrong and immoral, Mr Harris, is that if there are alternatives, instead of a rallying cry to appease middle England (or Scotland, pick your own), you should be trying to find a way of getting those alternatives to the interested subjects. And wagging your finger and preaching that they're wrong will never attract people to your idea(l)s.
Show me the alternatives, and show me why and how they're better, and I'll follow you. Talk to, or about, me as if I'm scum, and I'll just stick my fingers in my ears.
This is not being polite and worrying about people's feelings; it's being smart and motivating them to do what's best, both for them and society. It isn't not questioning people's choices; it's understanding that some times people either don't have a choice, or are not aware they have one.

The concepts of right and wrong are meaningless, if all you do is feed them to people in a "because I say so" manner. They only acquire meaning when an individual is informed and understands why something is right or wrong.

Where to start?

There is so much wrong with this, and this, and this. The mind boggles.

A pension of almost £700,000 when the UK has reached bottom and started digging is a slap in the face, granted. However, doesn't this smell like usual Labour pap?

Let's start from Brown. He only discovered "in the last few days" that the pension package was in fact "discretionary" and could have been blocked. He shares the anger, bless his cotton socks! "[...] the people who make the mistakes cannot and should not run off [...]". Let's join the dots, shall we - how's Lord Myners doing, Mr Brown? Would that anger be in any way directed towards him? Thought not, he's your pal after all.
What to say of Alistair Darling who just a few months ago was wetting himself like an over-excited puppy when he announced that Sir Fred did "the right thing" with the government blessing? Only to look at the puddle in dismay the other day when he admitted the deal could have been stopped. Isn't he cute?
Talking about Sir Fred. Didn't he get that honour because, before the shit hit the fan, someone in government thought he was doing a good job? It was only a few years ago, so it's not as if a different lot had picked him.
And I won't comment on that marvellous piece of English prose uttered by John Prescott, except to say, yeah, let him sue so the money that might be recovered from his pension will go in legal bills. *If* any is recovered - if not, just hike the taxes a little bit and Bob's your uncle.

But let's move on to that charming Ms Harperson. This is the one who was subject to an inquiry by the electoral commission after she forgot to mention dodgy loans and donations to her campaign; who said that men are not really necessary in a family (then lied when she denied to have refused a meeting with some Fathers4Justice members to discuss the matter); who goes walkabouts in London wearing a Kevlar vest (mind you, if I were her, I probably would too); who thinks that MPs' expenses should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act; who forgets to pay speeding tickets on time; who failed to properly inform herself before voting in favour of the Iraqi war, then said Labour should apologise for it, then forgot she'd said it when she was in a position to apologise on behalf of the party; who sends her children to selective schools while keeping other people's children in substandard state schools; who cut benefits for lone parents because "they want to work" and then opposed MPs working late because they want to have a family life. I'm sure I'm forgetting something but you get the idea.
Anyway, this champion of honesty says that Sir Fred should waive his pension because it's the *honourable* thing to do.

It's got to be a joke, right?