Character test

You're eight years old. Your teacher, a 'traditionally built' lady, has her back to the class. Her dress is caught in her bum crack. Is this:

(A) hilarious?
(B) embarrassing?
(C) both?

via Blackberry

More staccato

One the road again. I will, when I can.

Right, then.

It is not because I am a right-winger that I believe in free nations, small governments, free trade and the inalienable sovereignty of the individual.

It is not because I am a right-winger that I believe CAGW to be a baseless concept based on flawed computer modelling techniques and grasped by dishonest politicians who wish to control the world economy and are determined to frighten the less well informed into letting them do just that.

It is because I believe these things that those who oppose me in these matters, including the enemies of freedom and of myself, label me 'a right-winger'.

That is all.

Roaming: the rant continues

Why hasn't the albloodymighty EU sorted this roaming business out? It takes the power to tell my parish council what colour bins to use which is none of its fucking business but it can't persuade pan-EU companies to expand profitable services which it is already delivering on some devices but not others. I wonder why that would be?

Oh, yes. It cannot force them to stop committing daylight robbery on millions of citizens as it has repeatedly promised to do, you know, in the interest of cross-border trade, because the fucking EU is useless in delivering free trade which is the only answer to this sort of crap. Free the market and companies will sell products people want to buy.

Telecoms is still a nationalised industry - nationalised by the EU and its Byzantine regulations - in everything but the last technicality: legal title to brand and assets. It's not enough.

Fuck off out of the commercial world, politicians. Fuck right off. As soon as you like. Oh... wait...

Bastards.

Those Apple bastards are taking the piss, no?

The iPod will not roam in Europe. You pay for Wifi and 3G and... oh look. It only works in the UK. Nice one.

What IS the fucking point? Bastards.

Small consolation - the O2 woman I roared at agreed with my assessment.

____

UPDATE

Yes, thank you, all right... a microsim bought locally is one answer but what a bloody inconvenience having to divert to find a phone shop when one's in transit across a continent. And it means one for each country in order to prevent being royally mugged by international roaming charges.

More ranting on this, here.

Salute to those who educated me

No J, Perelman.
Just SJ. It's not the same.
He's as witty though.

Got a moment?

Now get back to work.

I already gave. So did you.

Conrad Quilty-Harper (cool name) at the Telegraph describes it as 'the UK's largest charity'. Ladees and gennelmen, allow me to present to you the fakest fake charidee of them all, the (*drum roll*) British Council!

Really? Neither did I.

Registered charity 209131 (England and Wales) and SC037733 (Scotland), also registered in Singapore as a branch (T09FC0012J) and as a charity (No 0768), describes itself as 'The United Kingdom’s international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities'.

Note the use of the definite article, there. Not 'one of the'. 'The'. It is our nation-state's official organisation for... Tsk, yes, all right.

From the British Council's website:

In the 1920s and early 1930s, the Foreign Office realised the need for an organisation responsible for the promotion of British culture, education, science and technology in other countries, along the lines of existing French, German and Italian cultural organisations. This led to the setting up of the 'British Committee for Relations with Other Countries' in 1934. The name was later changed to the 'British Council for Relations with Other Countries, and then shortened to the 'British Council'.

Although set up and partly funded by the Foreign Office, and working closely with it, the British Council had its own Chairman and Committee, and was responsible for its own policy and activities.

The work of the early British Council included support to British Institutes and societies and English schools in other countries, recruitment of university lecturers, support to students and English teachers, books and periodicals for libraries, lecture tours, music performances and art exhibitions.[...]

Working at first through British Embassies and High Commissions, (oh?) the British Council appointed its first overseas representative to Egypt in 1938 [...]

With the entry of Britain into the Second World War in 1939, the Government at first considered amalgamating the British Council with the newly formed Ministry of Information, which was responsible for propaganda. However, the British Council Chairman, Lord Lloyd, successfully argued for the value of the British Council as an independent organisation, responsible for building long-term relationships. Although its information work was transferred to the new Ministry, the Government encouraged an expansion of its cultural and educational work.

As the War progressed, activity had to be withdrawn and staff evacuated from all European countries except Portugal, Spain and Sweden. However, at the request of the Government, centres were set up in many cities in the UK to provide educational and cultural support to refugees and Allied service personnel. Centres for Allied servicemen in the Middle East were later set up in Egypt and Palestine. After the war, the UK centres continued to provide support to students and visitors from other countries.

So, wait... this is a charity?

In what possible sense of the word 'charity' can the British Council make legitimate claim to charitable status? It was, is and presumably always will be an arm of the British government. To be precise, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. And if it isn't, in any formal sense, it bloody well is in every possible informal sense: it performs educational functions among BC-sponsored foreign students in the UK who one might think are the business of the FO or maybe the Dept of Ed, and diplomatic functions overseas on behalf of the United Kingdom, which differ in what particular, exactly, from those of cultural attachés employed by the FO's diplomatic service?

Now the money. Where does this 'charity' find its donors? Well, page 86 of its 2009-10 Annual report and Accounts (pdf) offers a clue:

The British Council is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The FCO is regarded as a related party. (Stop laughing at the back. Seriously, this is how they talk.) During the year the British Council has had various material transactions with the FCO. The British Council has had a number of material transactions with other government departments and other central government bodies. The most significant (sic) have been with:

• the Department for International Development
• the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
• the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

And on page 69 - Income:

• £200,763,000* from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• £10,556,000 from the former Department of Balls, the current Department of Cable-Bank-Annoyance and the Education departments of Norn Iron, Wales and Scotland.
• A total of £211,319,000 of your money, dear taxpaying reader.

Other income of £361,844,000 is reported as being 'fees, sponsorship and other income received from activities in furtherance of the objects' but there is no mention of the identities of those paying fees or sponsoring. Could this possibly also be you, dear generous taxpayer? I think we should be fucking well told, don't you?

The British Council gave, according to its 2009-10 Report and Accounts, £798,000 to another premier-league FCO fake charity, Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) under the heading 'building capacity for social change'. How very LSE, how very New Labour**. VSO's opaque accounts do not so much as mention this largesse from the British Council, which seems a trifle churlish, frankly. A propos, funny that the National Audit office, being auditor of both organisations, didn't spot VSO's omission but of course the NAO probably regards both these 'charities' as a bit peripheral to its duties, which are 'to audit the accounts of all government departments and agencies as well as a wide range of other public bodies'. Not charities, then.

Apart from VSO, other recipients of British Council 2009-10 grants included

• £6,174,000 shared by 59 UK universities and colleges, Turkish Radio Television and Tel Aviv University
• £10,819,000 given to 'other (unnamed) institutions'. No - nothing.
• £2,066,000 to 'individuals'. Nope. Not a clue.

Curious that Turkish Radio Television and Tel Aviv University should be mentioned by name...

I knew a few BC and VSO managers and peripatetic BC academics. (They couldn't get tenure here, so... well, you know. Oh, yes. Stiff with them). The overseas postal address was always simply 'FCO Baghdad, c/o FCO London', as opposed to, say, 'The British Council Branch Office, High Street, Baghdad'. They travelled the world, business class natch, from one British Embassy to the next, settling for the duration of the posting in a nice little Embassy-approved billet within a easy native-driver distance of His Excellency's gaff and, as well as sorting out literacy classes for the natives and inviting Hampstead pianists and Brixton steel bands over from time to time, hosted the vital soirees for the most corrupt local chieftains and paraded occasional visiting Blighty nobs about to shake the right hands and oil the works. More or less your standard diplomat round, really. Joining instructions for newly-hired junior BC field managers included this gem (I paraphrase): 'As well as appropriate formal attire for all occasions, you will need to equip yourself with a full canteen of silver (or at least respectable-quality EPNS) eating irons, at your own expense...' And you thought the life of the Raj District Officer was a thing of the past? Well, all right, that was in the 1980s. Maybe, since then, things have impro....

Now, look here. I simply haven't got the time to delve any further into the cesspit of charity-fakery right now and an hour or two in amongst the British Council's vitals has weakened my will to live. I will end with a brief memo to the British Council, cc. William Hague and George Osborne:

Stop chugging me with that HMG-issue cosh behind your back, you utter, utter bastards. Kindly note that I give money ONLY to charities who can show that they are not already fleecing me via HMRC. Now fuck off and die.

_____

* I like putting all the noughts in when we're talking abut millions. Seems to make the point for real people rather more strongly than accountants, charity managers and civil servants would like. See, they feel that if they leave three little noughts off all their numbers it'll be easier to overlook the fact that THESE ARE REAL MILLIONS OF OUR MONEY. Bastards.

_____

**Pour yourself three fingers of the good stuff before you read the BC's Report and Accounts. There are pages and pages of guff about diversity, Elf N Safety, wimmin and emissions. Carbon emissions. But there's at least one joke:

A review of expenses, including Executive Board expenses, conducted by Internal Audit revealed some areas of non-compliance. Urgent remedial action is being taken to address the issues identified and to enhance the monitoring and sample checking of claims.

Here we go, here we go, here we go...

Good grief

Well, would you just look at that.

Not that I give a hoot, etc., etc., blah... Art for art's sake and all that.

Well, erm... actually, I confess to being pathetically grateful to my reader for voting early and often in order to shove Prodicus's ramblings so far up the list of good eggs blogging on the side of the angels. You know who you are. Thank you. Prodicus will endeavour to be worthy of your support.

A trifle...

... tied up. Back soonest.