A bit late for Trafalgar day but I just found this...

'The Battle of Trafalgar,.. Today

Admiral Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."

Captain Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."

Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the meaning
of this?"

Hardy: "Sorry sir?"

Nelson (reading aloud): "England expects every person to do his or her
duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation,
religious persuasion or disability.' - What gobbledygook is this?"

Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal Opportunities
employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England'
past the censors, lest it be considered racist."

Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."

Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated smoke-free
working environments."

Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the
mainbrace to steel the men before battle."

Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the
Government's policy on binge drinking."

Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it ...
full speed ahead."

Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this
stretch of water."

Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in
history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the
crow's nest please."

Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."

Nelson: "What?"

Hardy: "Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness; and
they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations.
They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."

Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay."

Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck,
Admiral."

Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."

Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free
environment for the differently abled."

Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even
to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of
admiral by playing the disability card."

Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in the
areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."

Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."

Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let
the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't
want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"

Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the
men to stand by to engage the enemy."

Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."

Nelson: "What? This is mutiny!"

Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged
with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of
legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."

Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"

Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."

Nelson: "We're not?"

Hardy: "No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners now.
According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we
shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim
for compensation."

Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."

Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity coordinator hear you saying
that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary report."

Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your
King."

Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age.
Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save
your life"

Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum,
sodomy and the lash?"

Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on
corporal punishment."

Nelson: "What about sodomy?"

Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."

Nelson: "In that case... kiss me, Hardy." '

Thanks to Doin' the Time Warp for the spot.

The BBC quoting statistics but not giving the whole story

The BBC report that:

'Today, while official discrimination based on sex is illegal, a gender pay gap persists.

The Office for National Statistics latest Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings puts it at 20.2%.'

However The Office For National Statistics report 'Gender Pay Gap - Gender pay gap narrows informs us that:

'Although median hourly pay provides a useful comparison between the earnings of men and women, it does not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs. Pay medians are affected by the different work patterns of men and women, such as the proportions in different occupations, their length of time in jobs and whether they work full-time or part-time.'

Now I have heard that explanation before and could find it very easily in the Office for National Statistics report, so why would the BBC not report it? Does the BBC want to report facts or create a 'narrative'?

That's why it's called the anti-discrimination "industry"

The Times reports that:

"HARRIET HARMAN is set to embrace yet another minority group who claim to be victims of discrimination – naturists.

The Government Equalities Office, which is overseen by Labour’s deputy leader, is promoting claims that devotees of skinny dipping and nudist campsites suffer prejudice equivalent to that experienced by gays, ethnic minorities and the elderly.

A submission written by British Naturism has been included in a review into discrimination. “Naturists encounter prejudice in employment,” it reads.

“This is a particular problem for people in the caring professions and education. Any occupation requiring an enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check is potentially a serious problem.”"

Do Naturists really "encounter prejudice in employment"? I doubt it, but having attacked discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc. the indstry needs to take on another "wrong" in order to justify its existence. Of course if in doing so Harriet Harman can gain a few votes for Labour then so be it.



Declaration of a personal interest in this subject. Mrs NotaSheep and I have been known to enjoy naturist beaches when on holiday, but only on beaches where this is allowed or in private non-overlooked villas.

What's suspicious?

I have read this "Suspicious Occurrence and Safety Alert" several times and I just don't see what's suspicious: "

"UCONN Police Reporting a Suspicious Occurrence and Safety Alert:

On 2/7/09 at approximately 6:35 PM a suspicious incident occurred at Hilltop Apartments, in the parking lot between the Beard and French buildings. A male approached a female from the opposite direction and came up within several feet of her personal space. The female turned around and left the area. The male walked away in the opposite direction. The male did not say anything or make physical contact with the female. The intention of the male is unknown. Description as follows: a white male 6’ 0” with shoulder length brown hair wearing a red or brown cloth jacket and jeans. Male described as older than college age. The male had a round face and large build.

If you have any information or witnessed the incident please call UConn Police at 486-4800. As always, you are encouraged to travel in groups at night and in well lit areas. Please notify police of any suspicious activity to police immediately."

So a man and a woman are walking in opposite directions across a car-park, they pass each other without any contact being made or words spoken. Nothing else happens and this is deemed suspicious by the University of Connecticut.




Thanks to Tory Bear for the spot.

Islams view of equality for women

"The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has declared the term ‘gender equality’, used in Section 7(a) of the National Commission for Status of Women Ordinance of 2000, ‘vague and un-Islamic’ and called for its repeal.

In its review of laws report for 2008, which is yet to be presented to the government, the CII said that instead of using ‘ambiguous’ terms, Islamic principles of equity and justice should be implemented in letter and spirit in gender-related matters.

The council, which had opposed the constitution of the NCSW, further recommended that the commission’s recommendations in Section 7(b) of the ordinance should be “in consonance with established Islamic laws”.

The council declared that the repeated use of term ‘gender equality’ as an ultimate target by the commission was ‘impractical thinking’.

It explained that the concept of ‘gender equality’ was impracticable because of ‘distinct differences’ in anatomy and physical and mental capabilities. The CII described the term as ‘absurd and un-Islamic’.

The council further stated that the composition of the NCSW was objectionable under Section 3 of the law. It recommended that women members of the commission should have knowledge of Islamic teachings."

Thanks to Dawn.com for that spot. Anyone in the ever so pro-gender equality and also pro-Islamic BBC or Channel 4 care to comment?

Sex with inaminate objects

Last year we read that "A "cycle-sexualist" caught half-naked in a compromising position with his bicycle has been put on probation for three years."
Apparently "Mr Stewart was placed on the sex offenders' register after admitting a sexual breach of the peace." The problem appears not to be that he was having sex with a bicycle, which does sound tricky, but because he had ignored the "repeated" knocks of the cleaners at his hotel bedroom door.

Today I read that a Polish cleaner has been fired after having been caught having sexual relations with a "Henry" vacuum cleaner. It would appear that "When later questioned by his employers, the man said he was vacuuming his underpants, which was "a common practice in Poland"."

Here's a picture of a bicycle a "Henry" and a woman...








I have been accused of being unfair as the woman I have shown a picture of is Keira Knightley, a particularly sexy woman. I would like to point out that that bicycle is rather sexy as well and as for the "Henry"...

Sexual discrimination on the web

Sheilas's Wheels is an offshoot of esure.com and sells cheaper car insurance to women only. As their website says, "Sheilas' Wheels is a division of esure - one of the UK's leading direct insurers. esure has always recognised the importance of ensuring that women get a great deal when buying insurance. In 2004, esure strongly opposed an EU directive that would have seen women forced to subsidise men through their car insurance premiums. The idea for Sheilas' Wheels grew from research we carried out at that time.

We found that women claim less, are responsible for far fewer driving convictions and have attitudes towards cars, driving and other road users that are often more considered than those of their male counterparts. We wanted to reward these differences and decided that we needed a new brand and a whole new look at car insurance for women to make it happen...

Price was relatively easy. By focusing on women, we know that our customers are likely to make less costly claims and we have reflected this in our premiums. A Sheilas' Wheels quote should be competitive through and through.

We recognised that women are far more likely than men to carry a bag containing their purses and valuables with them when driving. Yet with most insurers there's limited cover to reflect this. Stolen, lost or damaged handbags often have to be replaced by very low "personal belongings" limits (often just £100). Sheilas' Wheels was designed with special handbag cover as standard and our limit goes up to £300."

Sheila's Wheels will cover male drivers, or at least their website will quote for a man with no female named driver, but this is at a higher price than for a woman with otherwise exactly the same details. How is this allowed, surely this is sexual discrimination? Wasn't there a fuss when men were quoted a lower price for annuities even though that was because men die younger?