They don't like it up 'em.

They don't like it, do they? It's all fun and games until the rules they make for us are suddenly applied to them.

We've had moaning about IPSA. We've heard moaning about how giving us the reform-lite AV referendum is unfair, because it reduces the chances of MPs being tribally nodded into the house as is their God given right.

Meanwhile, our God given rights are stripped from us day after day.

If we whine, we're dismissed. Tin foil hat wearers. Non-progressives. Fantasists. Apologists for terrorism. Eco-criminals. Conspiracy theory nuts. Racists. Sexists. Homophobes. Paedophiles. Smokers. Drinkers. Fatties.

So an MP gets threatened with arrest.

Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood says police threatened to arrest him when he offered to remove an anti-war protestor who had climbed up scaffolding outside Parliament. 

Who?

Tory Mr Ellwood – a former Army officer – told the Commons he asked the police why the protestor had not been removed, and was told it for health and safety reasons. 

Never heard of him, obviously plod hadn't either. Otherwise the dog wouldn't have snarled at his handler.

“I offered to climb the scaffolding and make a citizen’s arrest. I was told to move off or I would be arrested. It’s a very strange day indeed when an MP is threatened with arrest while a protestor sits on our roof,” he said.

And there we have the mindset laid bare for all to see.

First observation; you'd expect someone making that offer to have done it in a lighthearted fashion. But this is an MP we're talking about. Second observation; In the old days, a PC would have given a grin and a little chuckle with advice to leave it to me mate. Nowadays, you're threatened with arrest. Third observation; only an MP would make the offer to climb up and make a citizen's arrest in all seriousness. Final observation; only an MP would recoil at horror that an MP would be threatened arrest. Us proles, sure, no problem. But an MP?

Not very nice, is it Tobias? Being threatened with arrest like that, when you've done nothing wrong? It happens to the normal, little people every day. And if it isn't arrest, then it is a ticket, demanding money, from some council warden or enforcement officer who's word will seemingly be accepted without question.

Which august institution has overseen this? Yes, that's right, it is our wonderful Houses of Parliament.

Oh, you can argue up and down that you're different to the others. You can bleat about your 'new politics', boast of your public consultations. I don't buy it, and no-one else does either. You've not even changed your tie, more like your socks. You're just the same as what went before, and sadly, what will come after.

You'll certainly not be changing this situation, will you? You may have argued against it when Tony and Gordon unwrapped their new toys under the Christmas Tree. But now you've taken control of the toybox, and the toys are so shiny, so much fun, you just can't help but play with them.

And you're different. Better. What you've now realised is, it wasn't the toys that were the problem. It was the other boys who had them first. They didn't play with them properly, sensibly. You'll use the toys in the manner that they were designed for. And you'll make sure that the toys are used against the bad people, the terrorists, the murderers, the paedophiles, the fraudsters, the people that look at the officer in a funny way, the people that leave their bins open, the people that try to get their kids into the school, the people that disagree with you.

Oh. . .

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 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 Wonders If You Can Hear It Too. . .

Just for a moment. Sit back, close your eyes and let your ears filter out all the background noise and chatter.

There. Yes, that's it.

That is the sound of 646 sphincters twitching, shifting uneasily in their seats as they realise that one of theirs has been sent down.

For two years.

After pleading guilty.

For the want of £39,000.

OH has put it best:

Fucking ACE, coppers. Now get down to the House of Commons, your work has just begun.

Should we be calling Crimestoppers?

The One That Is A Little Disappointed. . .

Just been trawling through most of the expenses claims for my constituency MP, Julian Brazier. I say most, as it became so dull, I was losing the will to live.

In a nutshell, he appears to stay in central London once in a while and claims about £65 per night for a room and about £20 a day for grub.

Annoyingly, this seems quite reasonable to me, unless my boredom caused me to miss something spectacular, especially as he doesn't seem to have a second home (and nor should he, representing Canterbury, it's not that far on the train), so credit where it is due.

A shame though, I was looking forward to a good rant.

The One That Has Been Selected. . .

I've received notice this morning that I am to sit on the jury in the Court of Public Opinion.

This Court was convened by the Labour Party following the news that Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin would keep his pension. Harriet Harman declared that the sum of money was 'unacceptable in the Court of Public Opinion.'

The Court of Public Opinion will now be hearing evidence against 646 MPs. Many of the MP's will argue that the evidence presented by the prosecution, in the shape of the Daily Telegraph, is not admissable in the court as it has been stolen. However a precedent was set in March 2009 when Harman asserted that the rule of law did not apply in CoPO.

Unlike other courts in the UK, CoPO is unusual in as much as it has a jury of 60,000,000 people, drawn from all sections of the population, representing all colours, religions, sexualities and every village, town and city in the country.

Initial judgement will be passed by CoPO on June 4th, with a secondary, final ruling to be handed down by July 2010.

The decision of CoPO is final, there is no appeal, either in the UK or in Europe, and the judgements are severe.

The One That Is Delighted. . .

It's all kicking off!

The Torygraph has bought the CD and published the first lot of expenses for MPs starting with the Cabinet.

Pass the popcorn, this will be really good fun!

The One That Is Ticking Off His Checklist: 'Popcorn, Cider, Ciggies, Camcorder'. . .

A tip of the hat to Mr. E for flagging up this article from the Daily Fail:

Three Labour MPs are said to be terrified that the release of their expenses claims will expose them as adulterers and financial cheats.

Four ministers are also understood to have warned party whips they might have to resign for abusing the system, when MPs' receipts are published before the summer recess in July.

The three unnamed backbenchers are said to have been placed on 'suicide watch' by Labour whips, who fear they might break down when the details of their excesses come out.

Two are understood to have had extra-marital affairs with other members of Parliament.

Now can we just be absolutely clear about what 'suicide watch' means? Are they worried that some MPs may get a bit blubby, or are they wanting people to watch and make sure they really do top themselves?

If it is the latter, I will selflessly put myself forward for the task. Perhaps I can offer some words of consolation like 'You screwed who? How will you like sleeping in the shed you claimed for, you adulterous venal wankstain?' and 'Oh, man, you should see the crowds outside your constituency home's front door, I didn't think you could still get pitchforks, and I was convinced the manufacture of flaming torches was a dead art.' or 'Gordon's going to make you Home Sec.'

We need to make sure these useless bastards can do something properly.

It is going to be monumentally entertaining. I'll be compiling a highlights DVD, which I can watch on General Election night during that odd post-dinner - pre-polling station closing window.

The One That Fails To See Why They Don't Understand. . .

And so it continues. This morning it is Hoon up to his bollocks in shit, with a story about how he claimed expenses for his constituency home whilst living in a grace and favour flat and letting out his London home.

Hoon has defended the story by saying it was within the rules.

Look, you stupid bastard, if the rules said that I had carte blanche to piss through my neighbour's letterbox and run down the cats on my street in my car, it wouldn't make it right would it? If I did those things, it wouldn't make me any less of an arsehole.

What you, and all the other snout-troughing venal arseclowns have done may (or may not) be within the rules. If it is within the rules, it is still wrong. Saying it is within the rules and then being given the all clear doesn't make us think you are OK. We still think you are a corrupt fucker stealing money from us, acting like a wanker when you get all upset over scans of expenses being touted around the media makes you look even more stupid.

This whole story about the scans being touted for £300k is an interesting one. The way the politicians have acted has been shameful. I don't blame whoever it is who has these scans trying to make a few quid, after all £300k is about two years' expenses for an MP.

Are they complaining about this chap making some cash? If so, cut the ground out from underneath him, publish and be damned. No? Didn't think so. For all the protestations about leaks and theft and ethics, the fact of the matter is that there are 646 people who are desperate to prevent anyone getting any info on their expenses. We're all told it's to do with security. Yeah, right. Well, a bit, because every time these expenses are leaked, the MP concerned is worried about a mob descending on his/her home with pitchforks and flaming torches. These itemised expenses records should be a matter of public record, right from the off.

MPs are like the smart-arsed prick at school no-one could stand. Spotty, greasy, shabby, no friends and a little weed. Who then decides to make smart-arsed remarks to the year's hard-nut and then wonders why he gets a smack in the chops for it.

STOP STEALING OUR BLOODY MONEY, THEN WE MAY NOT TAKE SUCH A CLOSE INTEREST IN HOW YOU SPUNK IT AWAY.

The One That Will Help Pick The Curtains . . .

The House's Standards Commissioner, John Lyon has expressed his intention to look into the subject of Jack Boot Smith's 'second home' fiasco. I reckon she's right at it, but no doubt Lyon will decide that nothing untoward has gone on, or that something is a little queer, but it has all been down to a 'misunderstanding'. Ministers owning up by saying 'oversight' or 'mistake' when it comes to trousering large amounts of our cash, contrasts starkly with how these people never, ever make a mistake when it comes to policy. Funny, eh?

Of course this whole situation could easily be avoided, mainly by shooting anyone who decides to submit a form for their nomination for election to the office of MP, but I appreciate that some people may not find this an agreeable policy.

So perhaps a more moderate solution is the following, find a building (perhaps kicking RBS out of their London pad, we're paying the rent anyway) and fit it out with 646 little flats, standard one bedroom apartments, with a standard bed, desk, chairs, sofa, TV, radio, internet connection, decor and shower room. Actually, not 646, there's no need for the London MPs or any MP living within an hour's train journey of central London to have one. I'm thinking Travelodge or similar budget hotel, not Claridge's, not a cardboard box under the Hammersmith flyover and certainly not a free bloody house.

These will be owned by the taxpayer and will be available to the MPs for the duration of their tenure as a sitting MP, lose your seat, lose your flat. To get a second home, wherever, paid for by me purely because a group of people were silly enough to put an X next to your name, frankly is taking the piss. Especially as you still own it when everyone else has decided you aren't to be trusted and kicks you out of office.

It doesn't really matter what John Lyon finds or decides, it'll either be a whitewash or another example of how these people are regulated by a system designed to ensure that they will never be penalised or held to real account.

Jacqui Smith, MP for Redditch. Cash spunked on second home: £116,000. Constituency majority: 2,716. I know which of those stats is likeliest to be taken back from her. If only it were both.

The One That Is Going Down To The Post Office. . .

We used to have a lovely post office in a large brick building on the high street.

It was always busy, indeed so busy was it that it was sometimes a pain in the arse to use. Of course it has moved to WHSmith now, where they have less than half the desks in not even a quarter of the space.

It is of course much, much worse.

But that isn't the real subject of this post. I post, without apology, this entry from the LPUK blog in its entirety:

They Are Not Listening - Time for Action

This book cost less than a fiver; are you prepared to spend the price of a couple of pints for your freedom?

On November 5th 1605 Guido Fawkes, 'the only man to enter Parliament with honest intent', sought to end the repressive rule of a King from Scotland who brought repression to the Country. The rule of the Stuarts ended on the battlefield of Naseby, with Absolutism subordinate to the rule of Law and Parliament.


The United Kingdom has now become riven with Cameras, unaccountable Local Authorities losing millions in Iceland. Who are speaking up for the people of this Country, as we are plundered as taxpayers to prop up the Banks, not the MPs that's for sure.

We want to send a message to Parliament, we want 646 copies of '1984', one to be sent to each member of Parliament - make your pledge at 1984@lpuk.org to send a copy to arrive on November 5th.


The Libertarian Party with the support of other organisations will ensure that each member of the Cabinet will get a copy, with an appropriate message.


If you cannot be bothered to Act stop whining and continue to be 'taxed unto your meat and drink'


I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.

-- Andrew Jackson


I'll be sending a copy, which by lucky hap I have just finished, to my MP in the morning. Hence the trek down to WHSmith. I shall not buy anything in the store on principal.