They had a quick bit about roadside testing for drug-drivers and they featured a quote from some cunt from Transform.

On Newsbeats website, the story is featured but not with the quote from the Transform chap.

Now, I’ve not looked at the Transform website in any detail so I don’t know if the drugs policy changes they advocate are any good, so like wise I don’t know if they’re heroes or wankers, but this chap that featured on Newsbeat has a fucking weird grasp of logic.

I’m gonna paraphrase things here, but essentially he said that this idea to test drivers for drugs is ridiculous because it would basically criminalise using drugs and turn a whole heap of people into criminals.

What. The actual. Fuck?

First off, illegal drug taking is already all but illegal. It is illegal to sell and to possess controlled substances, and seeing as you can’t put anything in your body yourself without, however briefly possessing it, people that take illegal drugs are criminals already.

Secondly, how is it criminalising being under the influence of drugs? it is criminalising driving whilst under the influence of drugs. There is a *big* difference.

The obvious analogy is alcohol. The current drink-driving laws don’t make being boozed up illegal but they do make it illegal to drive with over a certain amount of alcohol in your blood.

Is this cunt seriously advocating repealing the drink-drive laws?

Whoever from Transform let this dickhead loose in front of a microphone must’ve been off their head.

I thought I would add my little voice to the throng of people wanting to find out so I sent them a letter via their ‘contact us’ page…

hello.

Would you mind publishing where your funding comes from, please?

People are asking questions and they think they, quite rightly, have a ‘right to know’, especially as you guys have made such a fuss of where other people get their funding from.

Abortion Rights have made it known where all their funding (and biscuits) come from after you chaps huffed and puffed about it.

Don’t you think it’s fair that you now spill the beans?

Cheers

Sim-O

Yeah, I know, big deal, right?

Well, I didn’t figure this out until this month, August 2011. Note that, next month, I turn THIRTY-FUCKING-THREE. This is, to put it mildly, something that should have been figured out decades ago. At least two would have been nice. Earlier would have been fantastic.

But no, no such luck. I won’t try to be one of those insufferable high-road pricks and say that I’m not bitter and annoyed about the whole thing. I’m bitter, and annoyed. Really bitter, and really annoyed, actually.

I didn’t know shit about ADHD until recently. It’s one of those mental conditions that a lot of people think is just laziness and a lack of discipline and motivation. I admit, I once thought that as well. Let’s just chalk that one up to ignorance. As it turns out, it’s a brain chemistry thing. It’s not laziness or any sort of moral failing… it’s tough giving every last ounce of energy your brain can muster to focus on the simplest task, like drawing for more than fifteen minutes at a stretch. Hell, sometimes more than five minutes.

It’s like having hundreds of little mini anxiety attacks every day. I never really knew what boredom was because I always kept my brain engaged thinking about stuff. For me, and other people with ADHD, I assume, boredom is like death. You’ve got to do anything you possibly can to keep the dopamine levels high, to get that little burst to keep your mental gears churning.

There’s plenty of literature on it and a ton of information on the internet. I won’t bore you with more details about what it is, just a quick overview. It’s a dopamine dysfunction, plain and simple. Some combination of screwy genes making screwy proteins making your brain permanently short on dopamine.

It’s a huge part of why my artistic productivity is so inconsistent. I love art. It’s what I want to do, it’s what I think about all the time. And yet, I hit patches where I just can’t do it. It’s not a traditional art block; it’s something else.

Imagine if there was something you loved, that you were good at, that you wanted desperately to work on all the time, that everyone told you you should be working on.

Now imagine that you have a mini anxiety attack after five minutes of doing it. That you have to go and do something else or it feels like your spine is going to crawl out of the back of your neck to go do something else, dragging your brain with it.

And gets prescribed amphetamines…

So I took the pill. I was sitting at work, waiting to see what would happen.

Yep, waited a while.

Felt like an eternity. That’s another thing with ADHD; we don’t track the passage of time very well. Humans are bad at it in general; people like me are even worse.

And then, quiet.

I never really understood how loud the inside of my head is. I knew that I had racing thoughts; hell, it’s kept me from sleep as long as I can remember. But the quiet… was not what I expected. The idea of taking an amphetamine (technically dextroamphetamine) is sort of nuts in general, and the idea that it would lead to such quiet and calm is even more so.

But it did. Just quiet, and calm. No racing sounds and images, no anxiety from every little thing going on, no exhausting fight to keep things focused in my head.

Go read the whole post. For someonw that knows virtually nothing about ADHD it was quite interesting. Not in a medical way, but just interesting.

I asked a Hindu doctor what psycho-something-or-other was (sorry, I can’t remember what it was now) as we walked past a ‘shop’ with a big neon sign above it for this psycho-whatever-it-is. I got the reply…

Probably some load of rubbish, like homeopathy. You know about homeopathy, don’t you?

Yes, I do know what homeopathy is. A load of bollox…

One third of a drop of some original substance diluted into all the water on earth would produce a remedy with a concentration of about 13C. A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum. As there are only about 10⁸⁰ atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10³²⁰ more universes to simply have one molecule in the final substance.

I also know a little about Hinduism…

Further it is believed that the world undergoes cycles within cycles forever. The major cycle is based upon the Life of the God Vishnu – The Preserver. At the beginning of each Cosmic day Vishnu lies asleep on Seesha, the incredibly large thousand (1000) headed snake, the symbol of endless time (collective unconscious) who rests on the cosmic ocean (Milky Way). A lotus on a glowing stalk, springs from Vishnu’s Naval symbolising the Creative Urge. Brahma is born from the unfolding Lotus and Creates the world, then Vishnu awakes and governs it. At the end of this cosmic day Vishnu again retires absorbing all creation.

source: Dr R Ramnarine: Some Concepts of Hinduism – -An Introduction.

I don’t think I need to comment any more.

(Unfortunately it wasn’t an occasion where I could point this out)

The clue is in the name. Assisted suicide. Not fucking euthanasia. There is a big difference between the two.

Assisted suicide is where someone decides that they do not want to live any longer but does not have the ability, for whatever reason, to bring their own life to an end.

Euthanasia is someone deciding someone elses life is not worth living, and then killing them.

Some groups, especially evangelical christians, muddying the debate by bringing up the Nazi haulocast. This is completely disingenius, designed to slip in the fear of a society that will just kill off anyone that doesn’t fit in for whatever reason. These wankers should be ignored and told to go fuck themselves with rusty crucifix.

The debate is currently about whether assisted suicide should be legal or not, and there is a fairly easy answer to this question. Yes.

Assisted suicide should be legal. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe, you have control over your own body. It is yours, nobody elses. No one can tell you what can or can’t do with it. Even doctors can’t stick a needle in your arm to save your life if you expressly deny them permission. With this being the case, why should a doctor not be allowed to stick a needle in you arm if you do give them permission?

Christians and religious folk don’t have to have an assisted suicide if they don’t want to. That is up to them. Nobody is going to force them. To deny a suicidee that right because of a belief they do not hold is outragous.

The same for doctors, they shouldn’t be penalised in any way for not helping in an assisted suicide. They will have to make their own decision, wrestle with their own conscience about the issue.

The debate shouldn’t be about whether assisted suicide should be legal or not, it should be about what checks and balances should be in place to protect vulnerable people from being coerced in to it or they aren’t able to express their wish unambiguously.

Fucking religious folk with their ‘ooh, you can’t do that, the magic sky fairy will not be happy’ can get to fuck. Bring on the fairy, I’ll kick his fucking arse, if he is, indeed, real.

I have found it on Googles’ cache, here, and also mirrored it at my old place because well, you know Unity, it is rather long.

Here is the preamble:

A document obtained yesterday by the Ministry of Truth exposes the full but hitherto hidden agenda behind Nadine Dorries’ ‘Right to know’ campaign, which has recently put forward two abortion-related amendments to the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill.

The document, a Powerpoint presentation produced by Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship for the Lawyers Christian Fellowship in 2007, indicates that Dorries’ current campaign and amendments are part of long-term strategy put together by an alliance of prominent anti-abortion organisations with the overall objective of securing the complete prohibition of abortion in the UK on any grounds, including rape, serious foetal abnormality and even serious risk to the life of mother.

Clear and verifiable links exist between Dorries and at least three of the organisations involved in the development of this campaign strategy, one of which – the Lawyers Christian Fellowship – was intimately involved in the running of Dorries’ earlier ’20 reasons for 20 weeks’ campaign.

Another member of this alliance – CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) would, in all likelihood, be the major beneficiary of the first of Dorries’ new amendments, which seeks to prevent established abortion service providers, including the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes International, from providing pre-abortion counselling, forcing women into the independent sector which has been heavily infiltrated by anti-abortion organisations. CARE has well documented links with a number of other current MPs, to whom it provides bursaries and/or interns, and with the influential Conservative Christian Fellowship, which was co-founded in 1990 by Tim Montgomerie, who is also the co-founded of Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice and the editor of ConservativeHome website.

Go and read the rest, as I say, either here in Googles cache, or here or if MoT is running properly here.

Jill Duggan is the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change. She was head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading and was in Australia to sell the idea of how good Carbon Trading is. Just remember, Jill is an expert and was the head of the Emissions Trading. No lackey then and should know her arse from her elbow when talking about what thsi type of scheme will, and does, cost and how much benefit it brings.

Jill, here, is talking to radio host Andrew Bolt on the subject…

Andrew Bolt: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

Jill Duggan: Yes.

AB: Can you tell me how much—to the nearest billions—is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol—who’s not a climate sceptic—but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know. It’s very, very difficult to quantify. You get different changes, don’t you? And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments—such as the UK government and the German government—would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB: Right. Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD: I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB: That’s right. You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me. For that investment. Or for whatever the investment is. What’s your estimation of how much—because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures—what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD: Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C—so that’s increases—you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB: Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion—or whatever you think the figure is—what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature? Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary. What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD: Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions. It’s 500 or 550 million people. On its own it cannot do that. That is absolutely clear.

AB: Have you got a figure in your mind? You don’t know the cost. Do you know the result?

JD: I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB: So if I put a figure to you—I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome—would you quarrel with this assessment: that by 2100—if you go your way and if you’re successful—the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C? Would you agree with that?

JD: Sorry, can you just pass that by me again? You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB: If just Europe alone—for this massive investment—will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C. Would you quarrel with that?

JD: Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise. Would it?

AB: Ah, no, actually it is, Jill. You see this is what I’m curious about; that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy. You don’t know what it costs. And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

Now, never mind whether we’re fucking ourselves up the shitter with all this man-made climate change or not, how the cunting-fuck can someone so involved with something as big as this, at such a high level, not know or not be able to give at least afucking clue as to what this is all costing us and what, if any, benefits it brings?

And they wonder why people want the EU, the European Commision and all that bollox to get to fuck.

The extract above is from a post by the Devil, where he has a better explanation of who Jill Duggan is, what she was doing in Australia and links to the full interview, both audio and the transcript.

Drunk people should pay for the treatment they receive at accident and emergency units, a patient’s group has said.

Oh, just fuck off with that shit.

Margaret Watt, chair of the [Scotland Patients Association], said she would be raising the issue with Scotland’s health secretary.

Ms Watt said: “Anyone who has been abusing alcohol and can’t stand on their feet and is admitted to hospital at the weekend should pay towards their treatment.

“Staff are used and abused by these people.”

Watt is conflating two issues here: 1) abuse of staff and 2) self-inflicted fucking up.

Staff also get abused by sober people when they’ve been waiting for fucking hours in A&E. People turn up at weekend unable to stand on their own two feet for a whole host of reasons, many because they’re twats and hurt themselves.

What about a drunk person that didn’t mean to get fucking leathered and had their drink spiked? Should they be charged? What about the rock climber that fell off a cliff because the hand hold was not as strong as they thought.

People that abuse staff should have their treatment refused or arrested or both.

Either everyone that ends up breaking their body due to their own stupidity has to pay for the services they receive or no one does.

What’s the difference between someone that’s drunk so much they’re livers packed in before they’ve got to the hospital and the IY enthusiast that stuck a drill through the middle of their hand (that was an interesting experience, I can tell you)?

Absolutely nothing. The means may be different but the end result is the same.

We all pay for the NHS and services it provides through our taxes. If I’ve gotta pay for treatment every time I need it, and pretty much everytime I need is is my own fault, I would opt out of the paying those taxes and spend it on private health care. It is a selfish thing. I’m not paying towards the health service to provide health care to some other fucker, I (happily) pay so it’s there when I need it. I shouldn’t have to pay fucking twice.

The way the Tories are taking it, Ms Watt will get her wish. Along with having to pay for treatments for stuff that isn’t self-inflicted.

The Scottish government said alcohol misuse cost Scotland £3.56bn a year – about £900 for every adult.

When asked about the issue of charging for drunk patients for emergency treatment, Ms Sturgeon said: “Not only does alcohol misuse burden health service and police – and the healthcare costs alone are around £267m annually – but it also leaves families devastated by the death and illness caused by alcohol.

So what if aclohol abuse costs Scotland £900 per adult per year. Charging to use the hospital isn’t going to fucking help. You won’t get peole to stop drinking themselves to oblivion because “ooh, I’d better not. I can’t afford a stomach pump this week.” It’d probably cost more to get payment out of people than the treatment itself.

Traffic accidents leave families devasted. Are you gonna start charging them as well?

Well, if somehow this is introduced, I expect a little leaflet through my door with the scale of charges. Just so I know how much every little accident or drink is going to cost me.

…only one senior papal advisor uses a Blackberry, one cable states the “technophobia” in the hierarchy has prompted numerous gaffes and PR mishaps, followed by attempts to protect the pope from bad news.

Which means there are at least twice as many pirates in the Vatican as Blackberry users…

…the most unexpected location [for pirated Avast! Pro anti-virus software] is for the two computers located within the Vatican.

[avast link via @gcluley]

Ministers will not be required to seek the advice of scientists when making drug classification policy in future, under new government proposals.

The police reform and social responsibility bill, published last week, contains an amendment to the constitution of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) that would remove the requirement on the home secretary to appoint at least six scientists to the committee.

Crime reduction minister James Brokenshire said…

Scientific advice is absolutely critical to the government’s approach to drugs and any suggestion that we are moving away from it is absolutely not true.

Removing the requirement on the home secretary to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with experience in six specific areas will allow us greater flexibility in the expertise we are able to draw on.

And by flexibility, the good minister means being able to get in whoever agrees with the government as easily as possible, whilst getting rid of anyone that doesn’t agree.