The One That Isn't Celebrating. . .

Ahhhh, New Year's Eve. It's a celebration I struggle with. It seems to me to be a wholly false celebration of the marking of passing from one completely arbitrary set of numbers to another completely arbitrary set of numbers. You'd get some odd looks if you got a group of people together stood around in a pub as they enthusiastically count down the last ten seconds of March 15th into March 16th, and then as the clock strikes midnight held hands in a bloody ridiculous fashion and sang a fucking stupid song.

No, NYE is something I find it hard to get excited about. So the calendar moves from 09 to 10. So? It could have been done last week, it could be done next week, next month. Indeed wouldn't it make sense to change the year on the last day of winter/first day of spring? That'd be tidier than having one season over two years. Very slapdash.

The problem is the socialising angle. I am a social animal, but I get annoyed with the concept that on this night of the year, it is almost mandatory to have a good time. It doesn't work like that. I'm unlikely to have a good time tonight, if the production of snot was taxable I'd be in the street by now, and to make matters worse I see Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt have been given honours for their services to playing the same three chords for the last forty years.

Then there's the question of where to go? A lot of pubs will charge £20 for entry (in advance) with the promise of a buffet and some fizz at midnight. You'll find the buffet is no more than a bowl of cocktail sausages and a tube of pringles and the fizz is some carbonated Bulgarian 2-star petrol, you then realise why you don't go into that pub for the rest of the year as the clientelle are arses to a man. So after an hour you wish you were at home, but you've paid £20 quid, dammit, and you MUST have a good time.

Alternatively there's the pub you do use quite regularly. None of this ticket bollocks there. So by half seven you can't get in the door. If you have got in the door by 7:29, you can't get to the bar. And it's hot, very hot. Your arms are pinned to your side, and if you do manage to wiggle your way to the bar, you're going to get a hot pint because the glasses are being taken right out of the glasswasher. Not that it really matters, because your arms are pinned to your side by the crush of humanity, so you can't pick the glass up. If you do manage to pick it up, you can be assured that some kink in the crowd mechanics will see to it the drink is sloshed out of the glass all down your shirt and over the floor. Still, you've not paid £20 and you MUST have a good time.

Perhaps it's better to be around your friend's house? They're having a little get-together. You'll be able to hear yourself talk, you'll be able to sit down, you'll be able to have a drink. Yes, that sounds much more civilised. So you go to your friend's house, you like your friend, that is one of the defining qualities of your friendship, that you get on. So you trot round, a bottle of decent wine (but not the really good stuff, you can be sure someone will put a dash of lemonade in theirs and ruin it) and some passable chocolate or something to sit on the table with the cocktail sausages, tortilla chips and those funny little baked things with the dip that no-one ever touches. After half an hour you remember the conclusion you came to at their summer BBQ, whilst you like your friend, your friend's friends are all arseholes. Especially the couple where she talks about how her 4 year old is really advanced for her age and is reading Foucault and then goes off on a rant about the problem with the English middle-class, without realising the irony that the problem with the English middle-class is people like her. Her husband/partner, you know the one, fucking stupid hat and a multi-coloured waiscoat over his black turtle-neck jumper, is pouring wine down his ridiculously bearded maw. He gets more lecherous, devastated that he has committed himself to his harridan of a shrew shreiking about the middle classes, he starts to 'accidentally' rub against the other females navigating around the house. He thinks some semi-erudite put down gives him an invisible shield against retribution from other halves of women whose breasts he is now squeezing when any of them come into his reach. And the put down does work, until the proper working class bloke, who has been having his ego massaged by the shrew in some attempt at faux solidarity, launches himself at the bearded wanker and gives him a good old fashioned working-class kicking. It is still only half nine and you MUST have a good time.

Fuck it, I'll spend the evening at home. Except. . .

Most people who drink spirits at home pour well over what they would get in a pub when trying to give a single measure, figures suggest.

Oh, for fuck's sake, can we not be left alone? Not even for one night of the year?

The government's Know Your Limits Campaign found that among 600 people tested, the average amount poured was 38ml, compared with a standard 25ml.

Those aged 31 to 50 - the most generous pourers - gave an average of 57ml.

Well bloody good for them, what kind of cretin put optics up in their house, anyway?

It then bleats on about units and daily limits and women and men and not being a kill joy, but at least I got a fucking invite for this evening, I bet none of these knobjockeys were asked out.

Here's the money-shot.

This advice comes at a welcome time as recent data shows that three quarters of people intend to see in the New Year at home. It is also timely as people think about how they can improve their health in 2010.

Oh, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. My health would be improved by my blood pressure not being raised through the roof by reading shit like this.

Hang on, three quarters of people? At home? Perhaps I will go to the pub tonight?

Bollocks to it. I'll be in bed by half ten.

Happy New Year all.

The One That Is Carrying On In The Same Fashion. . .

I hope you all had a pleasant Public Holiday period. I now have enough stock to open my own branch of Sock Shop.

When the council sent around their cunningly worded invitation for me to surrender huge amounts of my money to them, they included a little booklet, telling me the sort of thing that they'd be wasting my cash on instead of making sure that roads and pavements were gritted during a cold spell and organising a sufficiently regular rubbish collection so my bin area doesn't resemble some Monrovia suburb in summer.

Nowhere in that little booklet did it explain to me that they'd expend energy and resources in making sure I didn't get upset. To be honest, from where I'm sitting, the whole raison-d'etre of the council is to upset me. It's like the Python argument sketch, I'm paying for it. Perhaps it's OK for them to upset me, but not for anyone else to upset me? Perhaps I'm just unlucky not to live in an area governed by the sensitive souls of Suffolk council.

Neither have I ever heard of someone being prosecuted for upsetting someone. I don't recall any offence of 'causing upset'. Bodily harm, certainly. Alarm and distress, yes. Causing upset? No.

What am I whittering on about?

A bingo caller has been advised to stop using phrases such as "two fat ladies" for fear of offending his audience.

John Sayers, who runs charity games in Sudbury, Suffolk, says he was told by a council clerk the traditional bingo call could upset some players.

Oh dear, here we go.

A town council spokeswoman said it was "sad" they had to give the advice but they had to be "politically correct".

Why did you have to give the advice? It's all very well sitting there, wringing your hands, but did it not, perhaps, occur to you to mind your own fucking business and not get involved? As radical as it may sound to you, people do not actually want nor need grey little fucks from the council overseeing every aspect of their lives. It's sad that I have to give this advice, but I have to point out the bleeding obvious, and this could hurt, you really aren't that important or wise and people couldn't give a pair of dingo's kidneys what you think.

The 75-year-old, a member of Sudbury Town Council and former town mayor, said the clerk advised him to cut the traditional comic calls in case the authority found itself facing legal action.

And why would the 'authority' (over what do they have authority? Certainly not me.) face legal action? Is this a council run charity games event? If so, why? As we've already explored, I pay the council to grit the roads and empty the bins, not to run bake-offs and jumble sales.

"The concern was that if there might be two large ladies in the audience when I said 'two fat ladies 88' or someone might think I was looking at their legs when I said 'legs 11'," he said.

"I was advised that someone might take offence and we could end up being taken to court."

Fear is king, let's pick out the key words in those lines, shall we? might, might, might, could. As in 'The Emperor Klang might arrive with his planet destroying starship, and he might have his stormtroopers with him. He might decide to invade Earth and take control of Sudbury council which could lead to significant congestion outside Matalan.

Why would someone take the council to court for offence caused by a fairly standard practice in one of the country's most popular activities? And why would the judge not just tell her to stop wasting his fucking time?

A council spokeswoman told the East Anglian Daily Times: "In particular with John being a councillor we have to be politically correct."

If John is a councillor then there's a very simple way of dealing with him if he pisses you off. You take his job away from him by placing a little X against someone else's name. Good God, does this mean the council is legally responsible for the conduct of its elected officials? Or is it because you just CAN'T HELP STICKING YOUR FUCKING NOSE IN WHERE IT ISN'T WANTED YOU ODIOUS LITTLE TWATS? Just asking, like.

She added: "It is very sad because it is part of the fun of bingo but unfortunately in today's society people take it literally."

No, no they won't. And if they do, so what? What damage is done? None. None at all. Which by happy coincedence is also the degree to which you live your life in the real world. What she meant to say was:

"It is very sad because it is part of the fun of bingo but unfortunately in today's society people in the public sector are shit scared of losing their jobs and so have to do things to demonstrate that we actually do stuff to earn our money, problem is we're so institutionalised that we can't even do that properly so pick on stupid stuff rather than tackling the problem of asylum seekers jumping over garden walls and eating people's trees."

Good grief, anyone reading that news story would think we live in Utopia. 'Hey, Zlargan, look at this place, they've got everything sorted to such a degree they're concentrating on the un-intended offensiveness of bingo. Freedom, no war, no hunger, no-one living in the streets, they must even have sorted out the problem of space refugees jumping over garden walls and eating people's trees.'

'Nice one, Yavvor, let's tell the Emperor Klang and invade, we can cause considerable congestion around Matalan.'

Unfortunately we don't live in Utopia, and it isn't because we've got the big problems sorted, it's because our elected reps don't have the balls, the vision or the intelligence to sort the big stuff out. They make a fuss about the little stuff in the hope we don't see the big stuff hiding behind the sofa and under the rug.

The One That Would Just Stop Building Giant Goats. . .

. . . and other oddities.

A few things have tickled me and annoyed me today.

Firstly, for the 24th time in 44 years, a traditional giant straw goat in the Swedish town of Gavle has been burned to the ground by vandals.

In 2001 some bloke even travelled all the way from Ohio to burn it to the ground and was sent to jail for his trouble. It seems to me that this goat burning is becoming a tradition in itself. The local council need to engage some sort of celebrity to do it and bring in the crowds. Or they could, y’know, just stop building giant goats.

In a day of strange animal stories, a bullock in Birmingham has decided he doesn't fancy being someone's dinner and so has done the off from an abattoir in the city. Only to be shot dead by armed police.

Perhaps they thought he was a terrorist? I wonder if the coppers involved will be suspended pending an investigation? Is that for whenever they discharge their weapons, or only if they shoot humans?

Meanwhile people flying into Prestwick obviously didn't check the 'yes please' box on the booking form and cough up an extra £30 to Ryanair to make sure they actually landed on a runway.

Of course tourists are apparently as guilty as causing inconvenience to snow as snow is as guilty of causing inconvenience to them.

Irony of ironies, it appears that endless eco-tourists are fouling up the Antarctic. Reading the report, it appears no-one owns it. Excellent. Perhaps we can set up our own Libertarian utopia. We'll claim the land for ourselves, it'll be a bit chilly, but on the plus side there'll be all the penguins you can eat.

It's obviously a very slow news day. Yet that doesn't stop the BBC who drove me up the wall this morning. I don't know why I do it to myself, but I was listening to Radio 5 who had an interesting segment on PPOs (Prolific and Priority Offenders) and a programme that has been introduced to try to break them out of that cycle. There were a couple of offenders who have been on the scheme for some time and it actually sounded like quite a promising idea. Of course you couldn't follow the thread because they kept interrupting with updates from the High Court because Boy George had had his appeal to vary the terms of his licence so he could be a contestant in (used to be a) Celebrity Big Brother refused.

It's amazing, most people are glad to be out on a tag, and he wants to be locked up again? He's claiming discrimination of course, is it bollocks. Would Joe Public be allowed in the normal Big Brother house house with a tag? No. I don't think C4 would touch it, and the Probation Service would not be happy about the suggestion.

What else can the media leap upon on a slow news day? Ah yes, the internet. Specifically facebook. Firstly there's some bloke who has escaped (perhaps that should just be walked out) from an open prison who is 'taunting' the police on Facebook. He's a naughty man, but this is what happens when you have a judicial system like ours. I kind of admire his chutzpah.

That's it from me for a few days. Xmas activities mean blogging and intermong use will be virtually non-existent for the immediate period. Please allow me to wish you a non-sectarian, non-denominational, racially, gender and sexuality neutral winter public holiday period.

Please eat moderately, drink responsibly, engage in thirty minute's exercise every day over the period and keep celebrations to a minimum so as not to offend anyone who decides to worship (or not) their deity/god/sky pixie in a fashion different to you. Please wear safety equipment when engaging in mirth with Winter Public Holiday Period crackers and keep small items contained within away from young children. Please bear in mind it is winter, so if you are going outside, wrap up warm and watch your step on icy pavements, which would have been gritted by your local authority had they not had to spend the money on making sure your diversity was properly valued.

Indeed it is probably best if you just sit quietly with a drink of water in a shatterproof container, with a clean, dry cloth to hand in case of spillage, and some government pamphlets.

The One That Is Going Thieving. . .

I’m going to nick a load of lead and gold and silver.

Apparently it’s OK to steal, as long as you do it from a large organisation. Well, there are few larger than the established Church of England.

Father Tim Jones, parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda in York, said stealing was a "better moral thing to do" than robbery or prostitution.

But probably worse than parking over the lines of a bay or leaving your bin lid open.

Father Jones has defended his remarks and said such action was "dreadful" but sometimes people's only option.

The priest's comments were made in a sermon to his congregation on Sunday where he said stealing from large national chains was sometimes the best option for many vulnerable people.

He said: "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.

Would it be considered bad form for me to attend his next service and pocket the contents of the collection plate as it makes its way around?

Remind me what was that Seventh Commandment (in Christianity)?

Oh yes, You Will Not Steal.

Can’t this moron be arrested for incitement?

The One That Hopes He Is Entitled. . .

MPs are obviously entitled to a large chunk of our money. That's why the keep taking it from us. On the flimsiest of pretences.

It therefore should not come as a surprise that other people see these lying, venal, theiving troughers and decide that they want a slice of that pie.

It would appear that this is what Hasanali Khoja decided to do. And boy, has he been busted. This is about a police chef, rather than a police chief.

A Muslim chef who lost a claim of religious discrimination against Scotland Yard after complaining he was forced to cook sausages and bacon faces a legal bill of more than £75,000.

Forced to keep sausages and bacon? Someone hold a gun to your head, did they? What did you expect? One thing I know about coppers, they love a bacon and sausage sandwich. I understand that as a Muslim, there's no way you could come into contact with pork products.

But Mr Khoja, 62, lost his claim in May after a police employee told an employment tribunal how she saw Mr Khoja eat bacon rolls and sausages.

The Met said Mr Khoja 'knew that he had asked for a bacon roll two or three times for personal consumption before bringing his claim and throughout the conduct of his claim'.
'The fact that he had knowingly come into contact with pork products before bringing the claim shows that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset.'

Oh, so you CAN touch pork products then. Were we telling a little tale just to get some cash? Times must be hard.

Mr Khoja, from Edgware, North London, who is still employed by the Met, claimed at a hearing in Watford that he could afford to pay only £80 a week as he has little income, lives in rented property and is struggling with £30,000 legal bills of his own.

Well, I feel a bit of sympathy. He's taken an opportunity, it's not come off and now his own meagre income won't cover the costs. (Actually, I have no sympathy at all).

But the court discovered he had sold another home last year, splitting profits of almost £200,000 with his wife and two sons.

Just imagine how much better off you'd have been if you hadn't flapped your gums, made a vexatious claim and then lied about your income. I hope you get taken to the fucking cleaners. There are plenty of people who are poorly treated by shithouse employers, and people like you do them no service whatsoever.

The One That Is Wishing You A Safe And Elfy Christmas. . .

The following little nugget dropped into my inbox:

Some Health and Safety advice relating to Carol Songs this Christmas.


The Rocking Song

Little Jesus, sweetly sleep, do not stir;
We will lend a coat of fur,
We will rock you, rock you, rock you,
We will rock you, rock you, rock you:

Fur is no longer appropriate wear for small infants, both due to risk of allergy to animal fur, and for ethical reasons. Therefore faux fur, a nice cellular blanket or perhaps micro-fleece material should be considered a suitable alternative.
Please note, only persons who have been subject to a Criminal Records Bureau check and have enhanced clearance will be permitted to rock baby Jesus. Persons must carry their CRB disclosure with them at all times and be prepared to provide three forms of identification before rocking commences.





Jingle Bells

Dashing through the snow
In a one horse open sleigh
O'er the fields we go
Laughing all the way

A risk assessment must be submitted before an open sleigh is considered safe for members of the public to travel on. The risk assessment must also consider whether it is appropriate to use only one horse for such a venture, particularly if passengers are of larger proportions. Please note, permission must be gained from landowners before entering their fields. To avoid offending those not participating in celebrations, we would request that laughter is moderate only and not loud enough to be considered a noise nuisance.





While Shepherds Watched

While shepherds watched
Their flocks by night
All seated on the ground
The angel of the Lord came down
And glory shone around

The Shepherds Union has complained that it breaches health and safety regulations to insist that shepherds watch their flocks without appropriate seating arrangements being provided, therefore benches, stools and orthopaedic chairs are now available. Shepherds have also requested that due to the inclement weather conditions at this time of year that they should watch their flocks via cctv cameras from centrally heated shepherd observation huts.
Please note, the angel of the lord is reminded that before shining his / her glory all around she / he must ascertain that all shepherds have been issued with glasses capable of filtering out the harmful effects of UVA, UVB and Glory.





Little Donkey

Little donkey, little donkey on the dusty road
Got to keep on plodding onwards with your precious load

The RSPCA have issued strict guidelines with regard to how heavy a load that a donkey of small stature is permitted to carry, also included in the guidelines is guidance regarding how often to feed the donkey and how many rest breaks are required over a four hour plodding period. Please note that due to the increased risk of pollution from the dusty road, Mary and Joseph are required to wear face masks to prevent inhalation of any airborne particles. The donkey has expressed his discomfort at being labelled 'little' and would prefer just to be simply referred to as Mr. Donkey. To comment upon his height or lack thereof may be considered an infringement of his equine rights.

The One That Is Telling You To Put That Bottle Down, NOW! . . .

There will be no fun this Christmas. We’re not allowed to have fun. We don’t have time to have fun. Every waking hour must be spent plagued with guilt that we are killing ourselves, killing other people, killing a number of furry mammals, offending people, discriminating against people and setting a bad example by bringing up children incorrectly meaning they are doomed to repeat the litany just outlined.

Drinking is being denormalised, as we know, here are another couple of festive examples.

First of all there is the unconscionable fuckwit Donaldson. Another example of an unelected goon who just cannot help sticking his nose in people’s business and telling them what is best for them. Doctors love doing this and Donaldson is worse than most.

Parents who allow their children alcohol at home may be increasing the chances of future drinking problems, says England's chief medical officer.
Sir Liam Donaldson accused some parents of a "laissez-faire" approach and said letting children taste alcohol to ready them for adulthood was "misguided".

Oh God, here we go. Come on then, give us the evidence, Liam.

Evidence showed that this could lead to binge drinking in later life, he said.

Right, d’you feel like presenting the evidence? No? What a surprise.

New official guidance says under-15s should drink no alcohol, with under-17s drinking only under supervision.

You’ll notice that isn’t law, it is ‘official guidance’. Official guidance is the same as any other arseclown prodding you in the chest and lecturing you at great length in a patronising fashion, but with the added bonus that you are paying for the privilege.

No alcohol for the under-15s. Hmmmm. Yes, because historically, prohibition of any kind has been a runaway success whenever it has been employed, hasn’t it?

Under-17s drinking only under supervision. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let’s try again shall we? How about alcohol for children as their parents see fit with no unsupervised drinking under the age of 18, which is the minimum age at which can one can legally buy alcohol in England and Wales. I’m not sure about Scotland, I think I read somewhere the SNP wanted to increase the age to 45 and only if you had letters from your former teachers, a judge, your doctor and the police saying you could be trusted with a small glass of sweet sherry once a fortnight.

Ahhhhh, I hear the Righteous start, some people can’t be trusted. OK, and? Do you really have to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator? Yes. Of course you do, because by reducing everyone to the status of the worst, ill-equipped, socially spastic scrote it makes it that much easier to justify your baffling control freakery.

Have a festive fuck off from me.

What else is festive? Oh yes, Father Christmas. But he’s persona non-grata as well now.

No, not because of that, you filthy minded little skit, it has nothing to do with him coming down chimneys into the bedrooms of sleeping children. It is because his lifestyle is unacceptable.

Santa should get off his sleigh and walk, and lay off the brandy and mince pies, says an Australian study that criticises Father Christmas for being a bad role model. The current image of Santa Claus promotes obesity, drink-driving, speeding and an unhealthy lifestyle, says a study from Monash University published in the British Medical Journal.

I think the Australian tax payer needs to ask some fairly searching questions about what it is the people at Monash University are doing for their money if they’ve time to trot this arsegravy out.

Santa should go on diet (sic) and the tradition of leaving him cookies, mince pies or brandy should cease, it says. Instead, he could share carrots and celery sticks left for his reindeer.

Hmmmm, yes, yes he could. But let’s try another suggestion, why not fuck off and not bother us with your sanctimonious twaddle, you joyless, horrible, grey little cretin? I bet your mouth is set in a constant cat’s arse pucker of disapproval, isn’t it? Does it make you miserable? Good. I hope you remain in misery for the rest of your life.

“Santa might also be encouraged to adopt a more active method to deliver toys — swapping his reindeer for a bike or simply walking or jogging,” the study says.

Yes, and you might also be encouraged to suck my cock.

I believe very strongly in the rule of law, but sometimes, just sometimes, I long for summary justice, big iron bars and lynch mobs.

The One That Has Been Reading The Truth. . .

Just not the whole truth.

Having just sat through the BBC 10 o'clock news, I was not surprised to see that the lead story was Copenhagen, the Prince of Wales whittering on and the news that Broon is there to make sure it all gets nicely ballsed up.

There was another story from Seattle. Today the Boeing 787 'Dreamliner' had its maiden flight. Al-Jabeeba reports that:

'Its popularity is partly thanks to its lightweight design. Made of carbon and titanium,'

Wait for it, here comes the pay-off. What's the main benefit of this design?

'it should reduce fuel consumption as well as save on maintenance costs.'

And? And? Come on, join the dots, apart from reduced costs due to less fuel (around 20% less) what else is reduced?

*deep intake of breath*









*I'm holding it.*











*Still holding it*









*No, it's no good.*

When you bear in mind the lead story, nowhere in the report on the telly was the connection made between the reduced use of fuel and the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The website article sort of alludes to it.

Come on, just try to resist the agenda for once, won't you?

The One That Is Going To Become A Spiv. . .

The Snowolf, with a pocket full of C-Creds, earlier today.

Sometimes, even by today's standards, an idea comes forward which is so monumentally stupid that it really does beggar belief.

This one is a doozie. It combines the three great hallmarks of New Labour; sanctimony, control and complete unaccountability.

Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency.

Yep, it's that old chestnut again, the only way to save the polar bears is to have the state open your wallet for you.

Lord Smith of Finsbury, the agency’s chairman, will say today that rationing is the fairest and most effective way of meeting Britain’s legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Ah yes, Lord Smith of Finsbury, I remember his election campaign like it was yesterday. I recall how. . . oh, no hang on, he's not been elected to anything.

Snowolf, chairman of the Snowolf's Front Room committee, will say today that rationing the kicking of Lord Smith of Finsbury repeatedly in the face is the fairest and most effective way of keeping the mouths of unelected fuckwits firmly closed.

Legally binding? What? How so? I didn't agree to be legally bound by anything. Is this a criminal or a civil matter? Can we look forward to ministers being sent to the clink if we don't meet the targets? If so, I'm going to stick my heating on full, run every electrical appliance I have and open all the windows and doors.

People would be given a “carbon account” and a unique number that they would have to submit when making purchases of carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets. As with a bank account, people would receive statements showing the carbon weight of each purchase and how much of their ration remained.

Oh you are having a fucking laugh, aren't you? Really, come on, even by NuLab standards this is a different class. You'd just fucking love to get your hands on that little tool wouldn't you?

It won't just be that, the next step will be for everyone to go to the GPs, under threat of a fine, to have their lung capacity measured, so we can be taxed on breathing out. So another tax on petrol, on top of the duty and VAT. Nice. Of course, ministers and peers would be exempt because they are really important. Then food. We can cut obesity and save the planet. Soylent Green anyone? That was set in 2020.

If they used up their ration within a year, they would have to buy extra credits from those who had not used their full allowance.

Oh, what a great idea. I'll bet you rubbed yourself red-raw when you masturbated furiously in celebration of that idea, didn't you?

And it has a secondary control tool as well. 'Are you going up on the march to demonstrate against the suspension of parliamentary democracy?'

'No, I've not got the carbon credits, I don't even have enough to take a hot shower.'

The return to feudalism. We won't be able to leave the Manor without the Lord's permission.

I'm going to dress up like Pte. Walker from Dad's Army, because the black market in unused carbon credits will go through the fucking roof. People will pay hundreds to get their hands on a little ticket that literally represents thin fucking air.

That's right, the government will now sell us fresh air, and will then tax us on the use of it.

What else will this enable? ID fraud will go through the roof as well. Perhaps if we had some sort of national ID card scheme, we could combat these eeeeeeevil people who get more than their fair share?

An ID card will prevent terrorism and save the planet.

Terrorism:

–noun

1.	the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.	the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

The machinery of our government is engaging in terrorism against its own population.

Nice.

The One That Is Saying 'Oh No It Isn't!'. . .

I love this time of year, and I love panto.

Oh, no, hang on. That's not true. I hate panto.

Anyhow, here is a clip of Al Gore telling anyone who cares to listen that the arctic polar ice caps will disappear within 5 years.

No, it isn't at Copenhagen, it's at the opening of a dinosaur park (????) in Germany and was posted on 13th December 2008.

Today is 14th December 2009 and Sky News are reporting on TV (not yet on website) that Gore has told Copenhagen that there is a 70% chance that the arctic ice caps could disappear in the summer period within the next 5 to 7 years. There's a weasely little argument. There's a chance that something might happen, over some vague period of time. No evidence, no debate, an assertation. It can not be proved or disproved, except with hindsight, but you'll just keep resetting the clock, won't you?

Tell me Al, is this 5 years from today, or is it really 4 years? Will you say the same thing with the same time scale this time next year, and the year after that? Will you still be saying this in 2020? Why do you say this in the run up to Christmas every year? Presents to buy? What is the size of the arctic ice now, as compared to the previous ten years, say? (I don't know the answer, I haven't checked)

If the news is accurate, it would seem that the developing nations in Africa have spat the dummy and walked out. Is it because of their burning desire to see Gaia saved? Or is it that they can make a huge pile of aid cash out of this, most of which will end up in Swiss numbered bank accounts?

Assuming this walk out means that Copenhagen is a dead duck (expect China, India and the Saudis to say 'Oh, what's the point?') and no deal is in the offing, what will you say in 2014, 2015 and 2016 when August comes and the arctic ice caps are still very much there, Al? Indeed what will you say if the summer coverage has actually increased?

You run the risk of making some people very angry, and an electric car is no good for running away from baying mobs with sets of gallows on wheels.

Oh, what am I thinking? You won't have an electric car, will you Al? You're far too important for that, you are doing the work of the Great Green God, like the leader of some wierd cult, your needs are paramount. It's only little people that are killing the planet.

The One That Is Explaining. . .

I've been having a little chat with a friend of mine. He hates the Tories, really hates them. Mention Thatcher in his presence and he goes all blurry round the edges as he quivers with rage.

The problem he has is that he hates the Labour party as it is. I feel sorry for him, he is a decent chap with strong convictions in a political ideology that he thought could be delivered. He and many others like him must be devastated at how their dreams and aspirations have been sold down the river by the people that claimed to speak for and represent them.

This government has hurt all of us. But for those who had a strong belief in the traditional Labour ways it must be very hard to bear. The fact I disagree with that belief system is neither here nor there, to see people being betrayed and used like that in such a cynical fashion is not a nice thing to see.

Anyhow, my friend has taken some solace from the fact that future don't look so bright for the Tories either, and seemingly has found relief in the Telegraph, of all places, and he pointed out this blog entry from Gerald Warner.

What do I think will happen? I'll tell you the same I told him. Rather than it being bad news, it could be very good, it'll just take a few years to sort out. Let's hope we can do it before the EU sweeps our national parliament away.

It's a truism that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them and there is no way in hell Labour will win. The problem is people don't vote for anything, they vote against the incumbents.

It was obvious in '97 that Blair was a snake-oil salesman, and the Tories were unelectable. Now we have the situation where Labour are unelectable and the Tories aren't even promising snake-oil. For the last 18 months at least Call me Dave has been counselled that all he has to do is keep quiet, I think now he realises he's left it too late to counteract that bad advice. The interesting thing is how with Labour seeing their suppport haemorrhage away, and the Tories seeing their support drain down without even getting anywhere near the levels they would have hoped, the Lib Dems have made no ground whatsoever and indeed has seen a small reduction in their share of the vote.

North of the border, the SNP are a good bet in my book to pretty much wipe Labour off the map, and that is despite them displaying qualities which make them look even more controlling, nannying and dictatorial than Labour. The Scots will never return Tory or Lib Dem MPs in any numbers, so the SNP will win by default. It speaks volumes about the weakness of the established parties in Scotland that the SNP have been able to hold a minority non-coalition government together for so long.

In Wales, Plaid Cymru have very quietly got on with the job and will do similar damage to Brown.

It is obvious that Labour are scared shitless about the BNP in England, and with good cause. It's not because the BNP are evil and racist and all that jazz, it is because Griffin has very skilfully moved them into the ground occupied by Labour when John Smith was leader. Heseltine was right when he said Labour are the BNP without the racism (plus a slavish devotion to the EU), Brown's gulags for slags initiative was straight out of the BNP playbook and is a policy they've promoted for some time. When Harman and her ilk bang on about the dangers of the BNP, the only real danger is posed to the number of Labour MPs in the house. They rend their hair and ask why this is happening and what can be done, like the family in the Cherry Orchard, and don't realise that it is they who have driven their natural constituency to the BNP, it is their policies, and abandonment of the working class, their turning the 'working' class into pets beholden to them whilst the lower middle class are left to foot the bill. I fully expect to see a number of BNP MPs returned in the spring, and it is no-one's fault but Labour's.

All of this should add up to good times for the Tories, but it won't. So obsessed are they with not wanting to upset anyone, not wanting to be branded the nasty party, that they've ended up upsetting almost as many people as Labour - i.e. pretty much everyone. The Tories are a party of wallpaper covering some very deep cracks. Europe being the biggest one, that division has never gone away. Truth be told I think there's an enormous gulf between the parliamentary tory party and the grass roots membership on the subject, and I don't think Cameron's U-turn on the Lisbon Treaty has pleased anyone, nor his lack of guts in calling for the big referendum. Tory voters will turn out in droves for UKIP, a party who are hardly in good condition at the moment anyway.

I'm not sure that Cameron will last even one complete term as PM and we could see both parties descend into civil war very soon. I certainly wouldn't expect to see any incoming Tory government last more than one election.

Still the Lib Dems will not make up ground, mainly because their policies are fantastical nonsence that no-one understands, and the policies that people do understand are completely alien to them.

My prediction? A Tory majority of single figures at best if not a hung parliament, Labour limping in a very battered and bloody second having suffered huge losses in Scotland and Wales and some stinging defeats to the BNP in England and a fag paper between them and the Lib Dems. SNP and PC in Scotland and Wales with a few Lib Dem hangers on and seats for the BNP and UKIP in England.

A hung parliament would be bad, bad news for the Lib Dems. They've made it perfectly clear they don't want to be in coalition, but so desperate are they for a go on the levers of power they'd probably take it in exchange for a couple of the big jobs like Chancellor and Justice and would quietly forget PR which would infuriate their rank and file.

I don't think we're seeing the death of democracy, we're seeing its re-birth. The old buggins rule is on the way out - one more time is all it's got, I reckon. No-one will vote for the government (of whichever colour) because they're shit and no-one will vote for the other lot because we all remember how shit they were last time round. Once people realise that their vote can, does and will make a difference, and that they can vote for something they believe in, rather than against a sitting government they hate, then the sport will really begin.

Of course, the best thing about hung or coalition parliaments is that they can't do much. We've had too much doing over the last twenty years and need some stopping at least and un-doing at best.

I can't wait.

The One That Is Asking 'What Is WRONG With These People?'. . .

I was scrolling through BBC teletext this evening. I don't have a screen capture of it, but thankfully it is reproduced to a lesser extent on their website.

The first story on the news page (101) on BBC teletext is entirely predictable:

Darling 'must cut £36bn', IFS think tank says.

Fair enough.

Scroll to page two and the top story says:

UK to have dedicated space agency.

Errrrrrm. Guys? Hello? HELLO! Anyone home?

For crying out loud. . .

The One That Wants To Twin His House With Boston. . .

That's Boston, MA not Boston, Lincs.

I quite like Boston and was very impressed when I visited and thought it was very nice.

Let's see a definition of the word twin, shall we?

either of two persons or things closely related to or closely resembling each other.

Perhaps I won't then. My house doesn't resemble Boston in the slightest. My house doesn't have a common where semi-tame squirrels will come and eat from your hand. Nor does it have a still seaworthy 18th Century frigate moored in the harbour, a harbour that is conspicuous by its absense round my gaff. Neither does my house have a hall nicknamed the 'Cradle of Liberty', although it does have a hall overflowing with jackets, shoes and a vacuum cleaner.

Of course, differences such as these and others wouldn't present a problem to council officials across the country.

A Wiltshire town hitherto best known for its railway heritage, Honda motors and Billie Piper, has been chosen as a twin by the Disney organisation. Swindon beat 24 other UK towns competing for the unique honour.

What could be in it for Swindon? Walt Disney World isn't even a town.

Rebecca Warren who masterminded the town's approach will fly to Florida to unveil a plaque at Walt Disney World.

No doubt followed by most of the council's elected officials on fact finding tours. I don't know, perhaps Swindon needs advice on the control of outsized rodents or in roller-coaster upkeep.

24 towns? I'll bet there were 24 towns, I wonder if Staines competed for it? Probably not, they had their sights set on a bigger prize.

Staines twinned with paradise island Mauritius.

On the surface Staines has little in common with the island which has become a popular destination for Britons to enjoy a beach holiday.

Now, I'll hold my hands up. I've never been to Mauritius. I have however been to Staines. Looking back to the definition at the top, I find it hard to imagine a place that resembles Staines less that Mauritius.

But local mayor Simon Bhadye said the borough of Spelthorne, to the west of London, has more in common with Mauritius than residents might imagine.

Oh, this should be good. Go on then, I'll bite. What does Spelthorne have in common with Mauritius then?

Staines, the borough's best known town, is only four miles from Heathrow, Europe's busiest airport, and Spelthorne's new twin borough Grand Port Savanne is home to Mauritius International Airport

Riiiiiiiiiiight, so you could also have twinned yourself with some shithole just down the road from Baghdad International then, couldn't you? Even so, the residents of Iraq would probably have felt a bit hard done by.

I'm sure there's lots you can learn from the Mauritians though, isn't there?

None of the supermarkets in Mauritius give out plastic bags. They have been doing that since 2000.

What? And you need to go all the way to Indian Ocean to see that do you?

Mr Bhadye also praised the island's record of full employment as traditional industries growing sugar cane and tea.

Two industries that will flourish in the tropical conditions of deepest Surrey of course.

Now children, can we guess where the most popular holiday destinations for Brits going abroad were in 2008?

No, Tommy, not Dusseldorf and Rangoon.

Yes, well done Jimmy, have a gold star. Mauritius and Disney World featured very highly on the list.

I should imagine the waves of elected fuckwits and the various hangers on will all be visiting whilst ensuring that the tax payer gets the very best value for money, and the half-hour of council business conducted every day will be vitally important.

They really really don't get it. Even though people get caught out all the time, they just cannot help themselves.

The One That Has A Plan. . .

A little more pie in the sky planning this morning. It’s a model I’ve talked about before, but I’ll run it up the flagpole again and see if any of you buggers salute it.

DK has a go at a defence of a wholly appointed House of Lords by some Tory blogger. He makes the point (quite correctly in my opinion) that a fully appointed House of Lords is a bad thing. I’ve always viewed the Lords as a brake on the Commons. In its current incarnation it has the ability to chuck back a bill and say ‘are you really sure about this?’ Of course if the Commons (or more correctly, the majority party) are really sure then they can always force it through with the Parliament Act, most recently seen with the Bill banning hunting with dogs.

There are several problems with the Lords as I see it. Firstly the hereditary peers are there by dint of being the son of the son of the son of the son etc, who wiped Henry VIII’s arse, that is no foundation for good government. Granted a good deal of that has been swept away, but, secondly, appointed peers are probably worse, they are the people who wiped the arses, in a figurative sense, of the great and good from living memory. At least the hereditary Lords Temporal wouldn’t necessarily follow the party line like sheep. Appointed lords are completely beholden to the political parties for their position.

Then we have the Lords Spiritual, the 26 Bishops sat in the Lords. I don’t think people should sit in government (even though the Lords Spiritual traditionally don’t vote on matters of state, they could) just because they hold office in another organisation, least of all the Church. If we absolutely have to have them then they should be representative of all religions practiced in this country. The head of Scientologists sat in the Lords would be a right giggle.

No, it’s all a bit crap really.

My model is for a wholly elected Lords, by the public. But what to call it? Many people like the idea of Senators sat in a Senate. I think one of the best things about our Parliament, despite its ridiculous traditions and anachronistic practices, are its ridiculous traditions and anachronistic practices. Better that than the soulless carryings on in the European Parliament or some young nation from Eastern Europe. At the risk of sounding like the community out-reach diversity officer, I can think of no better way of handing out peerages than having the electorate say ‘we like this chap and think he should be recognised for being a good egg.’

So, I’d have an elected House of Lords with reps from each county, unitary authority and metropolitan area, with the number representing each area dependent on the population therein. To be elected for a maximum five year term, with each election two and a half years after any general election, to keep the Commons on their toes. If Worcestershire qualifies for three reps, say, then the people ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the poll get elected. Those people get ennobled and can keep their title even after they’ve resigned or been booted out of office.

I’m undecided on two issues. Firstly if it should be election on an independent basis only, or if election as a member of a party should be permitted. Secondly should these people be paid a salary, reimbursed for their expenses (on a properly audited receipted basis) or do it gratis for the honour of representing their countyfolk?

The One That Has A Little Joke For You. . .

A bit lazy, I know, but it made me chuckle. . .

A dad walks into a market with his young son. The kid is holding a 10 pence piece.

Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the face. The dad realizes the boy has swallowed the coin and starts panicking, shouting for help.

A well dressed, attractive, but serious- looking woman in a blue business suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market, reading her newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down on the saucer, neatly folds the newspaper and places it on the counter, gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurriedly, across the market.

Reaching the boy, the woman carefully takes hold of the boy's testicles and starts to squeeze, gently at first and then ever more firmly. After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the coin, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand. Releasing the boy, the woman hands the money to the father and walks back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word.

As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no lasting ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her saying, "I've never seen anybody do anything like that before, that was fantastic. Are you a doctor?"

"No," the woman replies, "I work for the Inland Revenue"

The One That Will Not Tolerate Any Discussion. . .

I was working the night shift last night. It's not too bad as I was in the warm and could get on with my work without interruptions and too many bloody silly phonecalls. It also meant that I was working alone, I had the whole office to myself.

One of the advantages is being able to listen to Richard Bacon on 5 Live, it is quite an entertaining mix of the earnest and the ridiculous, as you will possibly have seen in his cameo on The Thick Of It the other week. The late night phone in is great, all the freaks and wierdos come out to play.

Normally the freaks and wierdos are calling in, last night he had them there, in person, and it really did sound like Armando Ianucci had scripted the whole thing. I nearly choked on my muller crunch corner when at the start of the second hour of the show he posed the question that in light of climategate, is global warming real or a massive scam?

To ensure balance, he had a foaming at the mouth 'denier' who talked over everyone, incessantly, to the extent that the segment became almost unlistenable, and of course the absolute barking at the moon, batshit mental 'warmist'. He was an amazing piece of work and came out all guns blazing. No sooner had he been introduced than he embarked on the most amazing rant, browbeating the BBC for daring to allow any debate on the subject, it really was an exceptional demonstration of the practices of the warmist camp and is well worth a listen. It's about an hour into the podcast, the debate over the fidelity (or otherwise) of men that goes before isn't quite so entertaining.

The message that most people would have taken away is that warmists are all nutters who shout and scream, at everyone, regardless of if they agree with them or not, and deniers are all boring farts who just trot out stats and won't shut the hell up. I think the idea was to tell people not to worry about it and to let people who are better than you deal with the issue.

Amazing.

The One That Is More Equal Than You. . .

So the political backlash against the decision of the Swiss to ban the construction of minarets has started.

Cards on the table. I don't much care for Islam. Neither do I much care for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion. They are all vessels for the perpetuation of bigotry, hatred, intolerance and control.

You can keep them. You can follow them, don't expect me to. Don't try and force it down my throat. Keep it to yourself.

I have no problem with the Swiss banning the construction of minarets, just as I would have no problem with the Swiss banning the construction of church towers with bells. If I had a problem with it I'd not go to Switzerland and I'd probably boycott toblerone and Swiss army knives.

I do enjoy playing Football Manager. I wonder if I would be allowed to rig a PA system that sent out a call for the faithful to come to play whenever I booted it up? No? Didn't think so. If people follow a religion, they tend to know when the services are, so probably don't need bells and wailing to summon them. For those who don't follow the religion, bells and wailing are just an annoyance - noise pollution.

Note that the Swiss have not banned the construction of Mosques, nor have they banned the practice of the religion, they just don't want the minarets. Well, it is their country and their decision to make.

The politicians, even in Switzerland, don't like it. The conspiracy theorist in me (who is starting to grow) thinks that it is not because it hurts the poor old Muslims, it is because politicians are uneasy with the idea of the public ushering in arbitrary and ridiculous bans. That is the job of the government, councils and un-elected officials.

Of course, they can't couch it in those terms, so they have to attack from a different angle:

A decision by Swiss voters to ban the construction of minarets poses a risk to Switzerland's security, the country's foreign minister says.

Micheline Calmy-Rey said the Swiss government was "very concerned" about the ban, adopted by voters on Sunday. "Each limitation on the co-existence of different cultures and religions also endangers our security," she told the European security body, the OSCE.

"Provocation risks triggering other provocation and risks inflaming extremism," Mrs Calmy-Rey said at the OSCE meeting in Athens.

I wasn't aware that extremism was a problem in Switzerland. No matter, the people have spoken, and that must be challenged because they are endangering their own national security, according to some woman who looks a bit like her from Swing Out Sister.

The UN has waded in as well:

A top UN official has called the ban "clearly discriminatory".

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the ban was "deeply divisive" and at odds with Switzerland's international legal obligations.

This is the same UN that passed a resolution banning any criticism of Islam. They didn't do this for any other religion. You were talking about discrimination? How is this at odds with international legal obligations? Are we obliged to allow the construction of minarets in Western Europe?

If so, how will an application for planning permission for a pretty little Saxon church in downtown Riyadh be received? Will the Iranians allow the construction of a reproduction of Salisbury Cathedral in Tehran? No. Didn't think so. It cuts both ways.

And then the Muslim leaders:

Muslim leaders across the world, as well as those of other faiths, criticised the minaret ban as a blow to religious freedom.

What's the phrase? 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' I think that's the one.

More from Micheline Calmy-Rey:

She said if an appeal against the referendum was lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, it would be up to the court to decide on its legality.

Up until such time as a referendum from the Swiss people tells the ECHR to go stick its head in a pig.

The One That Is Thinking The Unthinkable. . .

Since I posted this morning, Captain Ranty's posting about the changes that will come to pass at midnight tonight have been weighing heavily on my mind.

I come to think about how we can possibly extricate ourselves from the mess we're currently in.

The changes that the Cap'n outlines will not happen overnight, just as with everything we've seen since the Cold War, it will be a drip, drip effect. The end of the Cold War was a bloody big surprise to everyone on both sides of the wall, no-one really saw it coming. Solidarity, Glasnost etc, etc, it was all supposed to be an evolution, not a revolution. A closely controlled PR exercise, the sort of model the Chinese have followed in their reforms. Giving a little ground, a few minor idealogical alterations but making sure that the powers that be are firmly in the driving seat.

The EU will not want scenes that we saw 20 years ago in Berlin and certainly won't want scenes that we saw in Bucharest when the crowd turned. It will be on the statute and will lie dormant, the first few uses will be for minor infractions, the third or fourth charge on the sheet, precedent slipped in under the radar. Our murderers will use stealth and patience, not shock and awe.

It is easy to throw about phrases about the removal of trial by jury, habeas corpus and so forth. But when you stop to consider the cold, hard facts it is chilling in the extreme and it installs in me a sense of despair that this can and will be done to us.

I like bloggers like Constantly Furious, like Old Holborn and Devils Kitchen, their rage is an energy, but I wonder about the focus. I know OH has had issues with UKLP that have resulted in his departure from the party, but I find myself asking what these minority parties are for.

By minority parties, I don't just mean us in UKLP and the English Democrats, but also people like UKIP. UKIP may be knocking on the front door, but they certainly aren't in the hallway yet.

I support LPUK because I feel their policies are the closest to my own personal feelings, but what do I and the party want to achieve? At present we are an irrelevance, not even an annoyance. We are more akin to a pressure group than anything else. That doesn't mean I don't think we can't grow, or that we can't contribute something worthwhile, but that will take time.

Time is a luxury we do not have. I and many others have woken up to the situation far too late. Many continue to slumber and will not wake up until the knock at the door comes in the small hours one morning because of a joke they made at work, or something their child said at school.

We are blindsided with talk of climate change, terrorism, financial meltdown, a nuclear Iran and a myriad of other issues, real in degree and/or of no importance whatsoever. The real threat lies in Brussels in a flag with a blue background and a few golden stars.

This is not just a threat to the UK, but to every nation in Europe, whether members or not. I feel as anxious for the French, Italians, Slovenes, Hungarians and Maltese as I do for us in the UK. I am getting very, very scared.

So, what's the big idea? How do we get out of it?

I think the UK is a very important part of the EU. Not just financially, but we are a litmus. Along with the Danes we are probably the most EUrosceptic nation in the Federation, if it can be got past us, it can be got past anyone.

It doesn't help though, when our politicians stick 'it' up their jumpers and sneak it past us like a 15 year old with some vodka at a school disco. We have to stop this, and we have to get out.

Here's the idea. We may need to work and come to an understanding with people we don't like very much.

LPUK aren't going to do it by themselves.

The English Democrats won't manage it.

Jury Team can't do it.

Scargill's Socialist Labour Party won't win.

The BNP, yes, the BNP, will never get the job done.

UKIP cannot get the seats they need to force the issue.

There are some very different parties there, most with mutually exclusive policies. However there is a common thread running through all these parties. One single policy on which they can all agree - complete withdrawal from the EU.

It's a mad, mad idea. What if, what if these parties named, and others who want to withdraw from the EU, make a statement to the effect that no matter how different their other policies, they all recognise that the EU presents the most serious threat to our way of life, above and beyond any other issue, and that they will unite on a single platform to get power, hold a referendum - and when it is won and we get out - will then call an immediate general election with all the hating, backbiting, sniping and revulsion that we all love so much back on the agenda.

Controversial? Certainly. Unworkable? Probably. But we have to do something. We can't carry on like this, or we'll all be done for.

The One That Wonders What The Point Is. . .

So today the SNP are outlining their plans for independence. It would seem that Alex Salmond is very keen for the Scots to have a referendum on the subject.

Well why not? I have no vested interest in the Union. I'd like to think it would save me money if it were broken up, but I know full well that any actual financial savings made by England in the event of Scotland's departure from the Union would be soaked up by some other scheme. Nevertheless, if the majority of the people of Scotland want to split from England then that is only right.

The thing is, I'm not entirely sure that a majority of Scots (or perhaps more importantly, Scottish resident Brits) do want the Union to split. I think the oily fish is on a hiding to nothing. Sat in Edinburgh at the head of a minority government, an expensive and divisive referendum would cause terminal damage to his administration if it were returned with a no vote.

I'm not surprised that the Tories are against it, nor the Lib Dems, but I am surprised that the Scottish Labour party aren't, if not supporting it, certainly making noises that this question needs sorting out. In the likely event of a no vote, I think Labour would find their position in Scotland strengthened considerably.

That is unless of course, as some armchair constitutional lawyers have suggested on the radio this morning, that in order for it to be a democratically and constitutionally satisfactory referendum, everyone in the Union would have to have their say. If that were the case then I really don't know what the outcome would be. I think just as many English would vote in favour of kicking out the Scots as would vote in favour of locking them in. Many would vote one way or the other to piss the Scots off and many would do the same out of a genuine desire to see Scotland get the best. It would be a bloody mess.

The question that the SNP conveniently evades is independence from what?

On the face of it, the answer is an obvious one. England. But of course, it isn't real independence. The bloody great white elephant is still in the room. That being the EU. There is no independence from England, England is not in the driving seat. If Scotland wants true national independence, they need to have two questions on the referendum, one asking if a split from England is desirable and a second asking in the event of a yes vote in question one, do you want to remain in the EU.

This is an EU that has railroaded the Lisbon Treaty through. A treaty that was ushered in with nary a murmur from the Westminster parliament and one that Alex Salmond would have quite cheerfully signed if he were Prime Minister of an 'independent' Scotland.

Captain Ranty has a superb outline of a few of the rights that disappear from existence at midnight tomorrow night, including the removal of habeas corpus, trial by jury, the supposition of innocence over guilt and democracy. Just criticising the EU will become a criminal offence at midnight.

If Scotland wants independence, true independence, I'll back them to the hilt. If they get it, I'll be looking at the property pages in Stirling and Perth with great interest.

The One That Will Be A National Hero. . .

And not just in one country, oh no, I'm going to be a national hero in two countries. On two continents.

How so?

Simple. I don't doubt that most have you will seen the laughable identikit picture of Bolivia's public enemy number one.

Here it is:


It really is almost impossible to link this frankly childish sketch to any real person, however, using my superior intelligence and detective skills which would have Holmes going green with envy, I can now reveal the true identity of this master Bolivian criminal:


I will be carried shoulder high around the great cities of London and La Paz.

I'm not sure if there is a reward, but I will warn the more avaricious of you not to bother, I've already called the Bolivian embassy in London and told them.

The One That Is Glad They've Figured It Out. . .

For years now we've seen the (faux?) wringing of hands from the politicians about how to increase the turnout of young voters at elections, which sits at a very low level.

Fair play to the MSPs who seem to have cracked this issue and look like adopting a policy which will hopefully see voters aged 18 to 20 turn out in record numbers north of the border:

Controversial legislation to bring in minimum-pricing for alcohol in Scotland will be defeated by opposition parties.

The SNP government said its legislation to take it forward would tackle drink-fuelled violence and health problems. But Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems raised concern the measure, contained in the Alcohol Bill, was illegal under European competition law.

The bill also included proposals to ban drink promotions, powers for licensing boards to raise age for buying drink from 18 to 21 and a "social responsibility fee" for retailers who sell alcohol.

Yep, that'll get them turning out in pretty short order, the thing is they won't vote for you. They'll be voting for the other guys. What was the percentage of the electorate who voted Labour in Glasgow NE? 17% or something like that? I wonder what percentage of the electorate in the average constituency is between 18 to 20 years old?

Still it's not all bad news, the social responsibility fee sounds like common sense, after all they charge car manufacturers the same to deal with the fall out from road crashes, don't they? No? Oh, perhaps this is the shape of things to come then. It's still a good idea, as it will help bankroll the benefits of all those people who currently work in the production, packaging, distribution and retail of alcohol north of the border who will probably lose their jobs fairly soon as a result.

And what about those little tykes who live close to the border with the Auld Enemy? They'll just get in their cars and head south to do the booze shopping. Is this just a sneaky plan to usher in the EU regionalist model? Will there be police and customs officers manning a control at every point of entry between England and Scotland looking for contraband grog?

There's an Eliot Loch-Ness gag there, but I won't insult your intelligence.

The One That Is Still Banging On About DNA. . .

When I posted the reply I got from Julian Brazier the other day about DNA retention, my comment was that the Tory line was ‘an improvement, even if a slight one.’

I fear I may have done Mr. Brazier and the Conservative party an injustice. Now that doesn’t mean that the Tories are a shining beacon of civil liberties whom angels shall surely sing to their final rest, it is just that Labour are so, so, so wrong and so, so, so repulsive that the Tory position is as preferable as a nice cup of tea and a biscuit is to having one’s internal organs removed by a narcoleptic orang-utan with use of a plastic spoon whilst he plays the hits of Phil Collins on the kazoo.

What could possibly have made me reveal this train of thought?

A sortie over the blogosphere this evening has drawn two items to my attention.

Firstly Julia M/Ambush Predator writes a thorough fisking of some of the worst, most objectionable, 14 pints of Stella induced cloudy piss ridden. . . well. . . tosh from the Postman who somehow now holds one of the highest offices in the land. I won’t post any excerpts here as I’ll only go and post the whole bloody thing, do go and read it if you have a minute or two to spare.

The second item, slipped most unobtrusively into a post written by Mr. Civil Libertarian (he who was until recently ‘Their contempt for you is total'), is a heads up about a posting over at Labour List (God help us). Kudos to Mr C.L., I can’t stomach Labour List, after a few minutes I realise that a mixture of salt and plutonium dust poured into my eyes would be less irritating. Anyhow it’s from some arseclown called Matthew Zarb-Cousin and it contains the following passage:

“Do you want to live in a society where everyone is considered a potential criminal?”, asked Will Self on Question Time last Thursday. The reality, and I hate to break it to you, Will, is that everyone is a potential criminal.

Ladies and Germs, I give you the Labour party. The only thing which is missing from the article is the patronising little chuckle and knowing look as they point out that when they say everyone, that doesn’t include MPs, peers and any Labour Party officials. They would never commit a crime such as a traffic offence, or fraud, for example.

The One That Is NOT Having Fun. . .

Someone who is demonstrably NOT a war criminal, earlier today.

Fun isn't allowed. Fun kills people, ruins lives and is discriminatory.

Besides, those in the know will tell you that true fun only comes from pitching your tent as a spectator at the disabled amputee lesbian ethnic minority carbon neutral everyone-a-winner organic hopping championships sponsored by Vegan Emma's Fairtrade Lentils.*

You can only have fun at events like that, but mind you go easy on the elderflower cordial, any other fun is baaaaaaaad.

Especially fun in video games:

Video games depicting war have come under fire for flouting laws governing armed conflicts.

Human rights groups played various games to see if any broke humanitarian laws that govern what is a war crime.

The study condemned the games for violating laws by letting players kill civilians, torture captives and wantonly destroy homes and buildings.

It said game makers should work harder to remind players about the real world limits on their actions.

*deepest sigh that it is possible to imagine*

You do understand these games aren't real, don't you?

I'm not a lover of this genre, not on any philiosophical level, they just don't do it for me. It's a shame that this logic doesn't extend to other games because I love sports games. If the logic did hold, I'd be a roaming attacking midfielder for Barcelona or an explosive running back for the New York Jets such would their influence be on me.

Hang on . . .

kill civilians, torture captives and wantonly destroy homes and buildings.

When is any gamer going to be able to do that?

Here's a message for the people peddling this complete arse-gravy:

There's a door over there. Open it, go on, no drop into the darkness, no wild animal or elaborate booby trap, it's just a door. Opened it? Good. Now step through and close it behind you. Can you still hear me? Excellent, now walk away and keep walking until you have put a distance between us such that a reasonable person can be satisfied that you have fucked off and left me alone.

It's an illusion. No, not the game, that's a simulation. The illusion is that you think these games are going to lead to people committing war crimes. I understand why, you seem to think that people are influenced by anything you have to say, thus you think people are influenced by these games. You are wrong on both scores.

No-one gives a flying fuck what you say, everyone understands that these games aren't real.

I do hope that is clear enough for you.

















Twits.

*Sponsorship in form of donation to Endangered Polar Bear Battered Wives Association - Reg'd charity number 237627849889326

The One That Got A Reply. . .

A short while ago I blogged about an email I had sent my MP about the retention of DNA belonging to the innocent on yet another database. I promised at the time I would report on any reply I received.

Here is that reply in full;

Dear Wolfers,

Thank you for your email of 11th November about the retention of the DNA of innocent people. I share your concerns on this issue and agree with much of what you say. I acknowledge that DNA evidence can play a vital role in modern criminal investigations, but the current system is in urgent need of reform.

My colleagues and I are very concerned about the growth of the DNA Database. There are now 5.9 million DNA profiles on the National Database, making it the largest in the world. The Government has previously admitted that around one million profiles were those of innocent people who had not been not convicted (sic), cautioned, formally warned or reprimanded.

In December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that two British men should not have had their DNA retained by police, as neither was convicted of any offence. The principle upheld by the judgement - that innocent people should not be on the DNA database indefinitely - should have been respected, yet the Government continues to merely adjust the length of time that DNA can be retained.

The Home Secretary recently announced plans to retain the DNA profiles of 16 or 17-year-olds arrested for a serious, violent or sexual crime for six years, even if they are not convicted. In addition to this, the DNA of adults who are not convicted would be retained for six years. When this legislation comes before the Houses of Parliament, my Party will argue that the Government has completely missed the point. People in Britain are innocent until proven guilty and the retention of DNA should reflect this fundamental principle.

Conservatives (sic) plans to adopt a system similar used to that in Scotland, where the DNA profiles of those not convicted of an offence would only be retained in circumstances where the charges related to a crime of violence or a sexual offence. In these circumstances, DNA profiles could be retained for a maximum period of five years, subject to a judicial oversight. This system meets the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights, has proved more effective than the larger database in England and Wales, and will restore the fundamental rights of the individuals.

I hope this is helpful.

(Illegible Scrawl) - Julian Brazier, T.D., M.P.

Most of the letter seems to be a template which is no doubt trotted out to anyone who writes on this subject, and predictably it trots out the same stats that I used or were very well aware of.

The rest of it? Well, it is re-assuring to see that on the face of it, the Tories are a little less obsessed with harvesting our data, but looking further there isn't a great deal of difference.

'DNA profiles of those not convicted of an offence would only be retained in circumstances where the charges related to a crime of violence or a sexual offence.'

So even if you bop someone on the nose in a pub scrap you'd be retained or if you were the subject of a proven unfounded rape/sexual assault/sexual harrassment claim, you'd be retained, unless a judge or magistrate had the foresight to demand your material's removal from the database. Supposing you don't get as far as court? What if the CPS refuse charge or the police decide you didn't do it? What then? Will they remove it as a matter of course? The implication is still that if you are accused, you are guilty of something.

An improvement, even if a slight one.

It's justice, Jim, but not as we know it.

The One That Is Passing It On. . .

I don't use Twitter, I tried to, but couldn't get on with it.

From Obo comes this selection of documents leaked from the IPCC, which could be HUGE, if they are what they appear to be. I know Obnoxio has asked for it to be 're-tweeted'.

Could it be we're being lied to? Surely not. . .

The One That Is Ordering A Really Huge Bucket Of Popcorn. . .

Six MPs and peers may soon face criminal charges of fraud following investigations by Scotland Yard into the abuse of the Parliamentary expenses system.

The Daily Telegraph understands that detectives will imminently pass files on Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, and peers Baroness Uddin, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Clarke of Hampstead to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Ho ho ho, I think I may even order up a platter of nachos covered with that cheese. Y'know, the stuff that is that yellowy orange colour you don't find in nature.

Keir Starmer, the country’s top prosecutor, is expected to make a decision on whether to prosecute the politicians as early as January, before a General Election.

And listen to the high pitched whine if any prosecution does come before the GE. Wait for the explanation about how it would interfere with the big three's divine right to be elected. Justice must play second fiddle to these arseholes and their desires to rule over us. The other argument will be about how the cost of these trials dwarves the amount of money trousered, and that it was a mistake. It being a mistake is a defence that has to be accepted. But only if you are an MP or a Peer of the Realm, if you're a little person, you're going down.

That's not all justice has to play second fiddle to. . .

The most serious suspected frauds are considered to be those of Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor who both claimed thousands of pounds for “phantom” mortgages that they had already paid off. . .

. . . Mr Morley said: “I have always made it clear that I am not guilty of any offence and that I am very happy to co-operate with the police, and the parliamentary authorities and procedures. I have been advised not to comment on press reports particularly when they are based more on speculation than fact.”

Yep, that's Labour all over. 'I have declared I am not guilty, therefore it is so.' Sorry fatboy, if we get our day in court, that'll be for the jury to decide, and given the rep of MPs in general and you in particular, I don't fancy your chances old chap. Just think about all that DNA on registers, all those CRB checks for you to get a job once you get out.

In May, HMRC wrote to all MPs asking if they wished to come forward and make voluntary payments.

I'm betting I know how many decided they did want to make voluntary payments. Somewhere between sod all and naff all.

The authorities said last night they had opened formal inquiries into 27 MPs.

Looks like the CPS and the revenue men could be giving us all a belated Xmas present. You see, that's the thing, all those civil servants and police officers who have had their jobs made more difficult by your constant tinkering, who have seen budgets for proper work cut whilst more and more social cohesion diversity outreach citizen focus equality officers have been put on the strength, they are all little people too, they hate you as well and now they have an opportunity to kick you where it hurts.

Payback's a bitch.

The One That Is Enjoying The Irony. . .

A Labour election candidate may be sacked after calling the Queen a "parasite" and "vermin" on a website.

Pots. Kettles.

That is all.

The One That Found This Highly Amusing. . .

From a blog hitherto unknown to me, called 'Irish Soccer Insider'. Is it a hoax? Probably. Doesn't make it any less amusing though. . .

(Click on the image to see the letters in full)

The One That Doesn't Understand Why He's Done It. . .

Gordon Brown is to apologise for the UK's role in sending thousands of its
children to former colonies in the 20th century, the BBC has learned.

Right, let's get something straight what was done to these kids was unspeakable, they were treated in the most apalling fashion. That being said, and without wanting to sound glib, I should imagine the offspring of these people are quite happy to be in Canada, Australia or NZ.

It is a belief of mine that you can and should only apologise for something if you are the one responsible for what happened and you feel genuine sorrow for the results of your actions.

I'll give Gordon the benefit of the doubt and will accept that he understands what a hurtful course of action sending these kids away was and I would hope that nothing like this would happen again. It seems the Aussies are going to say sorry too, they've got form in this area anyway, with the social engineering of the 'lost generation'* another staggeringly insensitive practive that shows just how cruel and spiteful the Nanny State is.

However, Gordon cannot apologise for this. It is a simple fact that he was nothing to do with it. It is not his sin to atone for.

I don't mean this in a way to do these people down, and I really do feel for them, but it just isn't Gordon's fault. He, like me, can express deep regret at what happened, but he cannot apologise any more than Angela Merkel can apologise for the Holocaust, or Sarko can apologise for Napoleon's actions, or Berlusconi can apologise for the Roman usurpation of the Iceni lands from Boudica.

He'll be all too quick to fall to his knees declaring 'mea culpa!' He'll then find someone responsible and sack them. Wildly ironic, given the fact that there is so much which is his fault that he steadfastly refuses to apologise for.

*If you don't know about the Lost Generation, or even if you do, please read the linked account from the NSW Parliament. It is a most chilling testimony to what happens when people who think they know best get carte-blanche to waltz in and take over peoples' lives and dictate to them. Leg-Iron talks about this today and history is repeating itself here now. To misquote; 'We are all Aboriginals now'. The only outcome when The State inveigles itself into personal life is despair, hurt and destroyed lives. The State is incapable of love, that is an act which can only exist between two individuals.

The One That Would Be Sleeping With One Eye Open. . .

. . . if I were Jonathon Ross.

Dimbleby being run over by a cow and missing QT.

Brucie contracting 'flu and missing Strictly.

Is this some plan by the board to save money by ensuring the BBC's biggest earners meet with 'accidents'?

Perhaps the release of those expenses only tell part of the story.

Hmmmmmmm.

The One That Is Saying 'Good'. . .

Former cabinet minister Stephen Byers has announced he will quit Parliament at the next general election.

Good.

He claimed £125,000 in second home expenses over five years for a flat owned entirely by his partner, according to details of MPs' allowances published by parliament.

He also claimed more than £27,000 on renovation, redecoration, maintenance and appliances at his flat in Camden, north London.

In that case, I will expand on my response.

Good riddance you troughing fucker, I hope you find you are as unemployable as you deserve to be one you leave that sixth form common room.

The One That Wants You To Confess. . .

Go on.

Leave a confession in the comments.

You're guilty of something. You must be. We all are.

There's so much to be guilty of.

Did you know that your local council can and will fine you for feeding the ducks?

A mother out feeding the ducks with her young son was given an on-the-spot fine by a park warden.

Vanessa Kelly was in Smethwick Hall Park, in Smethwick, West Midlands, when she was approached by the warden and given a £75 fine for littering.

Well, they can. Not exactly feeding the ducks, but for littering. The fact that the ducks eat your 'litter' before it hits the ground is neither here nor there.

Now, here's a telling line.

The warden then told Ms Kelly her son could continue to feed the ducks as he was too young to be fined.

So, it's only an offence if you're old enough to have money taken off you. Once you have cash, then you're fair game. You can afford to give bread to waterfowl, madam? Well we'll have to take some of your cash in that case.

Give me strength.

Sandwell Council defended the fine, saying Ms Kelly was not in a designated feeding area.

A what? A designated feeding area?

So not only did she litter, she didn't seek permission from her all powerful, wise and mighty local authority. How dare she? Who the hell does she think she is? You can't just go and feed ducks, not without consent (the ducks can't give consent), suppose she fed them something unsuitable? Suppose these ducks have a wheat intolerance? They'd spend the rest of the day being all grumpy. She should be arrested for animal cruelty. She must have been near water, (that much is certain, she wasn't in a designated feeding area, this is a council, by the way, so there's no way that a 'designated feeding area' is going to be anywhere near a pond, canal or river) and put her child in mortal danger. The council should take her child off her, for its own good.

Right let's see which self-important, righteous complete pissing fuck-nugget is stupid enough to demonstrate what a thoughtless, socially-retarded cuntwaft he is by defending this.

Councillor Mahboob Hussain, the council's member for neighbourhoods and housing. . .

Hello Councillor Manboobs! You sir are a self-important, righteous, pissing fuck-nugget and a thoughtless, socially-retarded cuntwaft.

. . . said there had been so many complaints about the feeding of pigeons and waterfowl, a designated area had been created for feeding them.

He added the council had done a lot of work to warn people the designated space should be used.

And these people don't work for free, and God knows we've got to get the money from somewhere, so this bint will do. My expense money doesn't grow on trees, you know.

Actually, I made that last bit up.

"This park has a major problem with Canada geese and people living nearby have made complaints about them," he said.

"They feel intimidated by the large numbers of geese.

It's winter. Geese come to the UK in winter. Whilst it is cold in the winter in the UK, it isn't as cold as it gets in the arctic circle in winter, which is where these birds live in the summer. They've migrated here since before Smethwick existed, I don't think some woman and her toddler are a big pull factor here.

"We are taking this problem seriously and we are acting upon these complaints."

A damn site more seriously than I can take you, Manboobs, that's for sure.

The penalty notice would be reduced to £50 if paid within 10 days, he added.

Oh well that's fine then. They take an eminently sensible law about littering, completely skew the spirit of that law, and then empower an unaccountable pseudo-plod to take £75 off someone for no reason than he can. But it's OK, cause they'll knock £25 off if you pay up like a good little prole.

Ms Kelly has not yet paid the fine and said she planned to contest it

Good for her. Although going to the press probably wasn't the best idea. My tack would be 'prove it'. Even if they've got it on CCTV, councils are notorious for not abiding by rules on disclosure, if that were the case, I'd be going for abuse of process and getting the judge to throw it out.