Oh my goodness! That was the week from hell. (Well, hardly “hell” but certainly very, very busy). I was running training sessions on four of the days which unfortunately means far too early a start each morning in an attempt to avoid the worst of the Oxford rush hour traffic. And, on Thursday, I had a Governor’s meeting at a primary school afterwards which extended the working day into the early evening – far too late! And then! On Friday, the training session was somewhat compromised by the Learning Platform we were using falling over repeatedly following an upgrade the previous evening. Great fun but thankfully the delegates were very patient and understanding during my half dozen or so phone calls to the provider trying to resolve the issues. And the coming week isn’t looking any better – I seem to be busier than a one-armed paperhanger.
All of which got me thinking – what other similes can we come up with to describe a fairly busy time. Three seconds on the Internet came up with:
- Busier than a one-armed paperhanger with a case of the hives.
- Busier than a one-eyed cat watching nine rat holes.
- Busier than a three-legged cat trying to bury a turd on a frozen pond.
- Busier than a one-legged man in a butt kickin' contest.
- Busier than a three-legged cat trying to cover a turd on a marble floor while having to go five miles for dirt.
- Busier than a one-toothed man in a corn-on-the-cob eating contest.
- Busier than a mosquito at a nudist colony.
- Busier than a cross-eyed air traffic controller.
- Busier than a set of jumper cables at a country funeral.
- Busier than a cat with puppies.
- Busier than a weatherman in a tornado.
- Busier than a desert cobra at a mongoose convention.
- Busier than a termite in a saw mill.
- Busier than a dog scratching fleas.
- Busier than a one-armed trombone player.
- Busier than a rooster in a henhouse.
In short, it’s been busy.
We had the pleasure of Nick and his friend Boz’s company last night. They had been to Silverstone for the day watching the qualifying for the British F1 Grand Prix and they were setting off early for the race itself this morning. So, they availed themselves of our hospitality and our proximity to the circuit and spent the night. Naturally, we were compelled to provide a suitable standard of catering and so barbequed some of Sandy’s Salmon with Pesto, Amy’s potatoes and Penelope’s Spinach with Butternut Squash – absolutely delicious.
Just when you thought the scandal surrounding MP’s excessive claims couldn’t get any more ridiculous, we have the case of one MP who claimed rent for his second home for a flat which was owned by his own company, apparently against the rules.
MP 'claimed for own firm's flat'
A Conservative MP claimed more than £50,000 in expenses to rent a flat from his own company, it has been reported.
The Daily Telegraph says Brian Binley, Northampton South MP, made the claims despite a ban on MPs renting homes from firms in which they have an interest.
The paper says Mr Binley's appeal to Speaker Michael Martin against the ban took more than two years to process, during which time the claims continued.
Mr Binley told the BBC he acted with honesty and above board at all times.
The latest claims by the Daily Telegraph came after Jim Devine became the fifth Labour MP to be barred from standing at the next election over his expenses claims.
The Livingston MP was accused of submitting receipts for £2,000 in electrical work from a firm which did not exist. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Rules changed
Mr Binley is chairman of a company called BCC Marketing and after he was elected as an MP in 2005, the firm bought a flat close to Westminster.
According to the Telegraph, in early 2006, Mr Binley moved into that flat and began claiming £1,500 a month from parliamentary expenses to cover the rent.
Two months later, Commons' rules were changed, making it explicit that MPs could no longer rent properties from businesses in which they had an interest.
At that point, Mr Binley was reportedly told by the Fees Office that his arrangement with BCC would have to end, but he appealed against that decision to the Speaker.
The process of appeal took almost two and a half years - a period in which the paper says Mr Binley continued claiming the money.
Once the appeal was finally rejected, Mr Binley accepted the decision and moved out.
The MP told the BBC he had lodged an appeal because he did not want to move and because he did not think it was right to break the contractual arrangement that was in place with BCC.
In sometimes strong and colourful language, Mr Binley said he would not allow the Telegraph to "bring him down".
He added that since he had moved, he was having to claim an extra £2,000 or £3,000 in expenses to pay for the new flat.
The Telegraph's expenses stories have led to the resignation of nearly a dozen MPs, more than £300,000 in money repaid, and calls from across the political spectrum for root and branch reform of Parliament.
On Thursday, details of all MPs' expenses for the past four years will be published online.
The Commons will also hear the final speech from Mr Martin, who is standing down as Speaker on 21 June following widespread criticism of his response to the issue of expenses. |
Don’t you love the way they keep insisting that they’ve done nothing wrong? Apparently, the police are looking at a few of the more outrageous claims. I keep thinking “You couldn’t make this stuff up.” But clearly I am wrong.
The other article which caught my eye this week was the following from the BBC site concerning the young girl in Belgium who now has something in the region of 50 stars tattooed all over her face. Lovely.
Belgian girl's tattoo 'nightmare'
 Police in Belgium are investigating a complaint from a teenager who says a tattooist peppered her face with stars after she asked for only three.
Kimberley Vlaeminck, 18, said she fell asleep during the procedure.
"I woke up when he was starting to tattoo my nose... I counted 56 stars, it is frightening," she said.
Tattoo artist Rouslan Toumaniantz, who is Romanian, said his client did not fall asleep and she got exactly what she had ordered.
He rejects Ms Vlaeminck's claim he had misunderstood what she had asked for.
Mr Toumaniantz says his client was happy until her family saw her face.
"She was awake and looked in the mirror several times as the procedure was being done," said Mr Toumaniantz, who works at Tattoo Box in Kortrijk.
He says his client only regretted the tattoos later.
"She agreed, but when her father saw it, the trouble started," Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws quoted Mr Toumaniantz as saying.
The teenager has told Belgian media she wanted three modest stars tattooed near her eye and she awoke to "a nightmare".
Ms Vlaeminck has said she wants to keep the tattoos on her forehead but would have the rest removed. |
Is it Father’s Day in the States today? If so, happy, happy Father’s Day to my father and warmest solicitations to fathers everywhere.
Love to you all,
Greg
A bit long-winded and apparently first published in April 1957, but it still seems strangely pertinent.
Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.
Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.
Q: Why doesn't bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.
Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.
Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.
Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.
Q: Then they haven't got it?
A: No.
Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.
Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.
Q: But if they've got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn't theirs.
Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.
Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.
Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.
Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.
Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can't really say that.
Q: But you've just said it! If I put $100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Assets. It's the same $100 isn't it?
A: Yes, but....
Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn't it, that banks haven't really any money at all?
A: Theoretically....
Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven't any money, where do they get their Reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.
Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your $100 to someone they charge him interest.
Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That's their profit.
Q: Why isn't it my profit? Isn't it my money?
A: It's the theory of banking practice that....
Q: When I lend them my $100 why don't I charge them interest?
A: You do.
Q: You don't say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.
Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that's only if you're not going to draw the money out again.
Q: But of course I'm going to draw the money out again! If I hadn't wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!
A: They wouldn't like you to draw it out again.
Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it's a Liability. Wouldn't they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can't lend it to anyone else.
Q: But if I wanted to remove it they'd have to let me?
A: Certainly.
Q: But suppose they've already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they'll let you have some other customer's money.
Q: But suppose he wants his too... and they've already let me have it?
A: You're being purposely obtuse.
Q: I think I'm being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?
A: It's the theory of banking practice that they never would.
Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?
A. YOU GOT IT!
Back to the Befouled Weakly News