Ethical Companies – The Blog

Ban on bargain booze: Minimum price law could be introduced across UK

Bargain booze deals are to be outlawed as the first minimum price for alcohol is introduced in the UK.    Supermarkets will now be forced to charge at least 45p per unit of alcohol, under the scheme unveiled by the Scottish government yesterday. Separately, ten local authorities around Manchester are pushing for the introduction of a 50p minimum figure per unit under local bylaws. That scheme, which has been given tacit support by David Cameron, could be adopted by other councils around the country.

You don’t need to be an expert in discourse analysis to see the flaw in Daily Mail’s reporting here ….  The title suggests it “might” be introduced, but the first sentence of the article intimates it WILL be introduced.  Nice bit of contradictory journalism there, the Daily Mail obviously seeks to argue with itself ….

Under the 45p scheme, a supermarket offering a special deal of 24 cans of 4 per cent lager for just £9 would have to charge a minimum of £16.72. A two-litre bottle of supermarket brand cider would treble in price from £1.32 to almost £3.80, while supermarket-brand vodka would go up from £8 to £11.80. Whisky would increase from £9.20 to £12.60.

I don’t drink lager.  However, 24 cans for £16.72 doesn’t strike me as likely to put a dedicated drinker off his/her Stella Artois.  It’s still less than £1 a can after all.

The proposals, championed by the Scottish National Party, aim to deter binge-drinking and the associated ill-health and violence. However, the change is expected to see hundreds of thousands of Scots heading to supermarkets over the border to continue stocking up on cheap booze in England. Supermarkets are challenging the policy, claiming it will unfairly penalise sensible customers.

Booze cruising into England, who’d have thought it ?

Richard Taylor, Morrisons director of corporate affairs, said: ‘Morrisons does not support a minimum unit price which would only serve to punish our customers.

Serve to punish Morrisons’ profits and/or market share more like ….

‘ The Scotch Whisky Association said the policy would ’significantly damage’ the industry as well as punishing low-income families and the elderly. Economists suggest the 45p minimum will mean drinkers in Scotland pay an extra £236million a year. However, SNP Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon claimed it would save the Scottish government some £700million over ten years, largely through reduced ill-health. She claimed it would mean 50 fewer deaths from alcohol in the first year, as well as 1,200 fewer hospital admissions and 22,900 fewer days’ absence from work. While the policy has support from the medical profession, the main opposition parties in Scotland – Labour, Tories and Liberal Democrats – have vowed to vote it down. Miss Sturgeon drew parallels with the ban on smoking in public places, which was first introduced in Scotland and then across the UK.

I find it hard to believe it really would make all these differences.  If people want to get smashed they will, maybe if you increase the price tenfold, but these increases will be unlikely to make any difference.  Plus we live in a free market economy, should government be interfering in this at all ?

However, the Centre for Economics and Business Research said its calculations suggested harmful drinkers would cut down by only 2.7 units per week, less than one pint of Continental-strength lager, adding the move ‘could have a genuine negative economic impact in terms of jobs, trade and costs to the consumer’.

A sensible and pragmatic piece of reasoning, I can’t but help think they are right.  Plus (excuse my cynicsm), isn’t it entirely possible that this is just an exercise in raising duty, VAT etc on alcohol = more money for the government ?  Maybe that’s the REAL reason for this ….

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Calls for cigarette-style health warnings on junk food that is ‘as addictive as heroin and cocaine’

Junk food is as addictive as heroin and cocaine, scientists say. Studies show that the fat, salt and sugar rush of fast food affects has the same effect on the brain as hard drugs. The findings have led to calls for cigarette-style health warnings to be placed on boxes and wrappers – and even the suggestion that manufacturers could be sued for knowingly putting people’s health at risk.

Sigh, here we go again.  It’s ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.  if I want to eat 15 Big macs a week I will, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, it’s my decision and it’s not for the “nanny state” to decide.  Don’t get me wrong I am not a McDonald’s evangelist (McVangelist ?) but they have as much to sell their produce in this country as fish and chip shops, Kentucky Fried Chicken etc.  What next ?  Health warnings on the Foie Gras at Mosimann’s and Petrus (I don’t know if Anton Mosimann or Gordon Ramsay have Foie Gras on their menus but it’s a relatively safe bet that they have done at some point in time).  For the uninitiated Foie Gras is seriously “loadsa calories” (and cholesterol etc) food, being the fattened liver of a goose.

The research comes as Britain fights a rising tide of obesity, with weight loss surgery alone costing the NHS more than £32million a year. The idea that junk food is addictive is fast becoming accepted by researchers, says this week’s New Scientist. The first hint came from American studies on rats showing that those fed on syrup developed brain and behaviour changes similar to rodents hooked on morphine. Crucially, the animals released the pleasure-seeking brain chemical dopamine after every sugar hit – a hallmark of drug addiction. Allowing rats to binge on bacon, sausage, icing and chocolate also caused ‘very, very striking’ changes to the brain,similar to those seen with cocaine and heroin. Even electric shocks did not deter them from getting their junk food ‘fix’.

I’ve worked with cocaine and heroin addicts, Big macs do NOT have the same effects (either on your health or personal life).

When people are shown pictures of their favourite foods, a decision-making area of the brain called the orbital frontal cortex experiences a surge of dopamine. The same area is activated when cocaine addicts are shown a bag of white power. New Scientist says: ‘There is now compelling evidence that foods high in sugar, fat and salt – as most junk foods are – can alter your brain chemistry in much the same way as highly addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin. The food industry says that junk food is only addictive to a ‘certain subset of consumers who don’t exhibit the discipline required’.

No kidding Sherlock.

Hank Cardello, a former Coca Cola executive, says solutions include giving tax relief to companies making healthy foods.
He added: ‘People aren’t going to change their behaviour. To me it’s about getting calories of the streets.’

“Getting calories off the streets” hahahaha, ain’t gonna happen.  This springs to mind:

“First they came for the drinkers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a drinker;

Then they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a smoker;

Then they came for the motorists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a motorist;

Then they came for the dog owners, and I did not speak out—because I was not a dog owner;

Then they came for the fat people, and I did not speak out—because I was not fat;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

The comments on that Daily Mail article really are unbelievable though:

Roger in Brighton is a real barrel of laughs isn’t he ?

Steve

Tweet This Post 

What happened when a woman driver tried to park her car as she stopped to admire the view – but forgot to put the handbrake on.

They say you learn from your mistakes – so it’s safe to assume this woman will never ever ever forget to put on the handbrake after parking on a slope again. Maria Rizzo, 34, stopped to admire the spectacular view from the street above this house in Alassio in northern Italy. But she was so intent on taking a picture that she forgot to put on the handbrake.

Her car rolled away, smashing through a barrier and plunging down the hill onto the house below. It broke through the roof and landed in the bathroom, with the front end wedged in an iron bath which broke the fall and stopped the Fiat Panda plunging further into the house. A police spokesman said: ‘Luckily no one was home at the time – so nobody was hurt, but the owner of the property did have a surprise when they arrived home.’

I know it’s a bit bad taste to poke fun at women’s parking …. But hey I had to snigger at this one

Steve

Tweet This Post 

As you may already be aware (and if you weren’t you soon will be) that the Daily Mail website, amongst its articles has little “mini polls” where you can click yes or no in response to a topical question. Questions such as “Does Britain still have a special relationship with America ?” After selecting yes or no you get to see the results.

You may also be aware that I don’t believe in banning the burka, from my recent posts on the subject. So on this article here: The burka empowering women? You must be mad, minister. I spotted a poll (presumably some of the polls on the specific pages are contextual and bear a relationship to the article surrounding them) entitled “Should Britain ban women from wearing a burka in public ?” and voted no. Here are the results at the time of writing this article:

Now maybe I just don’t “get it”, but do 88% of British people really want to ban the burka in Britain ? I just don’t understand the problem here. I get the whole thing about possible coercion into wearing them and the idea they are a “walking coffin” (in some people’s minds) but do 88% of British people (well 88% of the Daily Mail readers who do polls at least) care one way or the other about burkas ? Is banning them not just replacing one form of control with another ? Maybe I’m just stupid, but I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. If you’re one of the “yes” crowd then please explain what the problem is you have with them.

Thanks in advance.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Female minister insists women must be able to choose their own clothes as ban on burka is ruled out.

Banning the burka would infringe a woman’s right to ‘choose each morning when you wake up what you wear’, Cabinet minister Caroline Spelman said today. The Environment Secretary claimed it was ‘empowering’ to be able to choose your own outfit, and this must not be taken away.

Do men not have the right to ‘choose each morning when you wake up what you wear’ then Catherine ? Not sure about the “empowering” bit for the majority of us, after all we’re talking clothes here. However, the point being made is that we should be allowed to basically wear “what the bl*&^%$ hell we want”, and that applies to the burka as much as it does to any other items of clothing.

It came after the immigration minister, Damian Green, resisted demands from within the Tory party to ban the burka – which critics claim is actually a symbol of oppression.

And banning the burka is not oppression ? Taking away somebody’s right to wear something they want to wear sounds oppressive to me. This of course is the problem with people and politicians demanding specific rights on the grounds they are being oppressed, they can often end up oppressing others. Not with me ? Well let’s take the smoking ban as an example, people demanded the right to clean air etc, because they were being oppressed in where they could consume beer etc. However, all the ban has done has shift oppression to another sector of society, in this case the smoker. You’ve seen the quote at the top of my blog ? “Do as all pragmatists do, compromise”, but of course the anti smoking brigade didn’t compromise did they and now they are hammering away again to oppress the smokers even further. You may of course be under the impression that I smoke, but I don’t. I do, however, respect the rights of people wanting to smoke and I believe we should have shown compromise all round. Anyway I digress, back to the burkas (where compromise was not needed as wearing one is hardly a health issue to others is it ?)

Mr Green said a ban would be ‘rather un-British’ and run contrary to the conventions of a ‘tolerant and mutually respectful society’.
This is despite a YouGov survey that found that 67 per cent of voters wanted the wearing of full-face veils to be made illegal.

Hmm. I guess he’s right, it does seem somewhat un-British, although I’d have preferred the suggestion that such a ban was pointless, and would be demeaning and oppressive to the burka wearers. As for YouGov, more information please. How many voters ? What ratio of men to women ? What quantitative methodology was used, or was it a straight yes/no ? What are the demographics of the “average” YouGov user (I could think of a great many examples but I will not comment) ?

Some Tory MPs also back a ban, including Philip Hollobone, who has tabled a private member’s bill that would make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public. Mr Hollobone, the MP for Kettering, said that he would refuse to hold any constituency meetings with women wearing burkas.

Bigot.

He said: ‘This is Britain. We are not a Muslim country. Covering your face in public is strange, and to many people both intimidating and offensive.’

I don’t find it intimidating and offensive, I don’t find it “anything”, I have no views one way or the other from that perspective.

But Mrs Spelman made the counter argument that wearing a burka is important for women’s rights. She said: ‘I don’t, living in this country as a woman, want to be told what I can and can’t wear.’

Damn right. By the way Caroline that dress you’re wearing is too “loud”, you are no longer allowed to wear it (yes this is sarcasm).

‘I’ve been out to Afghanistan and I think I understand much better as a result of actually visiting why a lot of Muslim women want to wear the burka. It is part of their culture, it is part of understanding that they choose to go out in the burka and I think those that live in this country, if they choose to wear a burka, should be free to do so. We are a free country, we attach importance to people being a free and for a woman it is empowering to be able to choose each morning when you wake up what you wear. ‘

Let’s not forget the men Caroline, we want to “empower” ourselves and wear what the hell we like as well. Today, Steve is wearing a white silk shirt, black jeans and holey socks …. Conclusion: I need some new socks.

French parliamentarians voted last week to outlaw full-face veils, including burkas, in public. Mr Green said he did not think that the French vote for a ban would have an impact on immigration into Britain, as Muslim women move here instead. He said: ‘I stand personally on the feeling that telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do. We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society.

‘There are times, clearly, when you’ve got to be able to identify yourself, and people have got to be able to see your face, but I think it’s very unlikely and it would be undesirable for the British Parliament to try and pass a law dictating what people wore. I think very few women in France actually wear the burka. They [the French parliament] are doing it for demonstration effects. The French political culture is very different. They are an aggressively secular state. They can ban the burka, they ban crucifixes in schools and things like that. We have schools run explicitly by religions. I think there’s absolutely no read-across to immigration policy from what the French are doing about the burka.’

Ahh the French, they certainly do things differently to the English. As for the point about security and proving identity, that’s fair comment, sounds reminiscent of the compromise I mentioned above.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, told the Sunday Telegraph he is not in favour of an outright ban on the burka. But he added that they should not be worn if doing so ‘compromises public or personal safety, endangers national security or impedes professional or social interaction’. The new head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Farooq Murad, said that Britain was the most welcoming country in Europe for Muslims. He pointed to the spread of mosques and sharia, or Islamic law, as positive signs of the greater freedom Muslims are given in this country. Under the French ban, a woman wearing the burka can be stopped on the street by police and ordered to a police station, where she will be compelled to remove the veil. The woman faces a possible fine. Muslim men who are deemed to have ‘forced’ their wives or daughters to wear the burka will also be fined. President Sarkozy has said that the burka ‘is not welcome’ in his country. He claims that it is ‘oppressive’ to women and reduces them to ’servitude’. He said: ‘The burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.’

I thought it was piece of clothing myself …. If it must be a sign then it’s a sign that these women shall wear what the heck they want.

Catherine Heseltine from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said UK MPs should not waste their time discussing a ban. She said: ‘Britain is a free country. We value our freedoms and we don’t want MPs or the government telling British citizens what they can or can’t wear. How does it hurt anybody else if a woman chooses to wear a small piece of cloth across her face ? Quite frankly, MPs, there’s a £160bn debt; shouldn’t they be busier worrying about what they’re going to do about that, than a small piece of cloth that a few women choose to wear ?

Nicely put Catherine, straight to the point. I guess this will all die down and we’ll move on. I’m glad though that it won’t be banned, but I must admit I’d love to know the reasons why 67% of YouGov users voted for banning the burka.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

‘Wicked’ woman who cried rape is jailed for three years despite being seven months pregnant.

A young woman who ripped her clothes and gave herself a black eye to support her rape lies was yesterday jailed for three years. Leyla Ibrahim, described as wicked by a judge, is seven months pregnant and will give birth in prison. Her false rape claims started a £150,000 police investigation in which four students were arrested and subjected to humiliating examinations. They were questioned for nearly three days during which time one attempted suicide. They were later victims of public abuse, and one has since left the area. But the 22-year-old woman had invented the whole incident in order to teach her friends a lesson after they abandoned her at the end of a night out, a judge said.

Words fail me.  The damage this “woman” (I use the word very loosely) has caused to these men’s lives is utterly disgraceful.  Yet more fuel to support the argument that men accused of rape should be granted anonymity UNLESS they are actually convicted of the charges.  How many men have had their lives destroyed by false accusations of rape and/or ended up in prison for a crime they didn’t convict ?

The four wrongly accused – two of whom were under 16 – are still suffering as a result of the stigma caused by the false allegations, Carlisle Crown Court was told. All were ’subject to name calling and abuse in the street’ following their arrests, with one describing the ordeal as torture. Another said he was devastated by the harrowing experience and had been unable to eat or sleep. One suspect complained: ‘We were treated like s*** and not a stint (sic) of an apology.’

Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty” ?

Even the doctor in the case described the examinations as ‘intimate, embarrassing and uncomfortable’. A senior police source said the four were still ‘really struggling’ with the aftermath of the case. Detectives had initially taken Ibrahim’s account that she had been raped or sexually assaulted on her way home from a night out seriously, launching a massive manhunt involving 40 officers.

The frilly dress and leggings she had been wearing had apparently been ripped in the attack, clumps of her hair had been hacked off and she had a black eye and scratches to her breasts and legs. But police became suspicious, and tests showed the Libyan-born former children’s holiday rep had ripped her own clothes and inflicted the injuries herself to back up her fabricated claims. After failing to withdraw her allegation she was charged with perverting the course of justice and convicted. Judge Paul Batty, QC, told her such false allegations made it harder for women who genuinely had been raped to secure their attacker’s convictions. ‘Not only did these false allegations have an effect on four young men, but also a considerable effect on your own family,’ he said. ‘You were convicted on clear and compelling evidence of wickedly fabricating a grave crime, causing countless anguish to all involved. Your behaviour was thoroughly irresponsible and some may say wicked. I’m entirely clear in this case that you craved attention and wanted your friends to think they left you and you were then attacked. You wanted to teach them a lesson.’

So, when the “game was up” and she had a chance to withdraw the allegation she still carried on with these charges ?

Ibrahim, who had been denied bail following her conviction, smiled and waved at her family as she was led into the dock. Her mother Sandra covered her face with her hands following the sentence, calling out: ‘It’s OK darling, we’ll always be with you.’ The family insisted they would ‘fight forever’ to clear her name. Ibrahim, who came to Britain from Libya with her family when she was nine, worked at a petrol station at the time of the supposed attack in Carlisle on January 4 last year. She had argued with a male friend who refused to lend her the money for a taxi home after a night out drinking. She told police two youths had knocked her to the ground and assaulted her as she walked home. She claimed she grabbed a pair of scissors from her handbag, only for one of the pair to snatch them and cut off a clump of her hair. Crown prosecutor Linda Vance said: ‘This sort of case, where someone fabricates an allegation of sexual assault, and continues with that allegation, is very rare.’

Really Linda ?  I wonder how rare it really is ….  It may be rare in actual reported cases, but I’ve known at least half a dozen women over the years who claimed to have been raped and not reported it, and in some of those cases I had serious doubts as to how truthful they were.  For some women is it not simply a cry for attention (albeit an evil one) ?

I’m glad to see this woman sent to prison, but only 3 years ?

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Whilst writing the entry below this (ban the burka) it suddenly occurred to me that Daily Mail (well the website at least, I don’t have an actual newspaper to hand) writes most of it’s articles in a 1 sentence = 1 paragraph format.  Such as in this article:

Calls grow for burka ban in Britain as French outlaw Islamic ‘walking coffins’.

Here’s a “snippet” (as formatted by the Daily Mail):

Britain faced growing calls to ban the burka today after French MPs voted overwhelmingly to outlaw full-face veils in public.

Politicians in France united yesterday to ban Islamic veils that cover a woman’s face, which some described as ‘walking coffins’.

Deputies in the country’s 557-seat lower house, the National Assembly, voted in favour of the ban by 335 votes to one.

Support for a ban in Britain has come from Tory backbencher Philip Hollobone and the UK Independence Party.

Now I don’t consider myself to be an English expert, although I did take an English language exam at school (and pass) but I’m pretty sure that paragraphs are generally tending towards more than 1 sentence !  Maybe I’m just out of date, maybe a new rule was proposed by Gordon Brown while I wasn’t paying attention; stipulating that paragraphs should be no longer than 1 sentence ….  Perhaps.  Is it just me ?  Has anybody else noticed this ?  Has anybody else thought “eh ?” whilst scratching their head ?

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Junk food mountain: The astonishing amount of rubbish one child eats every year.

This shocking picture, with its piles of oven chips, mini rolls and tubs of icecream, represents just how much junk food one child in the UK consumes in a year. It is perhaps unsurprising then that today’s children have been labeled the ‘junk food generation’, with a third of youngsters aged five to 13 already considered obese. Despite this, the Conservatives have decided to axe the watchdog that was set up a decade ago to regulate the junk-food companies. The Food Standards Agency was set up in 2000 to hold food firms to account after a series of scandals in which people had died from food-borne illnesses such as e.coli and CJD. But today Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will unveil a long-awaited white paper containing plans to abolish it as part of a ‘bonfire of quangos’.

“Oh my God, won’t somebody please think of the children ….” Ok, so that’s over reacting.  However, let’s not get too paranoid here, kids eat “crap”, let’s face it. My youth was interspersed with Cheesey Wotsits, crisp sandwiches, tomato ketchup sandwiches, Pot Noodles (the cheese and tomato one was yummy, sadly the manufacturers ditched it some years ago) and Pink Panther “candy” bars. I’m still alive, and whilst not as healthy as I could be, I haven’t turned out too bad, or too fat either.

The decision to reduce regulation on food companies will enrage doctors who only this weekend called on ministers to impose ‘fat taxes’ on unhealthy food – and cigarette-style warnings to children about the dangers of a poor diet. The Health Secretary was accused of being ‘taken to the cleaners’ by food companies after announcing plans to ditch tough controls on salt, sugar and fat content – if producers agree to fund healthy eating campaigns. Junk-food companies admitted they had not yet been asked to provide any money. Mr Lansley defended the plans, saying the closure of health bodies would save £1billion a year in bureaucracy costs. So while the political debate rages, just what ARE British children eating ? The Food Standards Agency and the 2009 National Diet and Nutrition Survey have calculated the amount of junk that children consume per year – and it makes worrying reading.

Fat taxes are not a good idea in my opinion and there are reasons for this:

• How the hell would we implement such a ruling ?  Who gets to decide what is and isn’t “fat” and/or “unhealthy” ?  Are we suggesting skimmed milk wouldn’t be taxed but full fat milk would ?  I might not know a whole lot about kids, but I’m pretty sure that full fat milk is likely to be pretty “nutritious” and good for children, on a number of levels.
• Individual responsibility, we all have it.  Why should we “coerce” people to change their eating habits.  If I want to live on kebabs and milkshakes I will, thank you very much.  We all know coercion doesn’t work, we tax alcohol, tobacco, petrol and diesel to death yet we still have alcoholics, smokers and couriers ….
• Parental responsibility.  It’s the responsibility of parents to feed and bring up their children, not the state’s.  Educate the parents by all means but coercion and tax is not the answer.
• Fat taxes are unfair.  Extreme example: if a 7 stone grandmother of 75 wants to stuff herself silly on a McDonald’s “make it fat sod” meal then why should she pay tax on it ?  At 7 stone she’s hardly overweight and by this stage it’s hardly likely to kill her either.
• Balance.  What you eat and drink is all about balance.  There’s nothing wrong with the occasional chocolate bar, donor kebab or even a trip to Taybarns, it’s all about HOW MUCH you eat (if you haven’t tried Taybarns I do actually recommend it, see my earlier review).

Let’s have a look at that picture again ….

I see milk …. Milk is NOT junk food, neither are fish fingers or fruit juice in my opinion.  Whilst some of this stuff is undoubtedly not too healthy, a lot of it’s not too bad.  And Dairylea Triangles, come on come on, that’s an essential part of childhood

Mind you this article is in the Daily Mail ….

Steve

PS have you ever tried to get kids to eat “healthy” all the time ?  Leah (my daughter) basically spent most of her teenage years avoiding vegetables like the plague, to her tomato ketchup was as close as she got to vegetables ….  She’s turned out a healthy girl, nice figure, attractive and all the rest of it (and that’s not just parental bias).

Tweet This Post 

John Cleese takes a £3,000 taxi and Gary Lineker’s marathon trip to make Match of the Day as flight ban hits the stars.

I spotted this article over at the Daily Mail. Basically it’s about how the Iceland volcano and the resulting lack of flights in or out of the United Kingdom has affected some “celebrities”:

Elsewhere it was revealed that John Cleese has paid more than £3,000 to take a taxi from Oslo in Norway to the Belgian capital Brussels after becoming stranded. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star was in Scandinavia for a TV appearance when the volcanic ash brought Europe’s flights to a standstill. After checking all available options, he decided the only plausible way for him to get to Belgium – and then on to London – was to take a taxi. As a result, he yesterday began the journey, paying £3,300 as an advance fare for the trip. The 943-mile journey is due to take him more than 15 hours. He is being driven by a total of three taxi drivers who are taking turns at the wheel.

I can’t quite get my head round this one, personally I’d have got the ferry to Denmark, a taxi to Esbjerg, then the ferry to Harwich.  Harwich to London is easy peasy.  Perhaps the taxi was “quicker” ?  Never done the Harwich to Denmark ferry route myself so have no idea how long it takes.  Also, three drivers ?  What on earth for ? 15 hours isn’t that long, 943 miles isn’t that far.

Singer Whitney Houston, who was due to perform in Dublin as part of her Nothing But Love world tour, was forced to take to the Irish Sea on a less-than-glamorous car ferry. The 46-year-old star opted for the boat after the flight ban threatened to cause another cancellation on her tour, which has already suffered several cancelled dates due to her respiratory infection earlier this month.

Ah the poor thing, the “indignity” of having to use a car ferry, shame.  Myself I can’t abide the things but I still use them, mainly because I’m not “good” at tunnels and won’t use the Channel Tunnel.

On another note Gary Lineker drove from Madrid to Paris, in order to get the Eurostar.  Unfortunately he has got back in time to be on Match Of The Day

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Spotted this over on the Daily Mail website. Not sure I would have used the word lucky ! Not that I think he looks like his dad anyway.

Steve

Tweet This Post