SMILING CARCASS'S TWO-PENNETH

Commenting on social, political, economic and general topics

Archive for January 2013

Only Fuel and Horses

leave a comment »

Tesco--only-fuel-and-horses

I was trying- ‘cause I love Photoshop- to think of a humorous or critical image to produce and stuck in my head was the ‘horseburger’ fuss. I thought of one or two ideas, but before I could get them into Photoshop, my mind, being what it is (thank you, sacred mushroom!) went on a tangent. I started to think about the real content of burgers, and we all know most of them, if not all aren’t the best meat, lots of water and fillers of various descriptions. Even the ones claiming 90% beef and other such claims have gotta be suspect.

I came to this conclusion because I had what one might term a thought experiment (there I go- comparing myself to Einstein over a burger!). If you went into a restaurant and ordered steak and they said “very well, sir, we’ll remove all the bone, mince the steak and then reconstitute it into a nice shape for you” you’d say “like hell ya will! Bring me a damned steak and do it right!”

So why does beef have to be minced and served to us in a nice flat, round, reconstituted form?

Because it’s all another corporate con! They can get rid of the bits they remove from the best cuts and sell it to the peasants! And we love it!

Right, I’m off for a couple of tubes of minced animal bits and some dried pigs blood. Mmmmm! Pigs blood! (Sausage and black pudding, in case ya didn’t get it.)

Written by Smiling Carcass

21/01/2013 at 5:22 AM

Posted in Humour

Tagged with , , ,

Councillors Against Cuts

leave a comment »

Councillors against cuts

Founding Statement- Councillors Against Cuts

http://wp.me/P33mwS-3

Written by Smiling Carcass

11/01/2013 at 11:49 PM

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

leave a comment »

http://welfarenewsservice.com/changes-to-legal-aid-in-welfare-cases/?fb_source=pubv1

“The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 introduces a wide range of reforms to the justice system as well as delivering structural reforms to the administration of legal aid from 1 April 2013…”

“The Act removes legal aid from cases concerning employment, housing (except in cases involving homelessness or risk to health and safety), debt (except in cases relating to certain proceedings where the home is at risk), and most welfare benefits cases (except for welfare benefits appeals in the Upper Tribunal and higher courts).”

Well, I’m loathe to call them ‘reforms’ since ‘reform’ suggests improvement, something better; but then, I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you sit.

The Act removes legal aid from cases concerning employment; is this because we refused to take up the ‘shares for your jobs’ offer?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/08/employee-shares-for-rights-what-proposals-mean

So instead, in their petty, recriminating way, they have removed your ability to adequately defend yourself in the event you are dismissed unfairly. And will this have repercussions for accident claims?

The Act removes legal aid from cases concerning housing; what will be the repercussions for Secure Tenancies? Will it be possible to defend yourself if your landlord, local authority or housing association decides to arbitrarily change your contract?

The Act removes legal aid from cases concerning debt; those in debt surely cannot afford legal representation if a creditor decides on recourse to the courts, something that currently rarely happens if you can show you cannot pay because they know the court will look favourably on the debtor. This means that creditors can decide to take the reduced risk of losing if you cannot, and if you are already in debt, will not be able to pay for legal representation.

The Act removes legal aid from cases concerning welfare benefits; well, again who most needs legal representation yet is least able to afford it?

This smacks of nothing more than ensuring this government’s raft of new legislation hitting at the poor and disenfranchised cannot be challenged. That is the quintessential aim and effect these changes will have.

Written by Smiling Carcass

09/01/2013 at 4:49 PM

Yes, the top 1% pay 27% of tax. No, they’re not paying their share.

leave a comment »

Yes, the top 1% pay 27% of tax. No, they’re not paying their share.05/01/2013 · by skwalker1964 · Bookmark the permalink. ·I’ve used these figures before, in a post I wrote a few months ago in response to some claims by Tory MP and apologist for the rich, Jacob Rees-Mogg. However, the claims have surfaced again in the last few days as defenders of the poor, oppressed wealthy have rushed to rubbish Labour’s idea of a ‘jobs guarantee’ for the long-term unemployed. So it seemed appropriate to write a new article highlighting the figures – and the fallacy they’re used to support.

via Yes, the top 1% pay 27% of tax. No, they're not paying their share..

Written by Smiling Carcass

06/01/2013 at 8:09 AM

%d bloggers like this: