Wednesday, 30 September 2009

The One That Knows In This Country, She'd Be Charged With Murder. . .

An Indian farmer's daugher disarmed a terrorist leader who broke into her home, attacked him with an axe and shot him dead with his own gun.

Fantastic. He'll not be doing that again.

Rukhsana Kausar, 21, was with her parents and brother in Jammu and Kashmir when three gunmen, believed to be Pakistani militants, forced their way in and demanded food and beds for the night.

Militants often demand food and lodging in nearby villages.

When they forced their way into Miss Kausar’s home, her father Noor Mohammad refused their demands and was attacked.

His daughter was hiding under a bed when she heard him crying as the gunmen thrashed him with sticks. According to police, she ran towards her father’s attacker and struck him with an axe. As he collapsed, she snatched his AK47 and shot him dead.

She also shot and wounded another militant as he made his escape.

In this country she'd up before the courts for breaking their Yoomanrites.

Miss Kausar said she had never fired an assault rifle before but had seen it in films and could not stand by while her father was being hurt. “I couldn’t bear my father’s humiliation. If I’d failed to kill him, they would have killed us,” she said.

One less of them . . .

The One That Bought A Paper. . .

For the first time in a long, long time, I went out and bought one of the national daily papers today. For the first time ever, that paper was The Sun. I just wanted to see with my own eyes that hatchet job on Brown. And it is one hell of a hatchet job (I like the poster especially). It also seems to be railing solidly against Brown rather than Labour as a whole, and I can't help wondering what would happen if he was shown the door before the election.

I think the answer is probably that The Sun's stance would soften slightly, but that Labour would still lose the election. No-one is going to oust Brown now, no-one wants to be the person that took over and the took the party on to an absolute paggering at the polls. They'll all start sidling away during the campaign. Come the inevitable bun-fight in June it will all be, 'Me? No, it was nothing to do with me, I was nowhere near it. Well, I suppose I could have stepped in before Christmas, but the loyalty of the rank and file is paramount, no-one wanted to see Gordon go. The Tories ran a despicable campaign, it hurt Gordon badly, and someone has to step up now he's stood down.'

With some of the squawking in the media you'd have thought that the job of PM is awarded by The Sun. It isn't. The Sun backing Cameroid isn't going to win the Tories the election. One truism that is, errr, true, is that oppositions do not win elections. The Sun isn't telling people how to vote or think, they've known for plenty long-enough that New Labour is done. They've done this now to cause as much damage to Brown as possible.

The Sun hasn't announced its support to influence the outcome, it has done it to sell papers. The Sun was never going to back Labour, because they will lose. It won't want to be seen backing a loser. Can the Sun influence a winning margin? Yes. If they press the right buttons then a lot of those who don't vote may just turn out to put the boot in. The Sun can turn a big victory into a huge victory, but it cannot turn a large defeat into a narrow win. Even if The Sun indulged in the sort of partial pro-Labour reporting that would make the BBC blush, it wouldn't change the result.

On the morning after the election, when The Sun says something along the lines of 'It Was The Sun Wot Won It', that's just to persuade people that it is more influential than it really is.

Brown will be furious, Campbell on Sky News this morning gave the air of a man who was about to stamp his feet and claim that it isn't fair, but it doesn't really matter. The Tories won't win because they're best - I'm expecting a policy free zone at their conference next week, indeed their manifesto may just as well be Cameroid and chums in matching knitwear holding kittens, The Tories won't win because of The Sun. Labour will lose because of their complete contempt and disregard for the public. Labour will lose because they continually nag and mither us, because they insult us, because they take our money and waste it, spend it on themselves, because they are incapable of admitting fault or responsibility, because they make promises they have no intention of keeping, because they snoop upon us and criminalise us for no other reason than they can.

Alternative vote? Give me a break. You would have done that in '97 if it was worthwhile. Now you stare down the barrel of a gun you think that people's second choices are important?

Slut's Huts/Gulags for Slags? Yeah, nice. Bring back homes for fallen women so you can indoctrinate them and their kids. That's the sort of the thing the BNP would do. . . Oh.

Take your ball and fuck off. You've had your chance, and you have squandered it. It's over. Finished. Gone. Your attitude of entitlement to win this time would be truly offensive if watching it wasn't so funny. You make Comical Ali look like an incisive commentator.

I'll leave the last word to 22 year old Keeley from Bromley, who for some reason left the house wearing nothing but a small pair of blue knickers and a pout.

'He [Cameron] can't possibly do this instantly as he will inherit huge, long-term, deep-rooted problems. We need to allow him time to implement fresh ideas and policies that will get the country off its knees.'

Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? When did glamour models become so politically aware?

Tuesday, 29 September 2009

The One That Wishes He'd Thought Of It . . .

Old Holborn has been sloganeering and has come up with the following slogan to describe the essence of Libertarianism. It is a thing of beauty:

Do as you want, or do as you are told.


He then follows it up with this:

Think wisely when you have your chance to vote and always ask the question:

"Will they let me do as I want, or will they force me what to do what they want?"

I have nothing to add to this.

The One That Is Reading You A Story. . .

Re-read this yesterday, from one of the volumes in probably my favourite series of books. You'll see why I've put it here:

There had been that Weapons Law, for a start. Weapons were involved in so many crimes that, Swing reasoned, reducing the number of weapons had to reduce the crime rate.
Vimes wondered if he'd sat up in bed in the middle of the night and hugged himself when he'd dreamed that one up. Confiscate all weapons, and crime would go down. It made sense. It would have worked too, if only there had been enough coppers - say, three per citizen.
Amazingly, quite a few weapons were handed in. The flaw, though, was one that had somehow managed to escape Swing, and it was this: criminals don't obey the law. It's more or less a requirement for the job. They had no particular interest in making the streets safer for anyone except themselves. And they couldn't believe what was happening. It was like Hogswatch every day.
Some citizens took the not unreasonable view that something had gone a bit askew if only naughty people were carrying arms. And they got arrested in large numbers. The average copper, when he's been kicked in the nadgers once too often and has reason to believe that his bosses don't much care, has an understandable tendency to arrest people who won't instantly try to stab him, especially if they act a bit snotty and wear more expensive clothes than he can personally afford. The rate of arrests shot right up, and Swing had been very pleased about that.
Admittedly some of the arrests had been for possessing weaponry after dark, but quite a few had been for assaults on the Watch by irate citizens. That was Assault on a City Official, a very heinous and despicable crime and, as such, far more important than all these thefts that were going on everywhere.
It wasn't that the city was lawless. It had plenty of laws. It just didn't offer many opportunities not to break them. Swing didn't seem to have grasped the idea that the system was supposed to take criminals and, in some rough and ready fashion, force them into becoming honest men. Instead, he'd taken honest men and turned them into criminals. And the Watch, by and large, into just another gang.

Excerpt taken from 'Night Watch' by Terry Pratchett, Doubleday Books, 2002.

There's not really much to add to that, beyond my deep sadness about Pratchett's alzheimers, my immense respect for his work and my recognition of one of the greatest English satirists of all time. If you've not read any of his work, then you really have missed out.

I will say though, his point about taking honest men and turning them into criminals is particularly apt.

Doctors in the UK should tell police every time they treat a victim of gun and knife crime, new guidelines from the General Medical Council will state.

One would imagine the next step would be for the threat of prosecution against the victim if they don't tell whodunnit. Then:

They are also told they can breach patient confidentiality by giving police information if they believe a crime has or will be committed.

If a patient is diagnosed with a genetic disease doctors will be able to tell relatives, without consent.

Just goes to show that you do not belong to you. You belong to the State.

Leg-Iron writes about Underdogs today, and he's right. When the Underdog bites, he'll bite you in the soft fleshy parts, and it will hurt.

Sunday, 27 September 2009

The One That Would Have Loved To Have Been A Fly On The Wall. . .

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson was initially refused entry to the Labour Party conference in Brighton because of a problem with his security pass.

You can just see the little jobsworth standing there, can't you?

No matter, what's good enough for the rest of us. . .

Lord Mandelson had to wait 10 minutes at the conference's security entrance before he was allowed to enter.

And how I would have loved to have seen him waiting. Curiously, the Nanny Beeb report doesn't report how he bore this loss of face. I'm betting he didn't stand there with the attitude, 'well, it IS security, it is for own protection', I'm betting he had a hissy fit of proportions that would have made Elton John wander off muttering 'drama queen' under his breath.

Please, please, please, let the security guard in question be an overstayer, visa counterfeiter or an illegal of some kidney, that would be great.

Wednesday, 23 September 2009

The One That Is Blessed With Clairvoyance. . .

I blogged a little while ago about an entertaining conspiracy theory surrounding the Government's intentions for t'internet.

Well, bless my barnacles. . .

A controversial broadband tax should be law before the next election, according to Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms.

Now there's a surprise. Didn't see that one coming.

The 50 pence a month tax applies to everyone with a fixed line telephone.

Speaking at a debate in London, Mr Timms said the tax will be presented to parliament as part of the Finance Bill.

So, £6 per year, doesn't sound that bad does it?

I'm betting any office will have to pay for each and every phone on their premises, even if it is on a switchboard. More cost which business won't have to bear, because it will be passed on to those who use their services or buy their products.

And what will the money be used for? Making sure everyone has broadband. The next stop will be a modem licence.


So they can get us all on to Cloud. That means that ALL your files, contacts, emails and browsing history will be centrally stored, and you'll only be able to access websites which the controllers feel is appropriate for you to access.

It's coming people, and it won't just be us, this will be global.

Tuesday, 22 September 2009

The One That Is Surprised And Not Surprised . . .

Sky News (TV, can't find a link) have just reported this morning that Baroness Scotland has been find £5000 by the UKBA for employing an overstayer.

The comment from Eamonn Holmes was that she 'will accept the fine.' Well that's gracious of her, isn't it? Is that a line we can all take? Or is it only senior politicians that can decide whether they accept a fine or not?

It matters not, she'll probably claim it on her expenses, anyway.

Of more concern is the report that she doesn't see this as a resigning matter.


So the government's senior legal officer breaks a law that she was instrumental in pushing through and as the highest legal figure in the country, doesn't see it as an issue when she breaks the law she is sworn to uphold.

So, if breaking the law isn't cause for a resignation, what the hell is?

It isn't one law for us and one law for them, it is one law for us and no law for them.

Monday, 21 September 2009

The One That Thinks That Was Entirely Predictable. . .

More than one third of British people have not heard of the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, a poll conducted for BBC Newsnight suggests.

Tomorrow night Newsnight will reveal that the Pope has an impressive collection of odd hats, and they have a special report on Thursday night about the distressing increase in the number of bears shitting in the woods.

The One That Is Quivering With Anticipation. . .

I'm not going to go over old ground, especially as Mac the Knife has done such a capital job.

EU leaders are said to be furious that the Czech Republic is planning to delay signing the Lisbon treaty for up to six months even if the Irish vote "yes" in their referendum next month

I've commented before about the huge respect I have for Vaclav Klaus, as Mac points out he's seen tyranny and supression before, he's got the T-shirt and can see the EU for what it really is.

And what is it?

Nicolas Sarkozy, who helped to draw up the treaty after the French and Dutch voted against its predecessor, the EU Constitution, has warned Prague that it faces "consequences" if it does not swiftly follow an Irish "yes" with its own ratification.

Yeah, that's about right. This will be free and democratic, unless we don't like what you do. Did you notice the fact that an Irish yes is a certainty? Even if they say no, they'll say yes. Eventually. Or there'll be 'consequences'.

Well fuck you, you shortarsed little twat. One would have thought, given your father's tribulations with the Red Army in Hungary during the war and the Soviet's actions in Budapest in 1956, that you'd have a fairly sympathetic attitude towards those who fear the worst with the EU. But of course, there's a big difference here, isn't there, Nicolas? This time it is you in the big chair with the machinery behind you.

If only our politicians had the brass balls that Klaus has shown. Once again I take my hat off to him, and wonder if Cameron has the integrity to keep his promises.

Sunday, 20 September 2009

The One That Is Struggling To Understand. . .

Confused, confused, confused.

I’m finding it hard to get a handle on the Sunday political posturing this week. There are two explanations for this. Either, I am too dim and would be better off watching the Sunday omnibus edition of Hollyoaks, or the reason I’m getting confused is that the three main parties have no clue about what it is they actually want, beyond the keys to Number 10.

Where to start?

OK, I’ll start with the LimpDems. My old mate Mac the Knife, who in a previous life had some dealings with the party, is of the opinion that so desperate for power are they that they would sodomise each other in a high-street shop window if they thought it would give them access to the levers of power. Cleggy, obviously keen to be seen as a man of substance on the eve of his party’s conference, has come out with all guns blazing.

Firstly announcing a policy that includes the following cuts:

Cutting the number of government departments to 14 (saving £314.2m per
Halving the number of departmental spin doctors (£7.44m)
Culling or
merging 90 quangos and capping all senior salaries at the Prime Minister’s wage
Cutting the number of ministers to 73 and freezing their salaries
Abolishing taxpayer-funded salaries for the leader of the Opposition
and party whips (£0.96m)

Great, go Cleggy! All you need to do now is drop your slavish devotion to the EU, HRA, warmist religious inclination and about two dozen other issues so that you really ARE liberal and democratic and perhaps we can do business.

Ah, you didn’t actually say those cuts would be passed on to us though, did you? I see, so as far as you’re concerned, my money is still actually yours. But then in a separate article from a similar source he states that he will:

‘fight the next general election with a pledge to cut income tax bills by £700 for people on low and middle incomes.’
Some headway then, although there is still this policy of spite that you have more than me, so I’m going to get my friends together and we’re going to take it. The maths is so simple, rich people earn more money. Rich people get hit with high tax. Rich people then either pay an accountant to hide their money in a ridiculously complicated tax system or take it abroad. Charge everyone a sensible and smaller amount of tax, everyone will pay it. You get more money from rich people. 10% of £1m is more than 50% of £100,000. People have more money to spend, so they spend it. This creates jobs, which means you have more people paying the tax.

Anyhow, Clegg is also being tough to those nasty Tories. He’s called Cameroid a ‘con-man’. He

‘accused the Tory leader of saying anything to win the next general election,
saying: "He's put the con back into the Conservatives."

Hmmm, saying anything? What like giving people £700 a year in tax cuts? Wiping out billions of pounds of government spending? Things like that?

For some reason, Cameroid thinks that his Tories and the LimpDems share a lot of common ground.

Mr Cameron urged the Lib Dems to join the Tories in a new "national movement"
claiming there was "barely a cigarette paper" between them on many issues.

Bloody hell! Really? Go and ask your party members about that. Ask them especially about Europe and tighter financial regulation. And you mentioned cigarettes and didn't denounce them as Satan's pencils, you'll probably pay for that, as well.

In an article for The Observer, Mr Cameron said the two parties shared the same views in areas like civil liberties (squash ‘em), education (keep ‘em dim) and climate change (scare ‘em to death whilst emptying their wallets).
Yes, not too much difference there. But why the overture? Does Call me Dave think that the Tories might need some friends? Does he think it will be that close?

Either way, Cleggy isn’t about to act like some school-prom slut, he’s keeping his legs firmly shut. He’s not committing to either side, he obviously wants to inspect the love tackle before jumping into the sack.

But why would he want to join up with a Labour party who only underline that after 12 years in power, they haven’t managed to accomplish anything that one would consider close to their traditional goals. Cue Alan Milburn and Pat McFadden (who?).

The report says those who come from middle and working class families are still at a disadvantage when they enter the jobs market, and that access to professions like law and medicine is becoming increasingly socially exclusive.

Ah, and why is that, then?

The panel found more than half of top professional jobs are still taken by candidates who were independently schooled, even though they account for just 7% of all school children.

It’s the rich! Those bastards, spending their money on making their lives better, that’s why it all has to be taken from them! Or is it because whilst generations of inbreeding has produced offspring who are as thick as bottled shit and have faces which are twelve eighths teeth, they get a proper education rather than the socially engineered politicised rubbish spewed out in the publicly funded education system to those with access to a decent gene pool?

Kids in schools where they are actually taught useful things, actually learn useful things. They probably can’t decorate a Ramadan cushion, or bake a Yom Kippur cake, but then Corpus Christi probably don’t want that in an entrance exam, they want answers to questions that show the prospective student sort of, y’know, knows useful stuff.

You’ve had twelve bloody years, an entire school career. I wouldn’t say the time has been wasted though, as they’ve certainly got richer. Oh look! Here comes Baroness Scotland again!

Now, the beleaguered lawyer is facing claims she had wrongly been paid £170,000 in Parliamentary allowances.

There’s a bloody surprise. The worst of it is, the bastards are claiming this cash and then not even paying their bar bills.

I don’t ask for much in life, but next May, I’d like to see about 400 seats overturned in Parliament and some real people put in.

The message to those who are pissed off with the established liggers: Don’t bloody vote for them!

Lend your vote to the minority party or the Indy. You’ll be amazed how less craven they are, and how things will be no worse than they are now.

Wednesday, 16 September 2009

The One That Is Proud We Are The Trend Setters. . .

I don't know how many times I've heard it said that what happens first in the US will normally follow here a few years later. I can think of one or two exceptions, I understand that we embraced digital TV a good deal earlier than the US, and coming the other way, we don't seem to have been so enthusiastic about crystal meth as our American cousins.

But it is nice to see that on occasion, the US will still look over the Atlantic to the old colonial master to see how things are done properly, and Jimmy Carter has picked up one of the most useful tools that have been used over here for a while now.

Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism".

Mr Carter told a town-hall meeting there was "an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president".

Now I have little doubt that there are a number of people who will never accept a black man as President, just as many would accept a woman in the same job. I'm sure that there were some whose primary objection to Thatcher as PM was that she was a woman and that some people find a Scottish PM objectionable on grounds of nationality rather than the man's policies.

They're in the minority though.

When Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted 'You lie!' Carter was swift to denounce him as a racist.

It is most likely that he just disagrees with Obamamamama's policy, I don't think a Congressman from South Carolina would get very far if he was forever shouting things out at black people.

Carter has been watching us, though. Let's see how many other opponents to Presidential policy are regularly smeared as being racist, either directly or by insinuation. 'What? You don't agree? RACIST!!!!!!'

I wonder if there is a USNP rubbing their hands with glee?

The One That Hopes You'll Forgive His Cynicism. . .

According to Nanny Beeb:

The Conservatives have set out plans to reverse what they describe as "the rise of the surveillance state".

Well, if correct that is certainly a step in the right direction.

They have pledged to scrap two new databases - the ID card register and ContactPoint - and strengthen powers of the Information Commissioner. The Conservatives say they want to restore public trust in the use of personal data by the state.

I'll believe it when I see it. You see, as far as I'm concerned, if any of the Big Three told me that the sky is blue and the sea is wet, I'd go and check it out with my own eyes.

Is it going to make me vote Tory in the general election? Nope.

Monday, 14 September 2009

The One That Wants To Know Where Are Those Good Old-fashioned Values On Which We Used To Rely? . . .

Whilst checking Nanny Beeb today I couldn't help noticing this, it did make I chuckle:

Peter Griffin ----------- Cllr Ross Hussey

Sunday, 13 September 2009

The One That Is Thinking About Flying South . . .

It’s all really starting to fall apart now. For the last twelve years, a Labour government and their Righteous infantry have kept tigers as pets. All of a sudden, these tigers don’t want Whiskas for dinner, they want real meat that they’ve caught themselves.

The problem is that when you keep a wild animal in captivity it does not lose its desire to act like a wild animal, but it does lose the skills to live as one.

The first tiger to roar has been Anjem Choudary of a ‘fundamentalist’ (not too much fun, plenty of the mentalist) Islamic organisation who would see the imposition of Sharia Law in the UK. I’ll oppose that as strongly as I would oppose the imposition of any value system in the UK. In his video he basically tells the ‘English Defence League’ that they will lose, that the green flag of Islam will fly over Number 10. Well, he would say that. He also goes on to tell the United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism to go and screw themselves and that they are perfectly capable of looking after themselves, thank you very much.

The tiger has awoken, and he is hungry and wants to stretch his legs.

The English Defence League are not one of the pet tigers that have been kept by The Righteous. They’ve been left out in the cold and have had to fend for themselves. They may not have the lustrous coats and full bellies of Choudary tiger, but they have survived, learned to hunt and have even resisted the urge to kill those who come to take their catch to feed those pet tigers. Until now.

A tiger in captivity will attack its handler as a substitute for the hunting sized hole in its life, it doesn’t do it out of hate, but because hunting and killing is what a tiger does, and it wants to feel more tigerish. A wild tiger will hunt to live, but will only attack another tiger as an absolute last resort. There is the difference between them, the captive tiger wants to fight to prove it is a tiger, the wild tiger knows it is a tiger and knows that the best way to remain being an alive one is not to scrap unless it has to. When that wild tiger fights though, it is to the death. This wild tiger has backed off and backed off and now has nothing more to lose, it is very, very dangerous.

The handler has a dog as well. A big dog. A ferocious yet very obedient dog. He sees the handler feeding his tiger, and as the handler also feeds him, reckons that the tiger is part of his pack. The dog will fight to the death to protect his pack, from the Alpha to the underdog, they stick together and see off any threat to the pack, or die in the attempt. United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism are that dog.

The captive tiger looks at the dog and doesn’t see a pack member. He doesn’t see a pack. The tiger is a solitary animal. The tiger looks at the dog and sees lunch. He owes no loyalty to the pack, the handler has kept him locked up and prevented him from being a proper tiger.

The wild tiger looks at the dog and doesn’t see an equal. He sees one dog, on his own. More an irritant than a threat. That dog is an irrelevance, he can be dealt with later, the captive tiger is the threat. The pre-fight posturing is now underway, soon the fur will start to fly.

Given the fairly explicit message sent out by Choudary, will United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism re-examine their loyalties? No. They fail to see the irony in combating a group they say are fascist, in support of a theocratic regime which is most certainly fascist by using tools employed by fascist organisations throughout history and around the world. Remember, United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism are the dog, and not the Alpha. The handler is the Alpha and will sort out any squabbles within the pack. As far as the dog is concerned, if the Alpha tells Choudary tiger to go to his basket, he will.

Alpha hopes that when he tells Choudary tiger to go to his basket, he will.

Choudary tiger couldn’t care less about his handler, or the smelly dog. It doesn’t matter to him whether they get out of the way or die.

The handler’s wife isn’t concerned with the tiger, she quite liked having him in the enclosure in the back garden at first, but he isn’t very friendly, she concerns herself with the puppies. She loves the puppies, they are very cute and she cares for them very much. The handler’s wife gets very annoyed when people mistreat puppies, and wants to make it as difficult as possible for this to happen. She’s implemented a programme where anyone looking after someone’s puppy whilst they are away, or takes a puppy to puppy classes, or occasionally takes a friend’s puppy out for a walk, or who even stops in the street to give a puppy a pat, has to be checked to make sure they’ve never been mean to a puppy. She’d be much happier to check everyone, whether they have puppies or not, just to be doubly sure.

The vet’s wife has said this is stupid. It is the first time that the vet’s wife and the handler’s wife have ever had a disagreement. It is very odd, especially as the handler’s wife employs the vet’s wife as her lady who does. The next coffee morning could see fireworks. The handler’s wife thinks the vet’s wife is most ungrateful, perhaps she’ll employ someone else to do her cleaning and puppy walking. The handler’s wife doesn’t actually look after the puppies, but she’s still an expert, and knows how everyone else should feed and train their puppies.

The puppies just want to be able to go out and play and to learn some useful tricks. They’re not allowed to go and play though, there could be someone who is nasty to puppies hiding at the park, waiting to get them. When they graduate from puppy classes to go and be a guide dog, or an earthquake search dog, they find out they’ve not been trained to use their noses, and being able to say ‘sausages’, sing along to the theme tune to East Enders and rolling over are not useful skills. Then they grow up into dogs. They aren’t cute puppies anymore, and no-one likes them, they get left on the streets, to rifle through bins and chase the cats.

They then come across the wild tiger and think, ‘well, if it’s good enough for him. . .’

So where do I fit in? I may be the Snowolf, but what I actually am is a swallow. Sat in the trees, looking at the streets below, wondering why some people keep pets. I notice the nights are drawing in and think that winter is coming, it looks like it will be a bad one. Perhaps it is time to fly off somewhere?

Friday, 11 September 2009

The One That Is Going On And On And On And On . . .

The story in the news today about Haringey council putting a foster child into the care of the family of one of the wannabe liquid explosive suicide plane bombers has been commented on by a number of bloggers today. Whilst not the focus of today’s rambling, I will pass brief comment.

Haringey are idiots who couldn’t tell their arse from a sky-scraper made of edam and lego. I don’t think we should be surprised at this latest news story. That being said, it is my belief that most people in the intelligence community do not play well with others. I understand why to an extent. Given that these arse-clowns were under surveillance, and seemed fairly committed to the idea of making a plane go bang in spectacular style, it makes perfect sense for the cops and spooks to keep schtum until they have enough evidence to pick these guys up and charge them. That practice is preferable to keeping people locked up for however many days whilst a case is built.

By keeping them under surveillance you can build the case on the hoof whilst making sure the muscle is ready to step in if they make a move before the suspected scheduled time. I would imagine, given the history of Haringey social services, that the big hat in spook circles wasn’t all that enthusiastic about calling Haringey Soc. Serves and telling them that the foster family were connected to these people. That wouldn’t work at all.

That being said, why they thought that the unemployed and seemingly unemployable were suitable foster carers is a mystery to me. Haringey are an easy (and justified) target, but I bet one of their head honchos could pick up some government policy document and say ‘well it says here. . .’

One line hits me square between the eyes:

"Muslim children can only be placed with people of the same faith and the need
to find foster parents could mean that corners were cut in the vetting process."

There are some real issues with that policy.

Firstly, does this mean a child’s cultural heritage trumps considerations over its safety? If so, this is shameful and tantamount to abuse. You could have a loving couple from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who would provide a secure and stable environment for any child, being passed over for a Muslim individual with a fondness for stretching seven year old sphincters. That is madness.

Secondly, does this mean Jewish children can be placed with Christian families? Taoist with Hindu? Is it just the Muslim children who cannot be placed outside their faith? If so, this is shameful and tantamount to abuse. What happens to the kids if there are no beds available with Muslim foster carers? In order to be in foster care, you have to be under a clear and present threat to your wellbeing, are the kids to be returned to an unsafe environment for the want of a Muslim foster family? Or are they to be placed in some home, cold and institutional, where they will feel that they are being punished? Do Haringey council run homes for the Muslims? If not, then where’s the difference to the policy for foster caring? This is bad news for the kids, the non-Muslim community who seemingly can’t be trusted to look after anyone of an Islamic background, and the Muslims themselves because. . .

Thirdly, this means that either the Muslim community demands that children be left in danger or a miserable home rather than be in a comfortable, loving environment, or (as is most likely) some lack-wit has decided that cultural sensitivity is the beginning, middle and end of the consideration, and indirectly tells those who aren’t Muslim they aren’t good enough. Either way mistrust and hatred is going to be the only outcome. Non-Muslims will hate the Muslims as they will see them as insulting, prejudiced and not caring about the kids. The Muslims will hate everyone else for hating them as the siege mentality takes over, and the kids will really hate the ‘liberal’ hand-wringing people at the council for making bloody silly policy which cost them their childhood in part or whole.

But here’s the rub. When last I looked, Muslim people breathe oxygen, drink water and need food to eat. There’s no real difference between them and anyone else. Their faith is an accident of birth. There is no Muslim genome, nothing binds the Bosnian Muslim, the Algerian Muslim, the Bangladeshi Muslim and the Malaysian Muslim beyond their faith. Muslim people come in all different sizes, shapes and colours.

Does this mean that a one year old Muslim kid has to be kept by people of ‘his’ faith? He’s a bloody kid. He could quite easily have been born a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, it is a total and complete lottery. It isn’t HIS faith, it is the faith that has been imposed upon him by his parentage and his society.

That sounds like an impassioned argument about the futility of religion, perhaps with an undertone of bansturbation. It isn’t. I don’t care for religion myself, in my experience each of the three biggies in the mid-East, Europe and Africa seem to espouse values of love, peace, forgiveness and understanding, but those who bang on about it most display those qualities least. I don’t need it in my life.

But here’s the thing, just because I don’t need it in my life, doesn’t mean other people don’t need it in theirs. If they feel they do, then carry on, I sincerely hopes it makes you happy. I will not try to force my lack of faith (although it is more a lack of faith in Man and his organised church, than in God) upon you. I will not seek to kill you because you believe differently to I (this may be because as I have no church to ‘learn’ from, there’s no-one telling me to do it). I will treat you with respect, good manners and politeness. I do this willingly and without passing judgement upon you. In return I ask that you do not try to force your faith upon me, that you do not seek to kill me because I believe differently to you and that you treat me with respect, good manners and politeness and do this willingly and without passing judgement upon me.

On the whole, this arrangement works very well. Down my street in very homogenous Canterbury we have Ahmadiyya Bangladeshis running the grocers, Shia Kurds running the barber, very Christian women running a charity shop and Greek orthodox running the chip shop. All within forty paces of each other. They refrain from smashing in each others windows, which is nice, and will normally change each others banknotes if pound coins start running low. I use all the businesses regularly because they are all nice people and I believe in supporting local commerce.

Very few people would turn purple and start shouting about a Muslim kid in danger of being beaten, raped or killed being moved out of that environment and placed in the care of someone who will give them a nice dinner, a warm bed and a bed-time story. Those that would are detestable, these really are the cheeeldren we should be thinking of.

So what’s the message? On the whole we all get on fine, tolerate and in some circumstances actually show an interest in our differences. Some people through idiocy hate the different as their way is the only way. These people shout loud. Next time you hear an idiot shouting loud, get together, sensible, ‘normal’ people and shout louder. Perhaps that way the idiots will realise they are outnumbered and stop trying to kill us all. Perhaps that way council officials will realise that the policy of putting kids in the foster care of suicide bombers is more offensive to us, that being society, than it is to those who think Muslim people should have their own little world.

I’ll sign off with a quote from a well respected and much loved dramatic piece.

‘Be excellent to each other.’ – Rufus; Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

Wednesday, 9 September 2009

The One That Knows What's Next. . .

I forget who it was that said Puritanism was the feeling that someone, somewhere might be having fun.

Fun is bad for our health. That is why smoking has been all but banned everywhere. That is why, with the job pretty much done, that focus has now been shifted to drinking. That's bad for our health too.

These things are being banned under the suggestion they are bad for us, but really it is because they are fun. To crush our spirit in a grey and grinding distopia, there must be no fun.

What else do Purtians hate? What else is fun? What else can be banned under the guise of being for the good of our health?

Couples should consider sleeping apart for the good of their health and
relationship, say experts.

Ahh yes, that'll do it.

The next round of heated shot is sat in the fire waiting for the muzzle.

Tuesday, 8 September 2009

The One That Wants Them To Shut The Hell Up. . .

Cheap deals on alcoholic drinks should be illegal, a new report is proposing, with a call for tighter controls on the marketing of alcohol.

The British Medical Association (BMA) argues young people are highly influenced by advertising and price deals, which encourage them to drink excessively.

It is none of your fucking business. Doctors will moan that cheap booze leads to them doing more medical stuff on people.

It doesn't. People drinking too much leads to them doing more medical stuff on people. If people didn't get sick or do silly things they'd all be out of the job that pays them shit loads for not working evenings and weekends and allowing them to play golf four days a fucking week.

What is it about doctors? Why do they think that a 5 year medical degree makes them not just an expert on medicine, but also everything else in the whole fucking world?

This is like an association of mechanics asking for diesel to be banned because people keep putting it in petrol driven vehicles. Would they? No. They may feign sympathy when it happens, but inside a little voice is singing the words to the happy dance. It keeps food on their table.

Perhaps the Licensed Victuallers Association can start complaining about how long waits in A&E are making their customers stay out of pubs longer and that something should be done.

Wind your fucking necks in, shut up, make people better. That's your job, it is not your job to be our guardians/nannies/camp guards or to make political policy.

Got it?

Saturday, 5 September 2009

The One That Warns Your Wall Does Not Belong To You. . .

I like Banksy, I find him whimsical, entertaining and sometimes downright funny. I'd be delighted to wake up one morning to find he'd gone to work on my wall.

Councils don't like Banksy. He's into graffiti and is bad. His vandalism must be eradicated.

A mural by graffiti artist Banksy, which once featured on the cover of a single by rock band Blur, has been painted over by Hackney Council.

The spoof image of the Royal Family, painted on the side of a building in Stoke Newington, east London, was partially covered with black paint.

But then, if it is their wall, then that's up to them.

The building's owner was in tears as she begged workmen to stop. By the time she persuaded them it was almost gone.

The building's owner? Hang on, what's going on here?

Property owner Sofie Attrill gave consent for the mural to be painted on the building so it could be photographed for the launch of Blur's 2003 single Crazy Beat.

So why were the council of all people painting over it?

Hackney Council needed permission to remove the mural because it was on private property.

But its letters were sent to an address Ms Attrill lived at 25 years ago.

After receiving no response the council served an enforcement notice.

So they needed permission to do it, and when that permission wasn't forthcoming, they went ahead and did it anyway.

Hackney Council was initially unrepentant.

Well, there's a surprise.

Cllr Alan Liang said: "The council's position is not to make a judgement call on whether graffiti is art."

But he later added: "Due to a problem at the land registry unfortunately our letters stating our intention to clean this building didn't reach the owner.

It isn't your fucking building, so why the hell are you cleaning it? If I started slapping paint over a council owned wall, I would expect to have my collar felt for it. It is, after all, not my wall to paint.

And yet, Hackney Council seem to think they have the liberty to paint over any wall they damn well please. One rule for us. . .

I'd be suing the bastards for criminal damage, or getting the muppet in charge of whichever thick as pig shit department perpetrated this act of willful vandalism arrested for same, let's get his DNA and fingerprints recorded.


Friday, 4 September 2009

The One That Is Disturbed. . .

The following is a very brief extract from an article by 'Not Born Yesterday' posted over at Old Holborn's place.

"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us "In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled."
Whatever one's opinion of Brown, if what is said in this article is accurate then it is bad for the country and for the man who holds the office of PM to be in this position. It is equally bad news for the rest of us that the opposition would eather see a man destroyed in a very public fashion than risk taking on someone they may not beat so easily.

Certainly since Thatcher, who was the first PM I remember, it seems to me that the model has been for the PM to be in charge of every facet of Government. Well, it simply can't be done, there are not enough hours in the day for one person to do this job, and I believe it is beyond the physical and mental abilities of any human to do this.

So why try? I appreciate with Brown that he is simply not emotionally capable of letting anyone do their job without constant guidance and interference. No doubt in his mind when things do go wrong (and they will always go wrong, regardless of who is in Government) it is because the minister or Sec of State has failed to carry out the instructions as set out, so he has to do it himself.

The result? A high turnover of appointees to office, each more unsuited and incompetent than the one that came before. In a PM where the driving force is naked ambition, the best and brightest can never be given a position where they have proper control over their department, lest their star shine a little too bright and threaten the incumbent of Number 10.

This suggests to me that the person who holds the keys to Downing Street has that job because they believe that they are the only person who is capable and can be trusted to do the job, it must be them that does it. What no doubt started off as a desire to do the best for the country gets shunted onto a side track as they fall into a spiral of a belief in their own infallibility.

Surely for us, the best PM is one who has competent people manning departments they understand (and better still, have experience of) and holds a gentle hand on the tiller, almost acting as a referee, rather than Pele taking on the opposition single-handed in the style of Escape to Victory.

Unfortunately, such an individual does not exist, as anyone with the required temprament would look at the job description of PM and run a mile.

Anyhow, do and read the whole article. It's a cracker.

The One That Is Ordering Up A Big Bag Of Popcorn. . .

James Cleverly reports (via Guido) that former London Dep-Mayor Ian Clements is due up before Westminster Mags on a fraud charge over allegations of fiddling expenses.

Guido is of the opinion that he won't be the last politician to be hauled before the beak.

Wouldn't it be a terrible shame if he were only the first of many? Wouldn't it be an even bigger shame if this was at its height during a General Election campaign?

One thing is for certain, there'll be a number of politicians moaning about how such a situation would be unhelpful and perhaps even against the national interest, especially if they are perched atop a slim majority.

I think it was Harrison Ford playing the President in Air Force One who used the line 'Your turn to be afraid.'

Well folks, payback is a bitch and next May (assuming that is when it finally comes) is going to be so much of an Elephant hunt, that I'll be watching the election night coverage wearing khaki drill and a pith helmet.

Bring it on.

Nihilistic? Me?

Thursday, 3 September 2009

The One That Is Wishing Him Luck . . .

Sky News are reporting that Nigel Farrage is going to stand against John Bercow at the next General Election.

Bloody good luck to him. I hate this convention that no-one stands against an incumbent Speaker. Let's just assume that his constituents feel that he is a venal expenses thief who is only concerned with his own gravy and making it as easy as possible for all the other MPs to get their slice of the pie. I'm not suggesting that is the case, but if it were, is it fair that his constituents have the choice of Speaker and a selection of indie candidates?

Of course, I'd rather the indie candidate were elected, but in the real world you need a high profile to unseat a high profile. Let's hope Farage is high profile enough and this insulting convention gets kicked into touch.

The One That Wants To Know What Sort Of Idiocy This Is. . .

Just watching Sky News whilst munching on a sandwich this lunchtime (more of which later, Sky News that is, not the sandwich). They've got a camera crew down at the Olympic Games site where Broon and his rabble are holding a cabinet meeting in a portacabin.

Why? What's the point in that?

Beyond the fact that a temporary cabinet are holding a meeting in a temporary structure is most apt, I want to know what's wrong with the cabinet room at Number Ten?

Why this obsession with holding cabinet meetings at increasingly bizarre locations around the country? How much is this costing? As the anchor in the Sky News said, it looks like a brand new very posh portakabin.

What happens next month? A cabinet meeting at a branch of Greggs in Huddersfield? What a load of self-obsessed bollocks.

Tuesday, 1 September 2009

The One That Says It Is Not About Media Stunts And Personality. . .

Sky News are reporting this evening that it has invited the three major party leaders to a pre-election televised debate - and that Cameroid has accepted.

I fully expect Wossisname, y'know, that bloke who is the leader of the LimpDems to accept as well, secure in the knowledge that it will never happen as Brown will dismiss it as a media stunt, and that he thinks it is important to concentrate on making Britain better and winning policies rather than personality.

I think a definite indicator that the Murdoch media empire is going to give Broon and Liebore the knifing of all knifings when election time rolls around.