Friday, 30 August 2013


This is how grown up people, mature people, un bitter and twisted people, deal with small nations which exist side by side, there to help each other  share stuff, do-operate with one another, BUT at the end of the day, elect THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS.

Meet Marit Fält

I am both Swedish and Norwegian - and am proud of being both. Having been brought up on the Norwegian side of the border of these two small, independent nations, I am delighted to live in another small nation on the cusp of the independence. I may not be Scottish, but I have come to call Scotland my home.

There are many benefits of living in a small independent nation. Complete influence over the decision of who rules our country. My vision for Scotland is to have a proportional electoral system which forces consensus in parliament, similar to the Scandinavian model. Scaremongers wax lyrical about the uncertainty of independence. I don't see it this way. No matter what we vote there is going to be uncertainty. For me the key question is who we want making the decision in our main national political forum. This dilemma wouldn't enter my mind in Scandinavia. We represent ourselves, and it seems to work very well.

The other aspect of the Better Together argument which confuses me, is their talk about the "abandonment" of England. Sweden and Norway's separate cultures are flourishing as well as maintaining strong ties. Actually the cultures overlap to the extent that I always shopped in Sweden, all Norwegian children watch Swedish television, and Swedes make up the biggest immigrant group in Norway. This is an easy relationship - building on historical, cultural and family ties. It absolutely is not abandonment. This is working together to help both nations. I hope that Scotland gets the opportunity to build these relationships for herself - in the UK, in the North, in Europe and globally.

Marit Fält

That said, a little gloat never hurt anyone, especially the Tories. So here are some pics you might like...
Bad headline day, Dave?
You say it's not like Iraq, but then you're a liar.
Unless of course he's standing next to me...

Bad News Dave?
Not used to losing, is he? And hasn't he aged?

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

Better Together "+ve" message....Part Two.

As promised, this is the second and concluding part of my analysis of Better Together so-called positive case for the union. Of course I've not the room to say all that I would like to, but I'm sure you will add bits I've left out in the comments...


They say:

In an uncertain world Scotland's security will be strengthened as part of the United Kingdom. The British Armed Forces that protect us are the best in the world. In Scotland we are proud of the Forces and proud of the vital contribution that Scotland makes to them. As part of the UK we have real clout in the UN Security Council, NATO, the EU, and we have Embassies around the world.

I say:

It's always an uncertain world. It always will be. Maybe it's a different kind of uncertainty now from the cold war period most of us grew up in, or the European and world wars of the 20th century.

A lot of the uncertainty now is made by bankers and financiers, insurance people, swindlers inventing ever more complex ways of making themselves millions if not billions at the expense of other people.

Our enemies are different, although we still have them. Al Qa'eda  seem to be at the top of them, but we mustn't ignore the fact that in Britain we still have the so called loyalists and so called nationalists in Northern Ireland. So religion rears its ugly head. Radical Muslims, sunni and shi'ite. Radical Christians, protestant and catholic.

Our home grown ones we will have to live with, but it seems to me that the Middle Eastern terrorists are mainly angry with the United States and their poodle waging war against them. Maybe if we were a country that minded its own business a little more and worried about the starvation and hypothermia, the early deaths and the drink and drugs problems at home, and less about the running of other countries which we don't understand, we would be less bothered by radical Muslims pissed off because we have flattened their village. 

Scotland wouldn't be powerful; wouldn't be prosecuting wars against the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Col Gaddafi, or Mr Assad.

Of course we would take our place with the other small nations, providing some help here and there to Security Council backed wars, but we wouldn't be in a position to take a lead, like Britain always does, just a respectful 2 steps behind their master.

Do we have real clout in the Security Council as part of the UK? Honestly  Or do we do what America tells us? have we ever vetoed something America proposed? Likewise, we only have some clout in Nato because we agree to everything America wants and we have the fourth largest military spend in the world, despite being completely and irrevocably broke.

It is farcical to say that we have any clout in the EU. The UK is the one state which has been (as the French said we would) awkward and belligerent all along over everything from day one. They probably hate us. I wouldn't mind betting they can't wait for the referendum so they can be rid of us.

Yes, we have embassies all around the world at the most phenomenal cost. Ambassadors don't come cheap. As John Major once said, they live like kings. We should be looking to share embassies with our friends. Our Scandinavian partners already do some of that in less "important" capital. All this is a status symbol of something we once were and no longer are.

I hope you are not suggesting that we would not be proud of our forces in an independent Scotland. Wasn't it Mr British Virgin Islands Hammond who suggested that no one would want to join a Scottish army because they wouldn't get to fight anyone. Strange man to chose for a Cabinet Secretary for Defence!


They say:

As Scots we believe there's nowhere better, but we understand there's something bigger. By contributing to and benefiting from the multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural United Kingdom of the years ahead, Scotland's society and culture will be enriched.

Hundreds of thousands of Scots and English have made their homes in each other's nation. Half of us have English neighbours.  Hundreds of thousands of Scots were born in England. This interdependence - the coming together of family, friends, ideas, institutions and identities - is a strength not a weakness, and is an ideal worth celebrating. The truth is we're better together.

Our case is that Scotland is stronger now and will be stronger in the future - economically, politically, and socially - as a partner in the United Kingdom.

I say.

Nowhere better? Well personally I'm not that kind of sloppy sentimental Scot.

I've travelled quite a bit over the years to nice places and not so nice places. Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Denmark, Luxembourg, France... and several other places have a great deal to offer. Nowhere is perfect and I think the idea that nowhere is better than Scotland is sentimental twaddle designed to appeal to the non thinker.

We are part of the EU (and without the traditionally Eurosceptic UK we might be a better member of Europe). Thanks to the EU, and EFTA, I include several Bulgarians, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Danes and Swiss among my close friends. And thanks to us being in the Commonwealth, I have Pakistanis, Australians and Indians in my friendship groups. As a member of a club for Petula Clark I have American, Australian, Canadian and all sorts of European friends... and some from the Philippines, China, Russia, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile. That's more multicultural than the UK, or certainly more multicultural than Scotland as part of the UK.

Multiculturalism actually seems to be a problem for many people in the UK and, as such it seems a bit disingenuous to use it in an argument for the union. A great deal of the richness that could come from it does not because of hatred and fear.

Yes, many people have made their homes in England and the English have come here. But you paint a picture of some sort of idyl, when, in reality, I was teased mercilessly as a kid going to school in England, and I have heard of the same things here.  

But although your assertion that "half of us have English neighbours" is a bit far fetched, I'd agree there has been a big spread between the counties... as there has been in Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, France, America, Australia  Canada .. We don't have to have the same government (that we didn't vote for  and that we don't approve of) to be able to live in each other's countries and contribute to multi culturalism.

I can't imagine that you are really saying that we can't have friends and family in other countries (I have many), and that we can't share ideas (I taught at university in France while a colleague from Grenoble came to Dundee!).  My friend, Dani, is at university in Scotland, although he comes from Budapest. Another friend came from Malaysia to do his Masters. Friends from Scotland are working in a research lab in Budapest, although they come from Wick. A gym buddy has just left to start his doctorate in Dublin. We already share institutions far more widely than just with England or Wales or Ulster. We live in a world where sharing things is done with the click of a mouse. Whether down the road, to London, or to Ulan Bator.

Your case that we are stronger together simply hasn't been made. You've offered nothing but a pile of worn out platitudes. 
On the other hand, if we weren't together we would be living in a world far more like the one in which Norwegians live. Our roads  railways, communications would be far better, because we would have spent our oil money on them instead of on unemployment benefit, bailing out banks and buying weapons that could wipe out Moscow. We would have a massive reserve of money in our oil fund, instead of £0.00. We wouldn't have a bedroom tax or Atos, we wouldn't have sold off our housing stock for people to make money. We would be in the top ten of rich nations.

Better Together? My Arse.

Velkomin til Íslands...hin fullkomna frí áfangastað

Tuesday, 27 August 2013


Workers hit out at Stirling Council's 'bully boy' tactics as they are told work longer for less.. or be sacked

A LABOUR-RUN council have been accused of acting like “bullies” after threatening to sack all staff unless they agree to poorer pay and conditions.

Stirling Council workers staged a one-day strike yesterday after the local authority tried to scare them into taking a pay cut and working a longer week.

The council, run by a Labour–Tory ­coalition, have proposed a 0.5 per cent pay cut across the board and an additional hour of work per week.

But Unison say it’s a 1.5 per cent pay cut compared to council staff in the rest of Scotland, who narrowly accepted a one per cent pay rise.

And they say the extra hours add up to 7.5 days of work a year – meaning workers have to swallow an effective pay cut of 4.5 per cent.

Last week, staff were sent a letter by chief executive Bob Jack demanding they accept the new pay and conditions or find a job elsewhere.

The letter, sent to all 3000 employees, said: “If you do not accept the council’s offer of employment under the enclosed statement of particulars, the council gives you formal notice that your employment will terminate with effect from November 15, 2013.”

The council claim that 40 per cent of staff have signed the forms.

Unison Stirling branch secretary James Douglas said he was consulting lawyers about whether the move was legal.

He added: “In my view, this is bullying and harassment trying to intimidate people to sign up. Some people have accepted the terms and they have told me they did that because they were frightened.

“I have been a Labour member all my life and to see the party involved in this type of practice is ­disappointing to say the least.”

Labour and the Conservatives took control of the council last year, despite the SNP being the largest overall party.

When the Record attempted to contact the Labour leader of the council, Johanna Boyd, Stirling Council’s press office released a statement in the name of chief executive Jack.

He said that because of a cut in funding in real terms from the Scottish Government, along with a council tax freeze, the authority need to find savings of £24 million to balance their budget and the changes would save £2.5million.

Jack demanded proof from the unions that their members had been bullied into signing but had received nothing.

Employees on the two lowest grades, he added, would see an increase in pay following the implementation of the Living Wage at £7.50 an hour.

The SNP’s Stirling MSP Bruce Crawford said: “With only four Tory councillors, it’s clear this coalition is Labour doing their dirty work for them, abandoning all principles the party once had.”

Scots Labour leader Johann Lamont declined to comment. A party spokesman blamed “an underfunded SNP council tax freeze”.

He added: “They took Tory cuts, doubled them and passed them to councils.”

Tris's addition: 

Got any figures to prove that Mr or Ms annon party spokesman? Took the cuts and doubled them? Come on, explain where that calculation comes form?

Maybe if the council had tried cutting out some of the fringes...the celebrations, free bars,  etc. it would have done better.

We take the Tory cuts, you thicko, because there is no choice. They don't negotiate cuts with us; they enforce them upon us. We are trying to keep tax down on people who simply cannot afford to pay it. If councils act responsibly they CAN manage. They simply have to cut out the frills. There are no frills under the Tories. Get rid of the cars, the expenses, the fat salaries at the top, the first class travel...

As for Ms Lamont not being available for comment, isn't it high time she was? Has Ed told her to stay hidden lest she say something vaguely socialist, that might damage his chances with the south east voters?

In my opinion she should encourage the workers to go on strike. It's legitimate, it seems to me.  With inflation for essentials at over 10%, a 4%+ drop in wages is an outrage. To hell with Stirling Council ,guys. Strike. And yes, I'd say that if it were an SNP council too.

Sunday, 25 August 2013



Gotta love Alistair 5 homes...
A bit cruel  and heartless for a dalek
Many a true word spoken in jest
And it does, Dave, so sod the poor. 
Someone do the maths. 1 Englishman equals how many Scots?

I'd like to airbrush him, with a taser 
He's a Tory. "Odd" is his middle name.
Soon they will be able to get rid of Second Class carriages altogether. Only the Cameron classes will be able to afford to travel. Fortunately although the rail fare increases in Scotland were diabolical, they were at least a little less than this.
Bravo Ted....
Best not to protest, lest the Stasi get their hands on you. Being an MP's son is only protection if you are NOT from the Green Party 
No wonder we didn't buy it... It came from Blether  Together ...need I say more. Must be something to do with the "societal contamination"!
You've been warned
I suppose it depends who you are and how you look at it
I wouldn't count on him if I were you, Dave. He'll fairly soon see through you. 
"Liberal Democrats believe...." bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha
Yeah...he was talking about societies that are civilised. We are talking about the Tories. There's a difference.

And finally, courtesy of CH.... and of Snotty... 2 pics

Click images to enlarge.


Dear Mr Cameron,

Since you came to power you have launched an unceasing campaign of terror against the poorest and most vulnerable and people in the nation. You have vilified and victimised them, stripped them of rights and protections and imposed vicious sanctions upon them. You have treated them with contempt and stacked the system against them. You have supported large corporations and businesses by axing their duties to workers, dismantled legal aid, and encouraged a culture of the predatory workplace, including expanding the workfare programme, thus seeking to enculture the notion of work as duty for either little or no pay.

You have changed the face of British culture into predator and prey, and it is as ugly as sin. Those amongst the public who support this new predatory world need to think long and hard about the world they might have to live in if they really believe they would be better off without a system of welfare support. The poor and vulnerable are already dying in droves including the elderly with 600 a week more dying than expected. I hope those who presently bray their support for your world are stoic enough to accept their own demise should they fall on hard times or find their health deteriorating. In the brutalised society you are creating if they do not wholly accept such a fate they should be doing something about it now. It is no good screaming when circumstances change and their chosen role of predator becomes involuntary prey.

But for me, the jewel in your heartless predatory crown is the bedroom tax. You have struck terror in the heart of people’s lives, their homes. People are being forced to pay this monstrous tax out of the pittance in benefits that is the 'minimum amount the law defines a person needs to live on'. You, councils and the courts are breaking the law by demanding payments from legally defined subsistence money.

There is an old expression about not criticising anyone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Not one of you is prepared to put your money where your mouth is. When Iain Duncan Smith was challenged by a petition signed by 250,000 people to prove his claim that he could live on £53 a week, his mealy mouthed response was, he would take ‘no bloody lessons’ from those calling for him to live on £53 a week. Maybe not, but he is happy to force sanctions on people by stopping their benefits for up to three years leaving them nothing to live on at all. You and your government are architects of misery Mr Cameron made all the worse because you are as far removed from any understanding of the consequences of your actions, buffered, as you are, by wealth and privilege, as it is possible to be. You are a bunch of rich, pampered, bully boys with no redeeming qualities at all.

Friday, 23 August 2013

Better Together "+ve" message....Part One.

For some time I've asked people from the unionist side to explain why they think we are better together. 

Whilst browsing this morning, I found this on the Better Together site. I thought you might like the opportunity to read it and comment upon it.

They say:

We love Scotland. We are ambitious for Scotland's people and Scotland's possibilities. Our case is not that Scotland could not survive as a separate country - it is that there's a better choice for our future. 

I say:

I have no doubt that you love Scotland, but if you are ambitious for Scotland's people and their "possibilities" (whatever they are), why do you think it is better for us to be governed by a party that we did not vote for? 

Why too, do you think that the universally acknowledged "vanity" spending on Trident, widely believed to be the UK prime minister's ticket to play with the big boys in Washington and Beijing, is more important than spending money on the desperately poor state of Scotland, for example, the lowest life expectancy in the UK, highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the UK and in Europe? All this after 300+ years in the UK.

They say:

A strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom gives us the best of both worlds: real decision making power here in Scotland, as well as a key role in a strong and secure UK. Now and in the future Scotland is stronger as part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland as a partner.

I say:

Yes, it has made a huge difference to our lives that we have some very important decisions made in Edinburgh. Under both Labour and SNP governments we have moved forward in law and order, health and education. However there are many areas of immense importance to the people of Scotland which are decided by a government for which we didn't vote and passed by a parliament massively dominated by English MPs, interested in the wants and needs of their constituents. Wants and needs vastly different from those in Scotland. You say that now and in the future Scotland is "stronger" as part of the UK.  It's and handy soundbite to scare the pants off people, but what does it mean? Are you proud that we could, with the UK, blow Moscow off the face of the earth and kill millions of people? You say that the UK is stronger with Scotland as a partner. Why on Earth wouldn't Scotland still be a partner with the UK after independence?Surely the UK is forever bragging about its partnership with the USA, and yet the USA declared independence in 1776. 

They say:

In the UK the BBC and the Bank of England were founded by Scotsmen. The NHS was founded by a Welshman. The State Pension system was founded by an Englishman. Partners in these islands. Working together, better together.

I say:

Surely in the 21st century we don't have to belong to a country to "found" or use things. Facebook, Wikipedia, McDonald's, are as much part of our lives as pensions and the NHS. Of course the pension system is the worst in Europe, beaten even by Jersey and Guernsey, and in England the NHS is being taken to pieces  The BBC takes in far more from Scotland than it spends here, and the governor of the Bank of England once said that unemployment in the north was a price worth paying for helping the economy in the south, so even if it was started by a Scot, it is not now working for Scotland.

They say:

We are proud that we fought together to defeat fascism, and worked together to build a welfare state. But the case we make is about what's best for Scotland's future.

I say:

We fought fascism together with many other countries including the Soviet Union and the USA, Poland, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, the British Raj, South Africa, The Netherlands, Ethiopia, Greece, Norway... and more...

The Welfare state that we worked together to create is being dismantled by the Conservative (and Liberal ) government in London, pretty much against the will of the people in Scotland  Even Labour and the SNP MPs voted together against some of the measures  going against the Willie Bain principle that whatever the SNP say, Labour votes against it, even if it is Labour policy.

They say:

Times are really tough at home and really turbulent internationally. In the future Scotland's prosperity will be strengthened by keeping the British connection. We need more growth, more jobs, and more prosperity in Scotland. We don't need uncertainty, instability, and barriers for our businesses.

I say:

Yes times are tough, and although different measures show different results (on the basis that statistics can be made to show what ever you want them to), the general view is that countries that have worked to spend their way out of recession/depression, have done much better than the British model which has reduced spending. In a country where three new soup kitchens or food banks open every week, it's hard to take seriously the notion that we would be better off together. Uncertainty hasn't caused us any problems so far. Barriers to business don't exist in the European single market of EU and EFTA countries. There is no need for borders. There are none between Eire and the UK.

They say:

In these tough and turbulent times, the size, strength and stability of the UK economy is a huge advantage for Scotland's businesses. Scotland's largest market is the rest of the UK. The UK is the world's oldest and most successful single market and the UK has the oldest and most successful currency - the pound.

I say:

The EU is a single market. If Scotland and the UK remain in teh EU there is no reason to fear. The age of the single market actually means very little. And frankly to suggest that sterling is the worlds most successful currency is just laughable. Would you like to provide some reference for this? The Yen, Swiss Franc, American Dollar may have slipped off your radar. The pound is barely managing to hold its own against the Euro.

They say:

Scottish businesses are increasingly having to win orders against smart, efficient and productive firms in foreign markets. These competitive challenges will only get tougher in the years ahead. The UK is better placed than a separate Scotland or England to help our businesses find and win new orders across the world.

I say:

Why? Could you explain why the UK can better crack markets in the growing economies in the East, in Africa and in South America.  I see absolutely no reason that that would be true. Incidentally, maybe you should remember that the UK as it stands, is more than Scotland and England. Wales and Northern Ireland may be small, but they do exist.

 ....Part 2 to follow.



Wednesday, 21 August 2013


From Yes Scotland

The First Minister has described as "very serious" a claim that an email account connected to the pro-independence campaign was hacked.

Police Scotland launched an inquiry after Yes Scotland claimed private emails were accessed from outside the organisation.

The Daily Telegraph reported earlier on Tuesday that the pro-independence campaign was advised by officers to call in BT after it received a media enquiry which seemed to be based on private emails.

The paper reported the group contacted the police on Monday after BT looked at the email account and provided a list which showed it was accessed "a number of times".

Speaking on Tuesday afternoon, Alex Salmond said: “It’s a very, very serious matter indeed. There’s a limit to what we can say because it’s now a police inquiry, a police investigation.

"What I would say is this: If it turns out, and of course it’s still to be determined, that a newspaper has been involved in some way, given everything that’s happened over the last few years with illegal hacking and the whole scandal that erupted from that; if that turns out to be the case then it would be a very, very serious matter indeed.”

A spokesperson for Police Scotland said: “A complaint has been made by Yes Scotland regarding unauthorised access to an email account. The matter is being looked into.”

Sunday, 18 August 2013


The Coalition parties appeared to be too scared to defend their controversial welfare reforms, after opting out of a televised debate on the independence referendum, as reported in today’s Sunday Herald.

Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats ducked thechance to appear on next month’s head-to-head debate on STV about welfare and pensions. Scottish Labour’s deputy leader Anas Sarwar will speak for the No campaign, with Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon representing the Yes campaign.

 Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “It speaks volumes that both parties in the UK Government are running away from debating their welfare and pensions policies – but it is hardly surprising given how deeply unpopular those punitive policies are.

“However, people will be shocked that Labour is prepared to do their work for them, and that Anas Sarwar has been sent in to bat in defence of the Bedroom Tax.  His party have refused to commit to scrapping it, and only a Yes vote next year will ensure it is axed.

“I am looking forward to the chance to debate with Labour on why they believe decisions on welfare should remain in Westminster’s hands.

“And I’m relishing the opportunity to spell out to people how an independent Scotland, in which we always get the governments we vote for, will have a fairer welfare system that protects the most vulnerable in our society.”
The controversial decision of the UK government to celebrate the beginning of
the First World War, [conveniently in Glasgow where all-UK state events are never held, only weeks before the referendum on the future of Scotland] is causing some disquiet in Germany. 

This of course may be of no interest to the average Brit, but Cameron might want to consider that about the same time he will be trying to persuade other EU countries to allow the UK (or England, Wales, NI) to have special conditions attached to its memberships, and opt outs from almost everything that doesn't make the UK money. 

Having already made himself unpopular with Spain, upsetting Germany might be considered to be a pretty silly move. 

Imagine! Cameron doing something stupid.  
Having only a couple of weeks ago read that the estimated cost of the new British (ha ha) high speed train link between London and Birmingham, which is supposed eventually to go as far as the "north" of the country (Leicester and Manchester... you know, a couple of hundred miles south of here) had doubled to £40 billion, it came as a bit of a surprise this morning to hear that it had happened again. 

The estimate cost for the Birmingham part is now some £80 billion. If it doubles every month and isn't due to start until 2017, would anyone care to offer an opinion on the final cost?
On top of stories about the Queen and Prince Charles having bills changed to
suit them, we now read that MPs are concerned that Charlie has put moles into a couple of government departments (Cabinet Office and the Department of the Environment) without the knowledge of the ministers concerned.

It's bad enough having to fork out vast sums for this family to live in unseemly luxury while their subjects are being thrown onto the street for having a spare bedroom, but adding yet another level of undemocratic government, Charlie Rothsay, to a house of placemen, churchmen and aristos and a whipped first past the post commons, was step too far. it's outrageous he now appoint people to departments of government without letting the government know. 

No wonder there's a shortage of jobs for ordinary people.
Oh yeah. I thought you might like to see a picture of the Scottish Defence League march in Edinburgh on Saturday. You'll note that they have decided to adopt a novel version of the Saltire and that they come from McBlackburn and MacSunderland...  Oh Aye, hoots the noo...innit?

Saturday, 17 August 2013


Like most of this prat's policies; not thought through.
But it's OK, because WE have nuclear weapons
You've been warned. Who's a pretty boy?
There are some actions that are beneath contempt, and here's your man who'll be behind a good number of them. Seriously, the kind of man who would seel his own granny

Well duh, guys...
Anyone want to buy my granny...going cheap
Spivvy  thicko
Cheap as chips is old Nick
Point to just one of them that has something between their ears
The UK figure includes the Scottish figure, so they are probably even worse off that the table suggests
Sometimes you just have to be rude, especially when it's Mr Pointless that makes the "point"
White van man. 
Better Together my arse. 
Tories...don't you just love them?
The best is yet to come...
Well, you lied about everything else, you dick
True though... how do we get rid of the Tories?
And all our mates in the Lords have made lots of money; then there will be plenty of part time directorships just that Huhne got, at fat salaries. Oh yipee, it's fun to be in government.
Well, yeah, to you it is... not so hand for us though
Michael Moore. I liked him better when he was fatter and made great movies about neo cons instead of being one
Of course you do Dave, then you can sell off the practises cheap to your spivvy mates.
Well duh, because, unlike Kate Middleton or mrs Parker Bowles, you don't have blue bloody. Jeeez, it's not hard. Concentrate.
UKOK. Never was a logo more appropriate. Off Topic. Does anyone know what happened to Blether Together?
White Van Man again.  Going back to the original white van, did it not occur to Mrs May that she is the Home Secretary. She should round up illegal immigrants and deport them if she wants them gone. Not put a van round the streets with a message saying "please go home". 

As always, click on imagines to make them readable.