I was doing some research on the internet earlier today when I came across a 'Grow Your Own' style website / forum.
As always with the internet in general, it contained some very good advice along with the not-so-good, the bad and the downright bloody dangerous!
On this occasion some of the 'members' were advising one visitor to take a pan of boiling water into the garden so that sweet-corn could be put straight into the pan immediately after picking.
This 'advice' apparently came from some idiot woman on TV and - allegedly - prevents the sweet-corn from deteriorating as the sugars - allegedly once again - instantly start turning into starch as soon as it's picked.
There are several things wrong with this of course.
First, the idea that garden produce immediately starts deteriorating the moment it's harvested is complete nonsense. Much of it actually continues to ripen.
Second, no matter how small your garden by the time you get to the plant, remove the cob and strip the leaves off, the one thing you can be sure of is the water won't be boiling anymore.
But far more importantly, carrying a pan of boiling water around a garden is nothing less than sheer bloody lunacy! While covering the pan will probably stop it from slopping over the sides, nothing is going to stop it spilling if you trip over something. If you're lucky you may simply kill a patch of grass or a few plants.
The 'advice' given by other 'members' wasn't quite so deranged suggesting that the sweet-corn should be picked and the leaves stripped while running towards the kitchen where the cob should be plunged into a pan of boiling water.
There was also one member who suggested picking and eating it raw directly from the plant which I suppose might be ok if you haven't used any chemicals such as fertilisers or insecticides etc.
Or the local wildlife hasn't shit on it in passing.
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Mandleblotted Again
Our Peter's reputation as a 'Mr Fix-It' has taken something of a bashing recently. Not only did he make a complete pig's ear of cleaning up the mess Waccy-Baccy made when she ordered the City of London Police to drop their investigation into the unlawful interception and monitoring of BT Internet customers by BT and Phorm - Yes I know. The more perceptive of you did realise this was the real reason Peter was brought back into the Cabinet by Gordo.
Now he's been caught with his hand down the front of David Geffen's trousers - figuratively speaking of course - by going on holiday with him then immediately on his return, ordering the re-inclusion of proposals which would see people disconnected from the internet following a complaint of 'copyright violation' without any evidence of misconduct whatsoever.
Naturally this is being touted as a coincidence despite Peter having shown very little interest in the Digital Britain report before. A fact which did not go unnoticed by the Tories, some of whom have been laughing themselves silly at the sight of Peter having shot himself in the foot yet again.
A previous generation used to talk of 'blotting one's copybook' - something which was considered quite serious at the time - and I have to wonder just how many more times Peter will be allowed to 'blot his copybook' before he's sent to Headmaster Brown for a caning.
Although it does occur to me that given their known 'proclivities', that is something which they will probably both enjoy.
Now he's been caught with his hand down the front of David Geffen's trousers - figuratively speaking of course - by going on holiday with him then immediately on his return, ordering the re-inclusion of proposals which would see people disconnected from the internet following a complaint of 'copyright violation' without any evidence of misconduct whatsoever.
Naturally this is being touted as a coincidence despite Peter having shown very little interest in the Digital Britain report before. A fact which did not go unnoticed by the Tories, some of whom have been laughing themselves silly at the sight of Peter having shot himself in the foot yet again.
A previous generation used to talk of 'blotting one's copybook' - something which was considered quite serious at the time - and I have to wonder just how many more times Peter will be allowed to 'blot his copybook' before he's sent to Headmaster Brown for a caning.
Although it does occur to me that given their known 'proclivities', that is something which they will probably both enjoy.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
A Very Narrow Escape
A young mother from Dover and her three year old daughter had a very narrow escape last Thursday when the brakes on her car failed completely just one week after the front discs had been replaced by a main dealership in Canterbury.
When examined by the AA at their garage in Whitfield, one of the brake lines was found to be split across the line and the other had become completely detached from the brake calliper assembly.
A few minutes research on the Internet made it very clear what had happened, even to a mechanical dunce like myself.
The giveaway was the repeated warnings to support the brake calliper assembly after it's removal and not to allow it's weight to place a strain on the brake lines or allow the lines to become 'kinked'.
The possible consequences of not supporting the weight of the callipers?
"The brake lines may split, crack or become detached."
I must admit to having something of a personal interest in this case as I also had new front discs from this very same dealership just over a month ago and given the way I drive, I am unlikely to have been so fortunate had this happened to me.
Naturally I'm having my brakes checked by the AA on Monday. Until then I shall be driving very, very carefully.
When examined by the AA at their garage in Whitfield, one of the brake lines was found to be split across the line and the other had become completely detached from the brake calliper assembly.
A few minutes research on the Internet made it very clear what had happened, even to a mechanical dunce like myself.
The giveaway was the repeated warnings to support the brake calliper assembly after it's removal and not to allow it's weight to place a strain on the brake lines or allow the lines to become 'kinked'.
The possible consequences of not supporting the weight of the callipers?
"The brake lines may split, crack or become detached."
I must admit to having something of a personal interest in this case as I also had new front discs from this very same dealership just over a month ago and given the way I drive, I am unlikely to have been so fortunate had this happened to me.
Naturally I'm having my brakes checked by the AA on Monday. Until then I shall be driving very, very carefully.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Results of Commons Censorship Project published online.
Details of MPs expense claims were finally published online today despite all the efforts they and Commons officials put into trying to stop publication.
Unfortunately the published claims have been so heavily censored that they are almost completely useless which may have been the intention. Even Sir Stuart Bell was forced to admit that some of the omissions were "pathetic", as was his attempt to shift the blame onto Commons officials by saying
"I think it's unfortunate and I think it's officialdom and no MP would have authorised that."
Add in the seemingly random way the documents are organised, the lack of a machine readable version and it begins to look much like the sort of 'snowjob' so beloved of American lawyers, where significant documents are buried within hundreds, often thousands of pages of utterly useless crap.
If this was indeed a deliberate attempt to make it difficult for anyone studying the material then it was a bloody silly thing to do with the Telegraph already in possession of the full, uncensored documents.
Where the chance to do a side-by-side comparison will undoubtedly be far too good an opportunity to miss.
Unfortunately the published claims have been so heavily censored that they are almost completely useless which may have been the intention. Even Sir Stuart Bell was forced to admit that some of the omissions were "pathetic", as was his attempt to shift the blame onto Commons officials by saying
"I think it's unfortunate and I think it's officialdom and no MP would have authorised that."
Add in the seemingly random way the documents are organised, the lack of a machine readable version and it begins to look much like the sort of 'snowjob' so beloved of American lawyers, where significant documents are buried within hundreds, often thousands of pages of utterly useless crap.
If this was indeed a deliberate attempt to make it difficult for anyone studying the material then it was a bloody silly thing to do with the Telegraph already in possession of the full, uncensored documents.
Where the chance to do a side-by-side comparison will undoubtedly be far too good an opportunity to miss.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Another Campbell Classic?
Alastair Campbell made the first move in what could be a bold plan to protect Gordon Brown as he clings desperately to the post of Prime Minister - and possibly his continuation as an MP if he ever agrees to return to the back benches - when he told MPs at a special Speakers Conference that MPs detained under the Mental Health Act should not automatically lose their seats.
Campbell said that many MPs including members of Tony Blair's government had mental problems but were afraid to admit it in case it was used against them.
However his most revealing statement was
"I completely accept that somebody could become so severely mentally ill for such a sustained period of time that they just could not do an important public position."
To which he added that such a case could be dealt with by party leaders and whips in the same way other problems were handled.
With Campbell having suffered from depression himself in the past, it would be easy to view this as a genuine attempt to eliminate what is arguably a form of discrimination.
Were it not for the simple fact that no MP has ever been excluded from Parliament for this reason.
End 'sectioned' MP ban - Campbell
Campbell said that many MPs including members of Tony Blair's government had mental problems but were afraid to admit it in case it was used against them.
However his most revealing statement was
"I completely accept that somebody could become so severely mentally ill for such a sustained period of time that they just could not do an important public position."
To which he added that such a case could be dealt with by party leaders and whips in the same way other problems were handled.
With Campbell having suffered from depression himself in the past, it would be easy to view this as a genuine attempt to eliminate what is arguably a form of discrimination.
Were it not for the simple fact that no MP has ever been excluded from Parliament for this reason.
End 'sectioned' MP ban - Campbell
Monday, 15 June 2009
Two whats-its-names with one rumour?
Political commentators such as Paul Staines, a.k.a Guido Fawkes, and myself are not infallible. To misquote former Tory Prime Minister John Major - We're Bloggers, not Clairvoyants.
However as Guido was recently forced to point out once again, we do this mostly for our own amusement. If others are also amused and entertained then that's fine too.
An excellent example of us 'getting it wrong' was the BNP gaining two seats in the European Parliament when we both predicted they didn't have a hope in hell. Those predictions were based on published polls which only goes to show how you can be led astray by bad information.
So when Guido posted about James Purnell offering to stand against Gordon Brown, he also mentioned it was unconfirmed in nice bright red lettering and that he was attempting to check it.
Then along comes Alex Smith - yes, that Alex Smith - this weekend with a post on LabourList saying,
"It was good to get one over the self-confessed trouble-maker"
I can only assume that this is some personal definition of 'troublemaker' which includes those who uncover despicable smear campaigns by 'special advisors' and criminal activity by MPs.
Smith also wondered if Guido's source might be the "patsy" in
"a wider counter-plot of unsubstantiated behind-the-scenes forces trying to smear and discredit Purnell and others who had been bold enough to criticise Brown's leadership"
That would be the blackshirts Alex as you very well know.
The question Guido is asking over on Order-Order is why Jonty Pryor would go to all this trouble.
Well... Jonty isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer by any means but he does have a certain degree of 'native cunning' as it used to be called. Furthermore, he is one of Smith's own and Smith as we all know, was a close associate of Draper.
I also heard from a reliable source that Damien McBride has resurfaced. Quietly and without fuss. Now operating behind the scenes much as I suspected he would.
Anyone else notice a certain familiar pattern emerging here?
Yes indeed. Who else would have the motivation to sabotage Purnell and try to make Guido look like an idiot at the same time?
Guido: punk'd by a patsy?
Who Punk’d Guido Over Purnell?
However as Guido was recently forced to point out once again, we do this mostly for our own amusement. If others are also amused and entertained then that's fine too.
An excellent example of us 'getting it wrong' was the BNP gaining two seats in the European Parliament when we both predicted they didn't have a hope in hell. Those predictions were based on published polls which only goes to show how you can be led astray by bad information.
So when Guido posted about James Purnell offering to stand against Gordon Brown, he also mentioned it was unconfirmed in nice bright red lettering and that he was attempting to check it.
Then along comes Alex Smith - yes, that Alex Smith - this weekend with a post on LabourList saying,
"It was good to get one over the self-confessed trouble-maker"
I can only assume that this is some personal definition of 'troublemaker' which includes those who uncover despicable smear campaigns by 'special advisors' and criminal activity by MPs.
Smith also wondered if Guido's source might be the "patsy" in
"a wider counter-plot of unsubstantiated behind-the-scenes forces trying to smear and discredit Purnell and others who had been bold enough to criticise Brown's leadership"
That would be the blackshirts Alex as you very well know.
The question Guido is asking over on Order-Order is why Jonty Pryor would go to all this trouble.
Well... Jonty isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer by any means but he does have a certain degree of 'native cunning' as it used to be called. Furthermore, he is one of Smith's own and Smith as we all know, was a close associate of Draper.
I also heard from a reliable source that Damien McBride has resurfaced. Quietly and without fuss. Now operating behind the scenes much as I suspected he would.
Anyone else notice a certain familiar pattern emerging here?
Yes indeed. Who else would have the motivation to sabotage Purnell and try to make Guido look like an idiot at the same time?
Guido: punk'd by a patsy?
Who Punk’d Guido Over Purnell?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)