Short post, but it's 1 in the morning, I've drunk 3 cups of coffee and I'm listening to Tipper's Gore self-titled record (Which is fucking awesome and you should go and spend your wage slave money on right now), anyway, I'm in no mood for sleep, so I wrote this lackluster post. My explaination of why the post is so short is longer than the actual post. Bad sign.

MunchyBrain

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.666468&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Gary Glitter is now being used as a pawn and I find it disgraceful. I find it disgraceful that a huge fuss is being made over just one man who has done his time. But rather than initiating procedures or making resources available to actually help him, Britain instead is contorting in a renewed moral panic. 'That foul paedophile' eh? Not to diminish the severity of his proven crime in the UK, but how seriously can you take a government who uses this man's reappearance as a distraction from their own incompetence? They're destroying all of our civil liberties, robbing the poor to pay off the middle class, breaking their own anti-poverty and environmental targets, but at least they can say they're strengthening the control order regime against those guilty of child sex offences (which is already incredibly tight). Is it genuinely not possible to get any perspective here? Jacqui Smith, not one known for human qualities, even had the gall to announce this on Talk Sport radio, as if she weren't shamelessly populist already!

Boris Johnson has a sager perspective on the situation. Writing in 2006 he complained:

I mean, come off it, folks. How many paedophiles can there be? Are we really saying that any time an adult male finds himself sitting next to someone under 16, he must expect to be hustled from his seat before the suspicious eyes of the entire cabin?

What about adult females? Every week there is some new tale of what a saucy French mistress is deemed to have done with her adolescent charges behind the bicycle sheds; and, disgraceful though these episodes may be, I don't hear anyone saying that children should be shielded from adult women. Do you? Or maybe I'm wrong — maybe all adults will have to carry personal cardboard partitions with them on every plane or train, just in case they find themselves sitting next to under-16s.

Even as I write, I can imagine the lip-pursing of some of my lovely high-minded readers. How would you like it, they will say, if some weird chap was plonked next to your kids? And they are right that I would worry about some strange adult sitting next to my children, chiefly because I wouldn't want the poor fellow to come to any harm.

To all those who worry about the paedophile plague, I would say that they not only have a very imperfect understanding of probability; but also that they fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority.

And make no mistake, the papers are 'off on one again', and will be seeking to drag public opinion with them, whatever the balance you see in the video. Paul Gadd meanwhile has just been denied entry to Hong Kong, having been denied entry into Thailand, after refusing to return to Jacqui Smith and the Home Office's kiss of death. I'm exaggerating you say? David Wilson believes not:

We also know what makes sex offenders generally, and paedophiles specifically, re-offend when they return to the community after a prison sentence. In short, they are more likely to re-offend when they are "named and shamed", hounded from pillar to post, demonised, scapegoated and pilloried because when that happens they calculate that they may as well commit more crimes because, well, they have nothing left to lose. Sadly, an unnamed police officer quoted in the Sun doesn't seem to be aware of this fact and claimed that when Gadd returned he would get a "Hell of a tough time … we'll unleash the hounds".

We don't have the right to dehumanise anyone. The police don't have the inherent authority to pre-criminalise anyone (although you try to tell them that) and Jacqui Smith certainly doesn't have the right to say:

Ms Smith today announced tighter controls on the movement of paedophiles but she dismissed a suggestion that the Government had wanted a "celebrity paedophile" to promote the crackdown and had found it "embarrassing" that Glitter had not come home.

"No paedophile is a celebrity, every paedophile needs to be controlled," she said.

She told GMTV Glitter was "despicable" and said it was "pretty hard to imagine it would be legitimate for him to travel abroad again".

So says the thoroughly despicable woman who believes that sending gay asylum seekers back to Iran is perfectly safe as long as they're discreet. Glitter's current failure to return to the UK is an egg in the face for a government more concerned with spin and blunt instruments than good policy. Try making parents responsible for their children's welfare once again, try the old (and successful) system of teaching children to risk assess their relationships with older people and strangers, try helping people who demonstrably have problems, and what about ending this ridiculous campaign (and charade) of controlling people in order to save a mythical, threatened majority. Governments mustn't be allowed to get away with such shameless diversionary tactics, certainly not at the cost of individuals, particularly the vulnerable ones, hidden away from the full glare of a greedy and compassion-free media.

Perhaps being Mayor isn't as much fun as it looked in the papers.  I cannot believe that you are genuinely enjoying the coverage you have received, particularly after three high-profile resignations within three months of taking office.  The latest to go is Tim Parker, appointed as your first deputy mayor with a brief to shake up City Hall and take over the chairmanship of Transport for London (TfL).  According to official channels, Mr Parker stood down after you decided to chair the transport body instead, which I have no reason to doubt, but this still looks confused.

Having lived in London all my life, I have witnessed the chaotic results of TfL's incompetence on many occasions so I understand the need to bring someone in to look after it.  To say that Mr Parker quit because he realised that TfL requires "highly political" leadership seems a little odd, as I thought this was fairly obvious from the beginning.  Even if this was a truly amicable split, it was never going to be seen that way by the media, who have not forgotten about the resignation of another deputy mayor, Ray Lewis, or the comments made about immigrants by your adviser James McGrath.  Your comments in the Telegraph yesterday were also not the most polished contribution to the Conservative movement, as you calmly stated that "if you believe the politicians, we have a broken society in which the courage and morals of young people have been sapped by the welfarism and political correctness... If you look at what is happening at the Beijing Olympics, you can see what piffle it is."  Apparently, David Cameron is "relaxed" about this fairly overt attack on his critique of Labour's social policy (which is a lot more substantial than you give him credit for), but I sure as hell wouldn't be relaxed about your comments if I was leader of the party.

So, aside from the rush of resignations, have you given Londoners much cause for optimism?  Spending an extra £20 million on cycle lanes seems like a good move, while offering a £25,000 prize for whoever designs the best new Routemaster is a bizarre move (and it could be years before the bendy buses are off the streets in any case).  Encouragement can also be found in your decision to shift funding away from the corrupt LDA onto local funding for projects by London boroughs, your initiative to improve access to healthy, locally produced food and allocating 60m for an empty homes "rescue" package.  Knife crime has proved more illusive, despite building your election campaign around this issue.  The Metropolitan police launched Operation Blunt 2 in May, using stop and search powers and scanners to get knives off the streets, but the newspaper headlines make it hard to conclude that it has had a significant impact.

Like any vaguely rational follower of politics, I think you deserve more than three months to sort out the mess that Ken Livingstone left behind and the appointment of Anthony Browne, currently Director of Policy Exchange, as your Head of Policy can potentially help your administration get to grips with many of the pressing issues.  A lot of work needs to be done, particularly on transport and housing, and while there is little evidence of huge progress at this stage I am happy to sit and wait - for now.  Oh, and try to keep the resignations to a minimum.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Tim Parker, commonly referred to as The Prince of Darkness because of his reputation as a mass firer of staff, has resigned from being Boris Johnson's Deputy Mayor, after they both realised that *gasp* many of the decisions involved in being Mayor of London really had to be taken by the Mayor himself.

So months into Boris Johnsons term as Mayor of London he's lost three of his close aides. Although it's been spun in the press as not controversial, I actually feel that this one is possibly the most damning of the three resignations.

Upon becoming Mayor of London, Johnson tried to out-source all his responsibilities, appointing (not hiring or electing) various Conservatives and senior figures with links to the Tory party, to senior roles - possibly illegally (due to them being appointed without an interview process), Boris himself admitted it might have been - with responsibilities that really the Mayor should have been doing.

Now, after months in the job, Boris has finally clicked that being Mayor is a full-time job.

The thing is, what does this say about the attention he paid to London when he was a journalist and MP? That he thought the Mayor of London was a part-time job?

The sheer amount of things that Johnson has not admitted to knowing since taking over the job - that the anti-racist message had been taken off from RISE, that his appointments may have been illegal, that Mayor of London is actually a full-time job with responsibility, is testament to the way he coasts through his career and life and his reliance on his witty turn of phrases to see him through tight spots.

The public haven't tired of Johnson yet, but even if he improves his performances, they will tire of him eventually, and I don't think his fall from grace will be pretty to watch (unless you support Labour).

If you believe the politicians, we have a broken society, in which the courage and morals of young people have been sapped by welfarism and political correctness. And if you look at what is happening at the Beijing Olympics, you can see what piffle that is.

Coffee House tells all. Boris, the country's best-known Tory, is, of course, talking about the favourite phrase of that other bloke, Dave.

I would love to have eavesdropped on the subsequent phone call between the two.

London's recently-elected mayor Boris Johnson on Tuesday called for a new airport to the east of the city to ease congestion at the other five which serve the capital.

"It is... ever more urgent that we investigate the possibility of a long-term solution, in the form of a new and more eco-friendly international airport," he wrote in The Daily Telegraph.

Johnson, who was elected in May, doubted that a proposed third runway for Heathrow, carrying 68 million passengers a year, would ever be built, and said Gatwick, London's second biggest, was "full to bursting".

"The Mayor is keen to know what the alternatives are to expansion at Heathrow and would like to know whether the idea of a new airport in the Thames estuary would be viable or not," a spokesman for the Mayor said.

"He has asked officers to consider the feasibility of a new airport to see if the idea is worth further consideration," he added.

Johnson has said he also supports expansion at east London's City Airport, popular with business travelers due to its proximity to financial districts.

London City, owned by a consortium including the insurer American International Group and Credit Suisse, wants to expand annual flights to 120,000 from 80,000.

A City Airport spokeswoman said the growth would not need any new build, although an application to proceed with the development was delayed by Johnson last month due to concerns it may affect a proposed Thames Gateway bridge.

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are all owned by BAA -- the subject of a Competition Commission investigation into whether its monopoly should be broken up.

BAA, owned by Spanish group Ferrovial, is under fire from airlines for its high charges, while many critics feel its efforts to improve infrastructure at its airports would be greater if it was competing for passengers.

The Competition Commission could publish its latest report on the issue next week, a spokeswoman said, although no firm date has been set.

(Reuters)

Organisers claim that they were only told about this a few weeks before the event and that this decision may mean the end of the popular Soho Party.  Boris wants community events to continue only if they can attract corporate sponsorship.  In other words he wants to turn some of London's most popular days out into fucking adverts.

Free festivals, often run by volunteers, are hard pressed enough as it is.  Excessive licencing costs and unhelpful local Councils make organising a free cultural event a heroic act.  Festival organisers don't have the time to run an office to try and raise sponsorship and most wouldn't want to.  Stale and sterilised events like Innocent Smoothis fruitstock attract a handful of Chablis sipping, sun-dried tomato munchers whilst the likes of RISE and the Notting Hill Carnival draw hundreds of thousands of everyday Londoners.

Those of us who don't live in Chelsea and Sutton and can't afford exhorberant ticket prices just to get into out local park.  The type of folk that Boris and his chums really don't like.

Pikcled Politics has a list of events that may be under threat:

"Chinese New Year; St Patricks Day; St George’s Day; Vaisakhi; Africa Day; Baishakhi Mela; Pride and Soho Pride; Rise; Carnival del Pueblo; London Mela; Notting Hill Carnival; Liberty - disability arts festival; Thames Festival; Trafalgar Square summer festival; the Jewish Simcha on the Square; Chanukkah; Black History Month events; Diwali; Eid; Celebrating Sanctuary (refugee festival); Capital Age; Festival of Youth Arts."

The last week or so has seen the newt fancier commenting on China and the athletics meeting that's going on there, trotting out his standard line of "we have no reason to criticise China's action in Tibet after what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan". Well, we probably did some pretty unpleasant things during our Imperial days but that shouldn't have stopped us having a go at Hitler. (Warning - Godwin's Law approaching).

This morning it was the treat of listeners to Nick Ferrari on LBC, though to be fair to Nick, Livingstone has never been a stranger to that London station, where he is now finding regular genuine employment.

Ken's real vitriol was turned on Boris because the Mayor didn't head off on a junket to the opening ceremony of the Games in Bejing. Yet who cares? Ken's Communist mate the Mayor of Bejing invited him over, but Boris doesn't need to be there except at the end to receive the torch. Boris, it seems, has this old fashioned notion that the Mayor for London should spend his time in London.

Livingstone was earlier asked to give his pearls of wisdom on Boris' first 100 days in office. "Too early to say", said Ken, almost sounding reasonable when he welcomed the extra PCSOs on the transport network, but then thought it wrong that Boris should be appointing people from the Right to his team (as opposed, presumably, to the - ahem - broad political church that Livingstone gathered around him).

"Boris' administration was actually more right wing than appointments like Rosie Boycott might make it appear", he warned ominously.

I should blooming well hope so.

Dave Hill from the Guardian's politics blog has done a quicky on Boris's first hundred days. Not a bad piece, fairly balanced. Unlike the comments from Comment Is Free-ers, the content of which helps to explain why I am now a Londoner that is fast becoming an ex-Londoner; here in a far flung part of the UK. Their amazing arrogance and dismissive obnoxiousness spells a bleak picture for the capital - for as long as people like this remain the dominant political voice, there can be little hope for the overcrowded hell-hole.

There is no doubt in my mind that any Mayor is better than Ken as Mayor. The left wing press did their best to convince the Metropolitan electorate to keep him in, with endless propaganda running up to the election. It failed, as exemplified by the Independent's article at the time, because even their "Ken's achievements" pieces failed to list any notable...achievements. But forget achievements, it's his destructiveness that was the problem. After 8 years of him, it's almost impossible for London to recover in the short to medium term - as his micro policies were complimented by Blair/Brown's macro left wing authoritarianism.

London is a cauldron of crime, CCTV invasiveness and overcrowded gridlock. It will get to the stage where another Thatcher type figure will have to come along to unwind it all and put the problems back in their box - that won't be nice.

I'm going off on a tangent again, so I'll get to the main point of the piece. As the Dave Hill article quite rightly points out, Boris pissed off the Libertarian Right (that includes me) because the first thing this so-called 'Libertarian' did when he got into power was...ban something.

He banned drinking on tubes. I vehemently disagree with this. It goes against logic and common sense. Yes, there are people who cause trouble on tubes by getting rowdy and having a drink. Do I have to spell out the fact many tube drinkers never did cause trouble? Do I have to point out that people cause trouble without drinking? Or that nuisances on the tube drink before they get on? Or that by the State taking the responsibility away from individuals, they lead to a sliding scale where society then has an ever increasing dependence on the State to sort out the problems of individuals?

I could go on. Alcohol, as a debate in itself, has been completely skewed over recent years. If alcohol is a 'social evil' and a terrible thing to society, and it's clearly a bad thing when imbibed in excess, then we need to be asking questions on why people turn to it. Don't ban the bloody sympton, look at root causes. Otherwise all you do is penalise the majority and lead to their enslavement to the State - laws and rules and regs must be kept to a basic minimum.

I can't see this tube booze ban making any "difference", whatever difference it is supposed to make. Like CCTV, authoritarian solutions only serve to push the underlying issues elsewhere. They displace social disharmony, not solve it - like a board game, moving your pieces around the board trying to outwit your opponent...they are still there, ready to place you under Checkmate. See the recent Met Police study that showed how CCTV merely displaces crime, not solve it.

I detest 'banning' things. Hence my hatred of the left, and, the Daily Mail Right.

Ken was an arsehole because, like all the previous Soviet bosses and nomenklatura before him, he loved playing London like a board game. Central planning, and State dominance was his forte. There's no point in being like that with London - look at the way its streets wind and worm, look at its anarchic make-up? London is meant to be left to its own devices as much as possible. That's what London is, that's what makes it great.

Whenever I return to my homeland, all I see is evidence of State interference. CCTV cameras dotted all the way up the A2, spreading out through all the inner city locations. Police presence everywhere. Signs and boards and ads and all manner of warnings from the government telling people what to do. broadcasts and loudspeaker chants, each one more aggressive than the last, keeping the inhabitants in check.

Boris has disappointed by choosing the easy route to things - banning stuff. The tougher option takes more balls. I suggest he find his and get on with the job of retracing the tentacles of State interference

imaj: lolebrity
sorse: Carl DeSousa/AFP in TheGuardian

Imagine my pride (and slight concern) when my two and a half year-old son came home from play group the other day with this mixed-media caricature of the Mayor of London!

All the kids were provided with a head shape, hair, a couple of eyes and some clip-art type cut-outs of noses and mouths. Much to my Mr Potatohead-loving son's excitement.
A rich helping of glue and some less than careful sticking later, and Boris Johnson appeared.

I can only assume that the brown paint is a satirical reference to Boris' piccaninny-calling ways of pre-mayoral days.

During the slow news period which characterises the British summer, we're treated to an increase in the amateur Kremlinology that passes for journalism in today's news-on-demand culture. A quick glance at today's Times shows up articles on how Obama may be too thin for US voters,* on how to interpret the books that Tory MPs are reading on their holidays, and on Boris Johnson's distant blood relation to the royal family (not online yet). This fascination with the lives and personalities of our politicians is perhaps symptomatic of the representative system we live in. What is interesting is how it translates into a facination with personal scandals.

Political conversations have become dominated by shock and outrage at the latest corruption or sex scandal. Whole books and careers are dedicated to exposing and condemning such activities. There's nothing inherently wrong with condemning politicians (or indeed anyone) for blatant disregard for moral conduct. However, when we focus on the personalities, there is an implication that our political system would be fine without these corrupt politicians. Such thinking obscures the fact that such problems are a natural sympton of the society we live in.

The latest scandal is always shocking. Commentators are appalled that Blunkett used ministerial privilege, and that Ian Blair gave the contract to a friend. When it happens constantly (as it has over the past fifteen years) the problem is presented a downturn in moral conduct in modern society, and poor delegation by those appointing the offenders. Boris Johnson, who has been involved in his fair share of scandals, was quick to fire Ray Lewis because of "financial misconduct", to show that there can be no impropriety under his watchful eye. This is highly misleading; if the likelyhood of being found out were a sufficient deterrent, then corrupt practice would be a thing of the past. Instead, malpractice, ranging from a councillor skimming a few quid, to Berlusconi rearranging a country's legal system to suit himself, is endemic.

This is not because of a few bad eggs. New Labour, and the Tories before them, have shown that payoffs and privilege can corrupt an entire government. To find the answer we have to go back to Lord Acton and his observation that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", and to the namesake of this blog Percy Shelley, who said that "power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches".

When individuals rise to the top of the hierarchy, there is a feeling, well explained by C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite, that they occupy a higher plain than those below them. Their actions are inherently justified. Those around them are doing it anyway, it's the way things are done at the top, why get left behind? Such arrogance peaked with Richard Nixon, who famously insisted that "when the president does it, it's not illegal". We can criticise these people all we like, but the reality appears to be that they are products of an elite plateau which teaches its members that they are special, and that they are powerful. Power corrupts, and people start believing their own myths.

Barack Obama was criticised this week for being arrogant. Assigning such a term to any man who believes they have the capacity to be President of the USA is an impressive way to understate a situation. If we insist on having humble, loyal, honest and moral leaders, then we are begging for deception. The powerful are rarely any of these things, and never all of them. Our political system elevates some individuals into positions of great power, and from here they can and will do terrible things. Whenever we are shocked at the individual, we have missed the point. The focus should not be on achieving a system of pure leaders, but on abolishing the hierarchies which produce corruption and contempt for the voters. Anything else is a waste of time, a red rag which directs attention from the structural problems of modern society. It creates an obsession with personalities that has little or nothing to do with making the world a better place. We should criticise corruption, but through a broader critique of the system which produces it.

* The Andrew Marr show assured us that all may not be lost; he's a heavy smoker, which apparently plays very well.

Of course, I am keeping a close eye on the Presidential Election.  I am going for John McCain.  In a shuttle bus earlier today, a few of us were talking and I was the only one backing McCain (it is New York so I am not too worried).

Just seen a page on this and remarks from Boris Johnson.  Comments like this (assuming that they have not been mis-reported) are ones I find very annoying.  These crass remarks insult the undoubted ability of Barack Obama as much as anything else.  He should be considered on his abilities alone and not because of the colour of his skin.  The vast majority of people would think it crazy if a well known politician claimed that a McCain victory would be a "fantastic boost" for white people.  The same should apply here.

It is also insulting to assume that black people automatically support Barack Obama and it reminds me of the time when someone told me he could guarantee that I did not know a black person who supported the Conservative Party.  It was not even worth giving these claims the time of day!

Ok, the commissioner's links with a businessman who was then awarded a number of contracts from the MET(Metropolitan Police) should be investigated. But it would appear that this not the only reason Boris and his deputy mayors want to get involved with the MET.

One of the deputy Mayors, Kit Malthouse has stated: "I believe the mayor was elected to have an influence on policing in London."

Influence yes, but complete control is what they actually want. Control to choose their own police commissioner who would be sympathetic to their political ideals. The current Met Commissioner Sir Ian has said he was concerned about the politicisation of the post of commissioner.

At a media briefing on Wednesday, he said: "Most senior police officers are concerned by the office of commissioner becoming a matter of high politics - which it has done for some time."

Those currently in control at city hall view Sir Ian as a bit too "left wing" for their liking, so they would want to remove him, Boris Johnson plans to make himself chairman of the MPA (Metropolitan police Authority) so he can be “directly involved with day-to-day scrutiny of the police”, which is a way of criticizing the man they want gone, pressure him into quiting.

However, the mayor cannot suspend or remove the commissioner. That power lies with the Home secretary.

Long may it continue.

The Mayor made the announcement while visiting the Brixton Road Youth Centre, which is managed by young people - the former centre, The Vassal Youth Centre, closed down in 2007 due to mismanagement by adults.

Mayor Boris Johnson said:

These projects are perfect examples of the youth initiatives we desperately need across London to engage young people. They offer guidance, information and most importantly steer young people away from the lure of gangs and criminal activity.

Tackling youth crime is complex and there are no magic solutions but I am determined to make London a safer city for everyone, including young people, who are frequently victims of crime.

As well as more targeted policing efforts, to combat these issues we need strong community projects, which are relevant and interesting to young people and schemes that widen their horizons as well as raise their aspirations.

*
‘Calling the Shots’ will receive £200,000 funding over one year for its work with 16-19 year olds who are at risk of becoming involved in youth violence.
*
‘Watch Over Me’ is a project aimed at teenagers that uses educational DVDs and teaching materials in schools, youth groups and community groups to raise the issues of gun crime, drugs, knives and general safety. It will receive £110,000.
*
The Kids Task Force ‘Miss Dorothy.com’ primary school initiative will receive £400,000 for work with schools from 2008-09.

The projects will be funded by the Metropolitan Police 'as part of their commitment in partnership with the Mayor of London to cut crime and make London safer for young people', said a spokesperson.

- Boris Johnson in today's Telegraph

Despite the exuberant gayness of the weeks I've missed I haven't heard any more from Heinz, despite the fact the Advertising Standards Authority won't be investigating. Yesterday I bought Sainsbury's organic baked beans... I also missed out on the fun of Iris Robinson's descent into madness and it's implications for the Tory and DUP partnership. Lighter news I missed may have been a second resignation in two months for Boris Johnson, and another appointment. I've even not commented on the Evening Standard's assertion that there are more gays in the London tory party than on Old Compton Street (they're trying to fight political correctness don't you know)...

And sadly I was somewhere travelling through the Alps while the Pride parade, attended by 825,000 people (!), and Boris's pink stetson, were winding their way through London's streets. I'm also missing this year's Europride in Stockholm after the holiday took all my money and time over the last few weeks. And the need for a night in led to me missing a plethora of acts on the final night of G-A-Y at the Astoria (although it appears Kylie didn't show up)... I'll be sad to see it go...

Anyway, to make up for this I'll take some time today so ignore the politics and write an entry on another favourite topic of food - what else could I write about after a holiday in Italy???!!!

Today on my way to Waitrose I smelled some "pee" - hmm, I thought that is not really right. Sure, you are in the middle of London on your lunch break to get a nice salad and sit in the sun (I wish) and then you smell this odour...

So, a la Sherlock Holmes (other side of London) I investigated and notices something that looks like pigs or goats. Did not get a proper shot of them so decided to google it (no, it is not optimised for "pigs London WC1" but the park around the corner is online: Coram's Field.

The website does not only explain the smell but also what good London does for its citizens. All I can say to is: Back Boris - and become his fan on Facebook !

Have a good day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7521923.stm

Now, I don't mind bus drivers apart from those on a certain route near me who are complete nutcases. Accelerating into a bus stop isn't the idea guys, okay?

But this lot are, frankly, taking the piss. In short they want £30,000 a year to do 38 hours a week. That's less hours for more money!

It's not the hours and the pay per se, it's the amount of money. Maybe nobody has told them that they are bus drivers and not accountants.

Because rewarding a bus driver with 30 grand of the Queen's finest paper is a stark message to the nation and the students who will soon join the workforce: don't bother.

Let's be harsh, bus drivers are generally the people who were in the lowest sets at school and haven't got very many qualifications. Nothing wrong with that, it's just life. Some people are barristers, some are athletes, some are bus drivers. Others are politicians, boom boom! Oh dear...

But to basically either be a bit unintelligent or a lazy bastard and then getting a job driving a big red thing about, then years later being given £30,000 to do it is a kick in the teeth for all of us who worked hard and studied.

What's the point? Tube drivers earn a truly obscene wage. Green to go, Red to stop, say a load of crap over the speakers about doors at Mile End, sit on your arse all day reading the sport with your thermos, sue the boss for sacking you after being caught sitting in a room full of thousands of empty and half full beer cans and being pissed out of your mind. And here is a cheque for far more than nearly everyone who gets on receives.

Why? Because Ken Livingstone was weak and confused. Hard right Stalinist fucker on one hand, loveable cheeky chappy of the masses on the other. Now the Unions led by that utter cunt Bob Crow (may very well do an article soon here, because I hate the man nearly as much as Lee Jasper) have got their oar in, they can twist the knife, to mix the metaphor, and leave TfL up shit creek. Without an oar, or paddle, depending on your point of view. Anyway, it has a knife tied to the end of it now so it's ruined.

The Unions, particularly transport, are now so far to the left in the 21st century, reality is a distant memory. Tube, train and bus drivers on more money than people with degrees who run offices and are immune from any action.

Really it is all a ploy. They want to be told 'no' so that Crow and his Awkward Squad can have a strike. They like a good strike, makes them feel like real men telling the average worker what to do and getting them to lose a days pay after 51% fo the 20% who bothered to vote agreed with themselves.

Problem is, Boris Johnson is now saying he would like to, but he doesn't have the power when really he should be telling them to fuck off and give him back his paddle sans knife.