Related To My Last Post...

Disclaimer: I am not a smoker, just consistent in my being pissed off at freedoms being poo-pooed on by our freedom-loving coagulation.

Master Snowden has a wonderful anecdote on his recent experiences trying to traverse the new "tobacco shutters" that have sprung up at every major supermarket across Britain; a similar thing has been seen at my local ASDA, Tesco and Morrisons lately, but as I don't (at least haven't for a decade or more) smoke I have not had the privilege of being denied tobacco from any of these establishments.

That said I am naturally all for this and, as with my last post want to see it applied elsewhere.

Yes I think this might work in the tupping, grot and saucy movie industry too.

To be enjoyed, but from behind a piece of white MDF.

I mean after all men do sexually assault women; all the time in fact, the news is rife with stories, and I'm guessing most men got the idea that women were all up for it from sexually charged literature and films giving that obviously false impression. Clearly this is entirely down to what people have access to and not down to the individual in question and we should puta stop to it so I put forth the following suggestions for your consideration:

- We place a 6ft tall barrier along the route through Spencer Place in Leeds with a 1ft gap at the bottom so punters can see the ladies of I'll reputes' legs and pick one on that basis; I know we run the risk of exciting sexual ardour by showing the legs but by god man, we aren't living in North Korea.

- The top shelf front bracket gets higher; I would suggest at least reaching the ceiling. It's contents can only be accessed by answering a number of elaborate questions to identify if your a sex fiend, a pervert or a 15 year old boy with a libido the size of a walrus.

- DVDs will naturally have white covers and plain DVDs which give no indication as to there contents.



In fact it be best to package these up at random in packs with blank DVD cases; that way potential perverts are forced to buy large numbers of Blank DVDs until they find one, potentially giving up in the process and instead recording a nice episode of Gardeners World or A Place in the Sun instead.




or they could tape Fireman Sam for the kids.

I'm certain this idea will protect children and women alike from the dangers of passive grot-enjoyment; it'll be several years before third-hand grot enjoyment is eliminated but those crested uplands are on the horizon.

Forget A Minimum Alcohol Price, Let's Put A Minimum Price On Paid-for Tupping

Yorkshires finest sex workers of Spencer Place

I've been thinking a lot about this minimum pricing lark and I've reached a conclusion; I like it. I fact I like it so much I can think of a number of other area we could apply it to:

- Receding hairline matt varnish.
- Vaseline intensive care eye-lid moisturiser.
- Cocaine and related products.
- Samuri swords.

For as you know a minimum price will have the following effects:

- it dissuades frivolous uses of those products it's applied to, leading to a much snazzier kind of user.
- it leads to better quality product as providers of poorer versions quickly go under.

Examples:

Receding hairline matt varnish

Ye gods the light! It burns!

VIC eye-lid moisturiser

Moisture. SO MUCH MOISTURE!

And clearly the last 2 examples never saw anything crop up as a consequence of raising the minimum price to, say, ooh 5 years in jail minimum.







Oh.

Well never mind that I have a rather elegant proposal we could apply minimum pricing too which would kill 2 (fat) birds with one stone.

We legalise prostitution and apply a minimum price for services rendered by sex workers; I can see it now (or hypothesise on the impact as my wife doesn't let me out after dark; it's scary out there) - beautiful, scantily clad maidens fair wandering the darker reaches of Leeds' Red Light District scanning for work, Roxanne will put on her red light tonight.

But wait Tom it just won't be that way you say? Why not - surely higher quality poontang will be in the offing if we raise the minimum price Bertha charges versus some lithe eastern European competition; it'll be safer too - the bottom-dwelling echelons of the market for sex will no longer have the cash to partake, prostitutes will be cleaner and safer as their violent cheapo-stinko punters disappear.

What do you mean that will put Bertha on the dole? She was on there already - why does it matter if she can't afford that Sky TV anymore? She was already finding it difficult to attract punters as it was, particularly since you banned smoking in her work place.

And wait your telling me those violent, dirty disease riddled punters just found other ways of getting rowdy, assaulting folks, drinking alcohol hand gel and sniffing glue? What - they managed to shack up with one another?

Then,

For what reason do you think pricing the violent, unwashed masses out of the drinking market will have an impact on their behaviour?

And even if it did why would you allow the purveyors of alcohol to keep the artificially raised profit from this activity?

There is no economic justification for creating a minimum price; there is no legitimate moral argument ultimately - your just spreading the misery on the lowest earners from the top.

But, by forcing the revenue onto the industry, which will see some companies who went for premium product not affected by minimum pricing, whilst killing other groups who sold alcohol to the lowest paid (and I believe we would be lucky to see this be neutral in aggregate on the alcohol industry) you create the least good, most destructive justification of them all: a political one.

Raising taxes is always unpopular, artificially raising prices further along the supply chain (whether it be money, booze, fags...) mitigates the effects of that unpopularity, moving it onto other groups (read big alcohol/tobacco/finance etc.)

Time we started focusing blame where due.

How To Cut The Public Sector Pay Bill, Give Them More Money To Pay For Higher Pension Contributions & Reduce Headcount

No, Not Via The Jeremy Clarkson Method

It seems everybody is doing it these days; my wife did it yesterday; it seems highly likely my work colleagues will be doing it next Friday and it is not entirely out of the question that my wife may be called to do it again in the very near future without resolution: I am of course talking about having some sort of naughty intercourse with a loved one despite the thrill being long gone.

Or striking due to pensions; I cant remember which as I have had very little sleep in the past few days.

In both cases my view on the subject has changed little (my feelings on the content of the arguement on both sides are a different matter): the government has been keen to kick this particular ball into the long grass well into the future for decades and a considerable ratcheting up of the public sector liabilities in terms of wages, pensions and perks is now being challenged by a massive financial crisis in major part caused by the kind of intervention perpetrated by those self-same civil servants. However, those civil servants did sign a contract in good faith with their paymasters with a view to getting a particular benefit in return for the sweat of their brow; if there paymasters wanted to change the terms of their pay for new employees then that would be fine but that is not what is being offered: as this BBC Q&A on the pension strikes shows what we actually have is an attempt to change the goal-posts midway through.

Irrespective of what libertarians think of the public sector pay, scope and conditions (here is an excellent example) I cant help but think we should see this from a contractual point of view - they offered a service for  which the expected returns are now being renegotiated; however you feel about the supposed fore-knowledge of those self-same unions and workers about the likelihood of their fields continued expansion and the ability to meet the ever increasing wage and pension bill, the coercive autocracy that Labour became (ever was?) that perpetrated this massive expansion knowing full well that history would regard them as heroes and the incoming conservatives as monsters stealing milk and pensions and stuff and would forget about the actual detail such as the former government having no credible plan to pay for any of it or the actions of a few rogue bankers intent on derailing the whole socialist utopian exercise by employing cutting-edge financial instruments that mainly focused on the financial powerhouses of black men in string vests' - for the record I think it's a combination of all 3 of the above (the bankers in question being central bankers, not, as is obviously assumed, entirely at the doorway to commercial banks, though undoubtedly not helped); you need just look at the asinine suggestions of union leaders over the last few years - government has Ponzi'd all our pension contributions away on Cherie Blair's human rights law firm and Gordon Brown vanity projects? Pension fund has been scuttled by poor pension investment vehicles? I know! Soak the rich! shut down global trade! charge people for sending/receiving spam! To me that sounds like a good reason to linch your paymasters, not rob the productive and successful.

Anyway, coming back off tangent, how do we solve the problem? I have a 3-point plan on how to deal with the problem that is both elegant, simple, non-fattening and would prove almost universally popular by all but the most left-wing, swivel-eyed sociopathic, diversity mung-bean, poy-dance coordinator (so am guessing about half of them): it would enable:

1. The public sector by and large to get a pay increase.
2. Enable them to also afford the new pension contributions being asked for.
3. Reduce the overall headcount of some of the British public's least favourite aspects of the public sector with little or no fuss from the remainder.

My idea?

The public sector pay average as of January this year out-stripped the private sector at £23,660 compared to £21,528 (and I am certain this figure doesn't take into account the other perks such as the final salary pension schemes etc. so the difference has some ancillary factors pushing this even higher); this means that net an average public sector employee takes home approximately £17,470 according to my shiny Listen to Taxman app on my iPhone; just short of £1500 a month spare. To give them a "happy" pay rise lets assume we match inflation - call it a 5% pay rise + 3% for the additional requested pension contributions for simplicity: that would mean the take home pay increase should be ~£1575 a month or an extra £1400 extra a year.

So again Tom get to your point - what's your idea?

Simple: immeadiately reduce public sector pay by 6-8% and make the remaining income-tax free (NICs, student loans and pension contributions etc. remain).

The difference in the cut wage bill and the increased take home pay + pension contributions would be more than enough to keep the workers happy; you could then renegotiate new and recent starters' pension schemes with less fuss kicked up by those lucky enough to have a final salary pension, perhaps by ending national pay scales and paying new recruits weighted against their predecessor.

This also carries the advantage of making the public sector the most vocal group on the reserve to argue against increasing income taxation and high NICs - it would not be tolerated for long were the public sector wage bill to rise again and the issue of "fairness" would be thoroughly abandoned by those self-same groups with their massive advantage over taxation.

This also just makes sense; why on earth do we think it's a good idea to pay our employees only to take a portion of the cash back in order to pay other employees? Why not just pay them less, code them differently  in the tax system and remove them altogether?

But what about the higher paid local council millionaires Tomrat I hear (myself?) scream? Fair enough - charge them a high rate of national insurance and/or remove any upper maximum take; failing that  stop voting for spineless politicians and ask for real, bloody reform of the system that allows the mass looting of public finances. Similar rant but this time about QuANGOs? They aren't public sector bodies or the tax code doesn't apply - as such they are subject to whatever rules for taxation the rest of us put up with but would find themselves with all the problems of a rapidly reducing pension pot; the pressure will be on the government to fold them back in and reform/remove their role.

The only people who should be out of work at the end of this exercise should be a couple of thousand HMRC admin staff who are surplus to requirements as a large number of tax returns, PAYE forms and ancillary documentation will simply cease to be processed.

As far as I can see this government has missed a vital opportunity to argue for reform of the public sector by instead focusing on reduction of the bill they will always lose the latter arguement because without addressing the former civil servants will reduce at the coalface, not the back offices and executive suites; the managers are not going to vote for less management. All that is left to this current government if they want to make an impact is elegant, unarguable changes to the system that are both exercises in reform and compromises on the subject of money; a subject the state seems constantly fixated on.