Rant 28 - 28/1/12 Subject: Fat Cat Bonuses

Rant number 28


There has been plenty of talk about this subject over the last couple of days, and it makes my blood boil (and pretty much everyone I knows blood boil for that matter.)

Fat cat bonuses.

Essentially taking someone that gets paid a fuck load of money to start with (generally over a million pounds per annum) and giving them the same amount of money in bonuses each year.

When it comes down to it, this is always going to be quite annoying to us on the bottom couple of rungs of the ladder, particularly as their bonuses come to around 90% of their overinflated salaries(and the day when I receive a 90% bonus for my wage is the day when Lucifer invests in some ice skates to get to work.)

But they do have a difficult job to do don't they? and all the rest of us apparently don't...

Because - the crux of the matter is that, you just don't get into these type of jobs without being the right type of person, born in the right background, educated at the right university and with just the right contacts.

Those with ensure that their sons and daughters have too. Its an old rule that will stand for as long as society continues.

This aside, it just seems odd that the buggers who got us into recession - seem to be completely recession proof.

Now this weeks particular issue - puts me in a particularly bad mood.

Stephen Hester.

Stephen Hester is currently the Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland: A bank of which you - the taxpayer - own around 82%.

Stephen's wage is a generous 1.2million pounds - enough to get by I think.

Despite this, the bank in question (the one you are all shareholders in remember) have decided to award him a bonus of £963,000 pounds for doing his job so well.

The thing is, as I see it - his reward for doing his job very well, is surely his seven figure salary to start with? There are people out there would would not earn that kind of money in 100 years of working. With the bonus as well, most of us wouldn't manage it in a 100 years either.

So how is that fair?

Many people are struggling. We are in a recession after all - but people are being given more money than you are likely to ever see every year - extra.

Remember once again - that this is the bank we had to bail out!

The government of course are not going to intervene. As I said - the rich look after the rich - doing the right thing would be horribly frowned upon.

At least, by all reports Stephen was good as his job to deserve his ridiculous bonus.

Often, bonuses are unconditional - regardless of performance in order to retain valuable staff.

Come again? I don't quite understand that!

Surely, if someone loses the company money, he deserves kicking out the door - not rewarding.

The whole thing makes me so angry!

Rant over.

Rant 12 - 12/1/12 Subject: Commuting to work

Rant number 12


I hate bloody commuting. I mean, it makes so little sense.

Don't get me wrong, I need to get to my job - this is kind of essential to doing it - you know, the whole being in the building thing.

My job is also, as with many people - located a difference away from my home - about 11 miles - as the crow flies.

Thus getting from A to B is kind of necessarily.

'So why complain?' - I hear you cry?


Because - in a modern age, in our advanced society - it makes so little sense.

Public transport is total shite & expensive(don't worry, there will be a rant to follow)

As a result, more cars are on our already overflowing roads, each and every day.


And about 99 bloody percent of all the cars want to be on getting to work, school, college, Matalan  or wherever! - between 8.30 and 9 in the morning.

As such - each morning is a struggle against almost insurmountable odds. On the best days, if someone doesn't decide to collide with one of the other thousands of motorists (a sadly rare occurrence) a journey that should take quarter of an hour takes nearer to 50 minutes. On the worst days, it can grow to more than an hour of quarter. A waste of thousands of hours of our time and precious fuel every bloody day.

Surely, at this point in our evolution, we would have managed up with a way of making sure that everyone doesn't need to be going to the same kind of places - all at the same time.

As an alternative of course - the government could actually put some money back into the public services that the nutcracker (Margaret Thatcher) sold off and privatised. This way, they might - you know....actually work.

Then I won't have to sit in traffic, going at 12 miles a frickin hour, burning expensive fuel and getting closer to the point where my road rage will take over, and I will be forced to take my wheel jack out of my boot - and do something horribly inventive with it to that rude guy in the four by four.

It's not going to happen though (well not the investing in public services thing anyway....)

Rant over.

Rant 7 - 7/1/12 Subject: Speed cameras

Rant Number 7


So what was my bone of contention in the last 24 hours?

Speed cameras

Now don't get me wrong, I would like the roads to be safe for my self and my friends and family. I know that this presents a paradox, as speed is often the cause of danger on the roads. The thing is, that speed cameras for the most part, just don't work, except to fill the coffers of those at the sharp end.

Speed cameras cannot be hidden from view,so it's just not possible to make them work the way that the police would like anyway. People continue to speed up to a few meters before the camera, slow down to below the limit, then accelerate off again as soon as possible.

So why do people mostly speed anyway? Because a lot of the time speed limits just don't represent a realistic picture of an area.

I understand a 30 mile an hour speed limit in a built up area with houses during the day. But this stands even at 10pm at night - when you would like to think that kids would be safe in beds. In some areas, the speed limit drops to 20 miles an hour. Which just isn't terribly practical in a car with an engine bigger than a house brick.

So why have the cameras??
Because some people make expensive mistakes.

Those who get caught are rarely making a die hard effort to speed. To be rebels or anything of the sort.
No - most people just get caught out when they loose concentration very briefly, or get confused about the ridiculous limits.
If the cameras succeed - they are not making the road safer. Surely that says it all.

And they do succeed, quite a bit - speed cameras are big 'road safety' money!

Now so far, I've only discussed the static cameras however- some bright spark has made things so much worse in recent years. The joy which is the 'average speed camera.'

These cameras - actually do work.

You are forced, by avert of not exceeding the average speed across the zones, to indeed keep to the speed dictated.

This would be no problem, as previously stated - if the speed in question made sense.

It doesn't though

Often these cameras are used on the motorway when roadworks are being undertaken, and when the speed limit is being reduced by upwards of 25%. At the moment - one of Yorkshires main vein roads - the M62, has bloody miles of roadworks - all at 50 miles an hour.

Does this make the road safer for those working or those driving on it?

Does it my arse!

The news reported that 1000% more speeding fines have been levied in the several months so far (with no sign of completion) that these road works have been going on. I have not seen so far any work taking place however - in these supposedly 'safer zones' (infact, I have seen many people driving more dangerously, in mere frustration)

So in summary, speed cameras are overused to make money out of the already wrung dry motorist, and it's bloody annoying!

Rant over.