Not changing the clocks is against the law

So, David Cameron has, in true silly season style, started talking about changing the UK to be on British Summertime permanently, thereby increasing the length of evenings and meaning we don't have to change put our clocks forward or back twice a year. Inevitably the Scottish are pissed off about this because it means kids would have to go to school in the dark.

Here's what the Daily Express thinks about it,
That headline needs a correction though, it should read.

WE DO HAVE TO PUT THE CLOCKS BACK IN AUTUMN

Why do I say that? Well that's simple. It's the law!

Please jump in my time machine back to 2002 when Alan Johnson MP, writing on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, to Bob Russell MP said,

The start and end dates of summer time are harmonised across EC member states through a European Directive. The Directive stipulates that, in each member state, clocks are put forward annually by one hour during the period between the last Sunday in March and the last Sunday in October.

This was repeated almost word for word in 2008 by Pat McFadden.

Does anyone think Cameron is really going to kick off a fight with the Scots and a fight with the EU on this, because I don't. You can't be on BST all year round basically.

This story reoccurs over and over again, and it's sure does help get "X thousand jobs to go as cuts kick in" off the front pages during the slow news month of August doesn't it?

Replacing myself with shell scripts

I've been pretty lax of late with the blog, this has been because of one of those busy periods at work where I have new projects coming out of my ears and need to concentrate on making things work automagically thereby giving me more time for the important things in life. Apologies.

This will be the only post of the day and possibly the rest of the week. Needless to say I'm sure everyone will enjoy looking at the "spending over £5000" document released by Eric Pickles and there will be much mirth and outrage at the use of taxis and spending on fancy food.

As you read such outrage remember this. Much of this information has been in the public domain for years because of written Parliamentary questions but when the economy was having a good times no one seemed to give a crap about it.... well no one except the anoraks like me that trawled Hansard.... I'm not bitter though.

Now I must run, I have to replace myself with a small shell script, then I'll be back.

We repair anything....

Via imgur.com

Headline of the Day

Why wait? Why not just get on and do it!

I'm sure I'm alone in just not seeing the quote marks and am thusly going to Hell.

Confusion of the Day

Perhaps it's because it's Monday morning but excuse me for being a little confused by something. So, there's been much hand wringing and moaning on about Naomi Campbell and the fact she was given some blood diamonds allegedly from Charles Taylor (African dictator/freedom fighter depending on your political viewpoint).

The issue at hand appears to be that blood diamonds are terribly wrong because they're basically mined in a war zone and then used to fund the war itself.

Now here's the confusion. If Charles Taylor had just given Naomi Campbell a big fat wad of cash would it have been considered a terrible issue? Likewise, if you fund a war by using used bank notes why is that not considered in the same light as using a lump of what is essentially coal to fund it?

Anyone?

Update: Am not asking why there is a focus on the diamonds, rather I'm wondering why using diamonds to fund a war is any worse than just using cash.

Tom Harris - attack site

Always knew visiting Tom Harris's blog was dodgy :-)



Note: Firefox appears to be hit and miss sporadically blocking it.

Hat Tip: Anna Racoon

Update II: Google cache version looks like a bit of a hack

I bet there's a website for that somewhere....

Click Image For Larger Version

Where's the Register?

Perhaps I'm being impatient, and perhaps some bag carrier will come along in the comments and explain that I'm an ignorant fool for not understanding the procedures of Parliament, but does anyone know where the new Register of Members' Interests actually is?

The last time any information was published, that I can find at least, was April 2010 before the election. We've had a new Government since then and a Queens Speech opening Parliament, yet knowing what all the newbies interests are seems to be missing.

Given the complete disgrace of the expenses scandal you'd think that getting the information about who has vested interests where would be something that might be put online quickly to help restore some trust. Then again, perhaps I;m being thick and it's going to be published after conference season?

Parish Notice

All, blogging will be light this week due to work getting in the way. It's the silly season anyway, so it's not like there's much going on anyway.

Quote of the Day

David Miliband wins the award for making the most stupidest contradictory statement ever when he noted that David Cameron had,

in three unscripted appearances at press conferences [he] has gone off script

You have to pretty special to be able to utter those words, or perhaps it's a subtle confession that "unscripted" in the Miliband world actually means "totally controlled".

Hat Tip: Dave Osler