We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

Defending Britain from ‘death from above’

· UK affairs

Not content to rest on their laurels after defending the British people from the menace of pedestrians, our political masters have ensured that this “Freedom of Information” nonsense will not be allowed to stand in the way of confronting that most implacable threat to our way of life… this will put the cat amongst the pigeons! (sorry)

October 20th, 2005 |

6 comments to Defending Britain from ‘death from above’

  • John K
    October 20, 2005 at 3:57 pm

    I imagine they don’t want us to know that they have been killing the poor ickle pigeons because they have been shitting all over the fucking monstrosity of a parliament building. Fair comment by the pigeons in my opinion, but since the Scottish Commissars banned the hunting of one form of vermin, the fox, they can hardly admit to killing another form, the pigeon. For the time being it is close season on the most pernicious form of vermin, the MSP.

  • Paul Marks
    October 20, 2005 at 4:53 pm

    As the outside of the building is decorated with toilet shapes (go and see if you doubt me – sorry I do not have a picture), why can they not have special bird toilets?

    True the birds would not use the toilets, but this would not nomally stop the “investment” of money building them. After all under Lord Keynes “multiplyer” effect (an idea not first used by J.M. Keynes, but leave that aside) the spending of money on any project (even if it has no practical use) will benefit the economy (by increasing “demand”) as long as the spending is not financed by new taxes (but rather by the creation of new money) and the ecomomy is not at the “full employment level”.

    How dare anyone say such doctrines are barmy. Economists since Keynes have proved them with lots of maths (at least they are still in the text books), and I am sure that most of the people inside the building believe that government spending is investment.

    On the building itself. Anyone any idea why there are bits of wood (or what look like bits of wood) over some of the windows? They are too flimsy to be protection and must obstruct the view of the people inside the offices concerned.

    All heil to “post modern” design (at least till the water comming in via the foundations causes the place to fall down).

    And as the late lamented Donald D. said “it is a lie that the building will cost forty million pounds” – quite right to, it cost about four hundred and forty million pounds. Of course 400 million plus is more (rather than less) than 40 million – but perhaps it is less if one uses “post modern” maths.

    I am sure that mathematical economists could help in proving this case.

  • mike
    October 20, 2005 at 7:08 pm

    “”post modern” maths.” Ha!

    ‘Postmodernism’ is the answer to your question about the wooden frames outside. I remember attending a plenary by the architects some years ago – they said their choice of materials was intended to reflect the local environment.

    So Edinburgh being one of Europe’s finest architectural environments (a World Heritage Site) they chose to reflect this with a sprawling, shapeless concrete poo.

    Postmodernism. Still you get what you deserve – Edinburgh is a cess-pit of all manner of things that smell vaguely of socialism.

  • Paul Marks
    October 20, 2005 at 11:23 pm

    Wood – reflecting the bare rocky hills of this part of Scotland?

    Still, yes, wood is natural material. But it does not explain why it is just bits of wood (it is not a proper shutter on anything like that), perhaps the incompletness of the bits of wood is meant to express the incompletness of our journey through life – or some other idea (or perhaps some of the wood has fallen off).

    No doubt the fact we are talking about this postmodern creation proves its “power” to incite interest.

    A great pit full of steaming tar would also incite interest – if it was in the middle of Edinburgh. It would also be fun to watch the polticians and administrtors trying to work in it.

  • mike
    October 20, 2005 at 11:37 pm

    Sorry I should have explained (tiredness + late night)…
    prior to the Industrial Revolution (as you might know) many of Scotland’s ‘bare rocky hills’, from the Pentlands in Edinburgh up to the Highlands were actually covered in trees. Then they were all cut down to make railways and other things. Many of the firms responsible for the logging were English of course so that means more, ahem, fuel for the Scots’ resentment of the English…

    Anyway, what I remember from the conference was that a long time ago, Edinburgh’s Pentlands were covered in trees and the choice of wood has something to do with this. Reviving a memory taken away by the evil English or something like that. Weak and unconvincing? Blow me.

    Actually, Edinburgh has seven hills most of which are currently covered in trees (though not Salisbury Crags) and just round the corner of the Pentlands there are plenty of little newly planted woods.

  • Paul Marks
    October 21, 2005 at 10:04 pm

    Thank you Mike – now I understand.

    I looked up Salisbury Crags when I visited the city (some months ago) – but a pal of mine and myself decided to walk up A.S. instead.

    My old friend was (and still is) suffering from a balance problem – and so fell on the way down, I dashed to “help” and fell as well.

    Neither of us was hurt, so we must have bounced on our heads.

«  
  »