still bloggin ...

yes, it is fab...and I've been reading your blogs, fish...complete with dog poo and chocolate mayo cake...

...and as we're trumpet blowing I'll blow a little cornet hoot and say...I am in 'pick of the month' on for the third time - this time with a story I wrote last year...check the home page... You pay to use this site, but the competitions sometimes offer lucrative prizes. Poetry tends to be of the greeting card/regional newspaper type but when you sift there's some good story writing and erotica.

Thought I'd nudge this back to the top ... they are well worth reading and I've just been catching up. Bert's Close Encounters (with MPS) entry is funny and enlightening (well, not really, only if you are a member of that stange breed of person who still thinks politicians are pleasant, normal people) and Fish gives up drink, discovers her long standing neighbours are tories and is planning a trip to Sedgefield. Oh, and they've been in their local rag, says Alison (41). Evil grin.

How can people like me who have always seen themselves as Labour voters, actually care about things like war in Iraq or ID cards and still vote for Tony Blair? I'm not a hugely political person but I have always considered myself to be red. I am having a hard time. Does a person stick to their long held beliefs even in the face of such a thing as Iraq. Or does a person switch allegiance? well said Fish... this is exactly how I feel. Add tuition fees to it as well. Most adults dont care about fees though... I just can't get my head round people who are kind, educated and fair people who say they will *still* vote labour "because they are the lessser of the evils" is one excuse, others don't even offer as much as that . Labour are really *really* turning into tories, tony blair couldn't give a flying toss, and if these people cant see that, I despair. I really do. Like fish, I will leave the country if ID cards are introduced.

Liana - I'm no apologist for TB. I hope he retires tomorrow. But labur are not the same as the Tories. Put in Michael Howard and you'll see what the Tories are about - tax cuts for the rich, an end to most social welfare and a return to boom/slump economics. New Labour is a pile of poo - they do far too little, too late and the war business is a complete disgrace - but they are not half as bad as the Tories would be - and let's not forget it.

I wouldnt vote for the tories. What I was saying, is how can people sit comfortably with themselves voting for TB after all he has done? They're like robots.

Hello. Must admit I feel the same as Liana and Fish. I like my MP he's a good bloke and he voted against the war, but I just don't think I can bring myself to vote for Blair again. It annoys me how he keeps dismissing the war issue as if it was some minor indiscretion that we're not grown up enough to get over. I can't not vote so I might vote Lib Dem (though it 's pretty certain to be a 'wasted' vote in my ward). [%sig%]

Last week a mass grave was uncovered just south of Bhagdad. It dated from before the war and contained 1500 Kurds, mostly women and children, murdered by Hussein and his evil regime. I'm glad the war put a stop to Husseins genocide. Whether or not it is/was considered 'illegal' (how the fuck ANYONE can use the words 'war' and 'legal', or 'illegal' in the same sentence and be taken seriously is beyond me) is immaterial, the outcome was 'justified' beyond any reasonable doubt. The plight of subjugated people anywhere on this planet is the concern and responsibility of all of us. The anti-war lobby in this country appear to base their opposition on it being none of our business. Bullshit. Earlier this week the first democratic government in 50years was sworn in, in Iraq. What right has anyone here to deny them that government? Who can say that government would be in place without the war? How many people have been to Iraq this week and asked the population if they support the action of the allies now, (yes, it wasn't just us, or us and America). No government makes decisions based on nothing but the 'legal' opinion of advisers. They can't. If they tried nothing would ever get done. SOMEONE at some point has to temper the 'legal' advice with common sense, take the bull by the horn and do what they believe to be right. We all do similar things everyday, albeit on a personal, maybe unimportant level. Tony Blair did what he believed to be right, and I believe the outcome justified his actions. I applaud him, and respect him for having the guts to follow his belief knowing that he would suffer a terrible backlash from the armchair politicians throughout the land. Whether or not he 'lied' is unimportant, because in this instance 'lied' is an imaginary stance taken by anti-labourites in an attempt to sway the sheep among us to return Howard as the next PM. He himself has been told by his own people to cease the accusations of 'lying' (something he indulges in freely), as it's damaging his chances at the polls. Anyone else read about the 1500 illegal asylum seekers he secretly gave permanent residence to when he was Home Secretary, purely to reduce the backlog and make his dept look more efficient? The man is scum.

I disagree. You are however, entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. I'm no kind of politician, armchair or otherwise, nor am I a sheep. I do however, care about ID cards not being introduced, about the thousands of dead innocents (including the 15000 killed by hussein) in a pointless war which has only worsened the very terrorism - that they assured us with their deeply sincere faces - that they wished to rid us of. (No!!!! really?? Didn't see THAT one coming). No one here argues that Saddam was evil - the reason people were against the war is because they loved good ol' uncle saddam? Dearie me. Of coure he was an evil shit. What they do care about, if I may make such a supposition, is the way that the war went ahead regardless of other experts that said "erm.. this may not be a good idea ... it may worsen the situation... It's my opinion that Bliar went ahead with the war because the MOST important thing is remaining pals with Bush, and the benefits (huh) which that relationship brings. *shrugs*

Sorry babe, I love you dearly but I disagree. The death rate among Iraqis has fallen dramatically since the war. (Experts are people who know more and more about less and less until they end up knowing everything about nothing.)

It's ok, we are allowed to disagree. And I still do.

A lot of people seem to forget that the conflict began in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. For reasons that had more to do with Bush snr's re-election campaign, Saddam remained in power. The crippling UN sanctions that followed led to the deaths of many thousands of ordinary Iraqi's - mainly infants who were deprived of basic medicines. There were no-fly zones and regular bombings throughout this period. It was a situation that couldn't be sustained, especially when the sanctions began to crumble. It was a mess - much, I agree, of the West's own making - and it needed to be cleared up. Our sorry involvement in Iraq goes back to the 1920's when we re-arranged Mesopotamia. By supporting Bush jnr Blair did what any British PM would do. Unfortunately for Blair, Bush jnr's administration is the most arrogant and incompetent in living memory. I've no doubt that if Clinton had stood up and called on the europeans for action, the French and Germans would have been first in the queue. (And let's not forget, as Howard rattles on about lies and deceit, a majority of Labour MP's voted against the war. If it wasn't for the Tories the vote would have been defeated. The man is worse than scum).

If I remember rightly, the reason that Stormin' Norman, who was 10 miles from Bhagdad and was DESPERATE to get Hussein, was prevented from doing so was because old man Bush and Thatcher obeyed the UN resolution that authorised the liberation of Kuwait, and nothing else. In that sense it was the UN that contributed to the later conflict, which it tried so cowardly to avoid, and practically washed it's hands of. As I've said many times, the UN is a waste of space.

>>The crippling UN sanctions that followed led to the deaths of many thousands of ordinary Iraqi's - mainly infants who were deprived of basic medicines.<< Yep, it's always the same with UN sanctions ... they never work. The big businesses or despot governments/dictators they target never get hurt since (surprise, surprise) they are corrupt and make sure their people suffer before they do. There was enough money going into Iraq to prevent the deaths of all those kids but it was siphoned off with the help of, yep, corrupt UN officials. (That's all gone quiet hasn't it? Surely there ought to be some repercussions ... or have I missed that?) >>Our sorry involvement in Iraq goes back to the 1920's when we re-arranged Mesopotamia.<< Yep, it's all T. E. Lawrence's fault. How was your trip to White Hart Lane BBHR? I'm guessing you didn't go judging from the time of your above post. Here, have 5 mugs of 'old backofthenet' on me in consolation.

Fortunately I didn't make it to White Hart Lane. The Roberts Jag - bedecked in claret and blue bunting - was rather unceremoniously towed off the motorway after its head gasket blew. I gather a similar thing happened to Villa's defence.

Fish, I have genuinely enjoyed the blog! I don't give enough time to reading other people's work on this site! I try, and I will try harder. But I did resolve to follow your blog (and after the first entry it was irresistable!) and I am so glad I did. I think you really shine as a writer because you are an extraordinary ordinary! You have an ordinary experience of the world and seemingly perceive and relate it in a way that is absolutely gripping! keep it up! jude

awww jude! ... thank you

Thank YOU for a great read... Vodka? On Ice? I have some tonic as well!

this is a wonderful blog - of course. Read it and participate!