Congestion

Why is it that all of the solutions these fucking morons in the Government and in local authorities can come up with to reduce congestion culminates in making the motorist pay money to them?

Why?

If I have to commute to my workplace and there is no viable alternative, then I have to use my car whether they charge me to drive it or not. It's not going to reduce congestion at all: rather make the local authorities more money to waste on frivolities.

These people need to understand that cost is never going to stop people driving, because there are simply no alternatives that are appealing enough, accessible enough or cheap enough.

Driving your car means you're in your own space with your own tunes on, your own air conditioning, your heated leather seats, and so on. It means you are in your car from your house to your destination and you don't have to keep changing forms of transport.

The only way they will get me or anyone else to walk to a bus stop and stand there freezing hoping it's not late, then sit crammed into rock hard seats with chewing gum on them behind plastic windows decorated with graffiti with the dull drone of a large diesel engine for aural accompaniment is to make cars simply unaffordable or make bus journeys take 50% of the time in a car. (And I didn't even mention that bus journeys these days cost the same and often more than the equivalent in a normal family car).

But they wont, because their evil schemes rely on people driving. If everyone suddenly decided to use public transport, it would be in crisis and furthermore they would have no income from motorists to pay for it. Since buses rely on the same roads as cars they will never be much faster. Bus lanes, yeah, but not many places have them and it's not much of a time saver anyway: buses don't take the direct route you'd take in your car since they have to go around the houses to pick up passengers.

There are also trains of course, but who has a train station that's near them? Trains are only practical for commuting between towns or into cities from suburbs. The shorter the journey by train, the less of a time saving it is compared to the car, since you have to go to your nearest train station and again hope it's not late or cancelled - plus your destination station probably isn't near where you actually want to go so you have to find other means of transport to complete your journey.

Train carriages are also just as bad as buses and in many cases worse when using local commuter trains. Personally I just hate having to sit next to tramps that smell of shit, or gangs of youths that go out of their way to make trouble. I don't have to suffer any of this in my car.

Trains are overwhelmingly expensive too.

If the Government wanted to take some positive steps, it needs to lose the ideology that taxing motorists reduces congestion and emissions: because it doesn't. It's one of those things where if they tell you it enough times you start to believe it despite their being no evidence to suggest that heavy taxes on cars works.

A bit like climate change.

The heat is on!

Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin is today under intense fire because his wife has been claiming taxi expenses for get-togethers that may not have been related to official business.

Indeed, from what I have heard she had claimed over £4000 in taxi fares to basically pay for her mates to come round to their house for a piss up.

If this is true, Martin must go. His position would become untenable: particularly since he is supposed to be leading an enquiry into MPs bogus expenses claims.

However given that Martin is fighting tooth and nail to stop expenses breakdowns being revealed I think it's reasonable to suggest that there is no smoke without fire on this issue. After all, why else would he be so bothered about it..

It's the taking part that counts

That idiot Dr Tanya Byron has been self publicising again: today she came out with yet more revelations about video game censorship.

She reckons that games should be labelled as films currently are, i.e. Universal, PG, 15, 18 and so on.

Wow. If she had a clue about the subject matter she would realise that most games are rated already, and no matter what age you place on a video game it won't stop kids from playing it just like it doesn't stop kids buying cigarettes under age, buying booze under age or renting/buying 18 rated films under age.

Does she really think kids are copying what they see in video games? Really? Does she really think first person shooter games are the cause of black gun culture, or that games such as Grand Theft Auto are the cause of youths taking vehicles without their owners consent?

Does she really think kids are not exposed to sex or violence before they are 15, or even 18? Most TV programmes after 9pm are packed with both but I don't see Byron bleating about this, probably because hey, she is getting paid by taxpayers to compile a report about the danger of the Internet and of video games to kids. So hey, lets not consider everything else outside the box eh Tanya?

I can't be arsed with bleeding heart do-gooder spongers like Byron that make a name for themselves by inciting hysteria within the ignorant masses. Gary Glitter is a bigger danger to kids than some coloured pixels on a computer monitor. Has she really nothing better to do than regurgitate this crap every other month on TV as though it's some ground-breaking discovery she has made?

England are shit

Here are my scores, out of 10, for the England team tonight after their game against France.

David James: 0. Gave the penalty away, looked slower than Neil Ruddock and had an even more stupid beard than Neil Ruddock.

Ashley Cole: 0. Overrated money grabber, did nothing at all apart from whinge at the referee.

John Terry: 0. Too slow, miles off the pace and allowed Anelka to breeze past him for the penalty.

Rio Ferdinand: 0. Lazy. Didn't seem to care and looks like Bart Simpson. Except not yellow.

Wes Brown: 0. Scored against Liverpool at the weekend. Still looks bizarre.

Joe Cole: 0. Did nothing except look like someone had just smashed him in the face with a grand piano. I think he had one blocked shot from 40 yards.

David Beckham: 0. No pace and not 21 any more. Received the ball in good areas but stood there playing long balls to nobody. After 25 Hollywood passes that were easily intercepted, Capello took him off.

Owen Hargreaves: 0. Looked tired throughout the whole match. Made pointless runs to nowhere and generally did nothing.

Gareth Barry: 1. Seemed to try. Didn't give the ball away as much as the others and dared to trespass in the opposition half.

Wayne Rooney: 0. Had no shots. Gave the ball away a lot.

Steven Gerrard: 0. Had one shot into Row Z and looked like he was about to cry.

Subs:

Michael Owen: 0. Not sure if he got a touch of the ball. Slow off the mark to chase the one ball England managed to put in the box.

Peter Crouch: 1. Won some headers that went to nobody.

Stewart Downing: -300. If being a left winger is cutting inside and kicking the ball to the opposition goalkeeper, I can do it. Not England quality. Can't think of anything he has done to justify his place in the squad.

David Bentley: 5. Fouled Malouda and pushed the diving bastard to the deck.

Joleon Lescott: 0. How did Frankenstein get into the England team?

The Other Defender I Can't Remember: 0. Guilty by association.

Expenses... again

They are at it again. This time the MP's are scrambling to block publication of second home expenditure - and they are spending our money to do it.

A group of MPs led by the Speaker of the House have decided to continue fighting against this publication by taking the issue to the high court. Apparently they were advised by lawyers that they didn't have a leg to stand on and almost everyone thought they would drop it but they haven't.

It seems to me inevitable that they will have to disclose this information. Firstly it's in the public interest and secondly its our bloody money. However the MPs have been bleating that they don't want their addresses published for fears of harassment.

Fine by me, just publish how much they are creaming off to pay for their marble kitchens and plasma televisions. I don't think anyone is bothered where they live.

Of course, we know the real reason they don't want this information in the public domain. The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson (the guy that looks like Judge Jules) summed it up pretty well when he talked about the possibility of several resignations if/when the figures are published.

Whilst MPs operate under a shroud of secrecy with regards to the amount of freebie money they are siphoning off for their own pockets, nobody will trust them.

Secrecy is only needed when there is something to hide.