Looking past the decoy.

There were breathless reports in the British media yesterday about the actions of two women who went out defy the ban on the wearing of face coverings in France. The reports on BBC radio were of the tone that these women were being very silly and that the ban was a good thing.

My French ain't great, but as luck would have it, I was in the country yesterday and French radio was carrying a lot of vox-pops that suggested the general population was mystified at best by the ban, and in a couple of interviews the reaction was hostile.

Now, I don't like the burqa, I think it is a hateful item of clothing which disconnects the wearer from the rest of society, it also suggests that all women are sluts and all men are rapists. It is the physical embodiment of one of the things that turns me off from religion, the mania for collecting people whilst dictating their actions and thoughts and telling them they are worthless. I also hate socks worn with sandals and the old blazer and jeans combo, but because, like the veil, they don't actually do any harm, I am not calling for their prohibition.

But of course the story is a bit of a decoy. You see, the law in France doesn't ban the burqua or the niqab, what it does is ban all face coverings in public. Everyone is prohibited from covering their face in public in France now; this means that Old Holborn's little walk would be illegal. Well, when I say everyone, that isn't quite accurate. You and I would be breaking the law by going out with a face covering, whether the reason for doing so is malicious or not, but for agents of the state, it is perfectly acceptable for them to go out dressed thus:

The odd, non-assimilationist, muslim women wearing the burqa, the section of society that the rest doesn't trust because their behaviour is so different to everyone else, have been used as a smokescreen, a decoy, to prevent attention from falling onto the fact that every private citizen is being restricted here.

It isn't jsut that; as the Torygraph correctly reports:

But Alexis Marsan, a public order official, said they were solely given warnings for taking part in an illegal gathering.

Five men and another women were also held for taking part in the demonstration.

Whereas in the UK, it is illegal to hold a demonstration without permission within a certain radius of parliament, which is bad enough, in France it is illegal to hold a demonstation anywhere without permission. This is what was being reported in a very matter of fact way on French radio, that these people had been arrested for an unauthorised demonstration.

The BBC also reported on their TV news that the pair were spirited away to a police station to 'have their papers checked.' It should be noted that any resident of France is obliged to carry their Carte d'Identitie or Carte de Sejour at all times and you can be stopped and checked at any time, for no particular reason, I don't know if you can be obliged to go to the police station for your papers to be checked for no good reason, but given the reputation of the gendarmerie and the paramilitary CRS for being robust, I'm not too sure I'd be asking too forcefully.

So, just across that short stip of water we have a country where you cannot demonstrate against the state unless the state gives you permission to do so, where you cannot wear a face covering, for example a rubber mask of Sarkozy or De Gaulle, and where you can routinely be swept up off the street to have your 'papers' checked.

Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?

Normally, I'd be saying that this is a matter for the country in question, but reports are that Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands have plans along similar lines, and you can only wonder how long it will be before the same comes in over here, either through our own parliament or as the result of a dictat from Brussels.

Stupid, stupid everywhere, and no-one stops to think.

Bugger it being a big weekend for sport, this has been one of the biggest weekends for idiocy I can remember in a long time. Let's start with sport though;

Iran has indicated it will attend the 2012 Olympics in London, despite complaining that the Games logo resembles the word "Zion".

I couldn't help but chuckle when the story of a proposed boycott broke, but it would appear that perhaps it isn't that important to them after all.

They objected on the grounds that its resemblance to the word Zion - a Biblical term for Israel - was racist.

But now the Iranian-backed Press TV has quoted an official as saying Iranians will "participate gloriously".

Will they? Oh, that's nice. It's not often I agree with Cameron but he hits the nail on the head here:

In an interview with the London-based paper Jewish News, Mr Cameron said: "It's completely paranoid. If the Iranians don't want to come, don't come - we won't miss you.

I think Iran may have one or two more important things to worry about. Boycott the Olympics because the logo is a Zionist insult to Islam? Really? I can understand you boycotting the Olmypics because the logo is crap and a PR catastrophe, but this?

William Hague isn't about to quit, and hasn't lost his mojo and has the full support of the PM. That makes me think there'll be a new Foreign Secretary before the month is out. It seems that Baldy Bill hasn't learned from his mistakes of the past:

“So there’s a certain irony,” he adds. “People tell me there’s a newspaper article saying I lack energy, presumably written by some lounge lizard who’s rolled up at 11am and wondered what to write about (without being rude about journalists!) when I’m already on my second country that day. We’ve put a huge amount of new energy into British foreign policy.”

How many pints at how many pubs on the dray round? 'When I'm already on my second country that day'? I have visions of Hague sat at a table, with the tablecloth tucked into his collar, knife and fork in hand.

What is it with politicians and willy waving? What is it with politicians and making laws, then deciding that the laws they've made don't apply to them because they're too important? EU law especially. I forget who it was who made the point in the House over the prisoner votes debate about the danger of governments picking and choosing which laws they abide by, and the SNP are masters of this.

Plans to introduce minimum drink pricing in Scotland will be revived if the SNP wins May's Holyrood election.

If, although given the low regard the big three are held in at present, May probably can't come quick enough for the SNP.

But they [the plans] were opposed by Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories, who said minimum pricing would penalise responsible drinkers and was probably illegal.

It doesn't matter if it's illegal though, because a politician wants to do it. The thing with politicians (especially Socialists) is that the rule of law is absolutely sacrosant, right up until the point where it is obstructive or inconvenient for them, then it must be ignored.

But addressing delegates, Ms Sturgeon, also the Scottish health secretary, will say the SNP acted like a government, while opponents acted disgracefully.

Oh, how telling. She's right though, by completely disregarding a law they don't like, the SNP have indeed acted just like I would expect a government to act. The disgraceful actions of the opposition must only refer to their saying 'but that's against the law, we can't do that', if so, I have no desire to be a disgrace, does this give me carte-blanche to ignore all laws? Because I'm game.

As Counting Cats pointed out the Ecoloons are already starting to make capital out of the quake and tsunami in Japan. He has some arseclown putting it all down to homeless polar bears, or something. Meanwhile in Germany. . .

The nuclear accident in Japan has sparked a discussion about atomic power in Germany, where a massive anti-nuclear protest was already planned for Saturday. A senior Green Party politician has said that some German plants are vulnerable to the same kind of failure as happened at Fukushima 1.

Riiiiiight. Vulnerable to the same kind of failure?

According to the US Geological Survey, the last earthquake in Germany was as recent as February 14th this year, it came in at a jaw dropping 3.9 on the Richter Scale. 3.9 is labelled as 'often felt, but rarely causes damage'. The difference between 3.9 in Germany and 8.9 in Japan is akin to the difference between dropping teaspoon on your kitchen floor and dropping a reinforced concrete box full of lead and elephants on your floor.

I can find no records of a tsunami in either the Baltic or the North Sea. So when you say that 'some German plants are vulnerable to the same kind of failure as happened at Fukushima 1', you mean that after an earthquake of unbelievable power and then being hit by a bloody great tsunami it still hasn't blown up and made the east coast of Japan uninhabitable for the next four generations, I think I'd be tempted to take my chances. I wonder how many Japanese wind turbines are standing after the quake and tsunami. I'm betting not many, but then I'd be surprised if there were that many to start with, because the Japanese have more sense and realise that a functioning country is more important than making offerings to some green god.

It looks like 10,000 people in one town, half the town's population, has been wiped out. It makes Aberfan look like a stubbed toe, and you have the gall to make capital out of it for your own self-importance and political agenda? The Greens really are some of the least attractive people about, there is no depth to which they will not stoop.

The bread is stale and the circus is crap.

The coverage of events in Bahrain by the BBC and Sky is peppered with an almost tangible sense of incredulity and stats to back this sense up.

According to the CIA world factbook, none of the population are below the poverty line, it is, according to Sky the most liberal regime in the gulf. The population have nice houses, access to the internet, schools, healthcare, jobs and a shiny new F1 race track.

Life in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya is not pleasant, so it is entirely understandable that the populations have risen, are rising, or look like they will rise, up against the regimes there. But Bahrain? Why?

Sky have been at pains to point out all day that the majority of the 1.2 million population are Shi'ite, yet the ruling royal family are Sunni. That must be it. It's the middle east, it must all be down to religion, it always is there, it'll be some nutjob with a turban and a raggedy arsed beard shouting a lot.

Well, no.

Despite everything the Bahrainis have, there's one thing they're missing. Freedom. The same thing that is missing all over north Africa and the Gulf. The rest is just dressing, when you have no power, no say over your life, no chance to influence or change your society, then all the nice air conditioned houses and imported German cars don't matter. Sure, they'll delay the inevitable, but it is inevitable. There comes a point when the population will take no more, they will hit back.

How to deal with it?

Well, in Tunisia the authorities thought about it for a while then decided it wasn't worth the effort. In Egypt the army made it perfectly clear whose side they were on and did a good job of doing nothing whilst saying 'don't make me come down there.' In both countries it remains to be seen if the population will get what they want.

In Bahrain the authorities (that is the King, the only authority) have made it perfectly clear that the population can go take a running jump. Shooting at people who are angry only makes them angrier. Shooting at people where the group constitutes women and children will make people absolutely furious. It all depends on which comes first, is it the angry mob saying 'sod this, I'm tired of being shot at', or is it the troops who suddenly realise the people stood in front of them are their mate, brother, sister, father, mother, niece, nephew, grandmother, grandfather and suddenly decide they don't fancy shooting any more, at least not in the direction they've been told to. In a small country like Bahrain, I'm betting the latter comes first. I've always thought the best way to disarm an army in a civil dispute is to march a line of old women up to the troops carrying placards that say 'I'm your Grandmother and I want you to stop this nonsense right now.'

What will be interesting will be the American's response to this. They have a large amount of floating hardware anchored off the coast, they've certainly sold the arms to Bahrain that are now being trained on the population, they (and we) get oil from Bahrain. The King is a good mate to Uncle Sam, but how far will that friendship stretch? When will the concerned noises turn into 'Oh, come on now.' What happens when/if the American public realises that their weapons are fired at people who live under an effective absolute monarchy? What happens if the flow of oil is disrupted? Will America look at the King with such fondness then, especially as the regime seems to go against everything the American constitution stands for? The only difference between Bahrain and Iran is that Bahrain wouldn't drop a shed load of missiles on America given half the chance. It's a big difference, but can a President with a certain public facade to keep up be seen to be supporting the total extermination of free speech, freedom of assembly and shooting of innocent citizens in the street?

Yes, they may have the nice TV, the big sporting events, a comfy bed in a nice house, but all the time you have no say, no freedom, it isn't worth anything. The EU would do well to look at Bahrain over the next few days and take note. It could happen here, very easily, one of our cousins in this brave new world have recent experience and people have longer memories than dictators think.

The bell is a message for me, not for you.

I quite enjoyed school, mainly because I derive a great deal of enjoyment from learning stuff. It makes me smile. Even as an adult, being shown things I had no comprehension of and being shown how to do or use it can still induce a fit of excited giggles. I really like learning stuff.

But, you may also be surprised to know that I could be a right pain in the arse at school as well. I have a habit of asking inconvenient questions like 'why do you say that?', 'why is it not done this way?', what difference does it make if I wear a tie or not, will it have any influence over the speed or depth of my learning?' I was annoyed by stupid rules which made no sense, or imposed inconveniences which seem to benefit nobody. When I was in the 5th year (is that year ten in new money?) I grew a beard, a beard you could lose a badger in. It didn't say I couldn't in the rules, so I did it, it annoyed quite a few people.

When in the sixth form I went to visit some family friends in Washington state during term time. The head of sixth form tried to carpet me for going out of school in term time without permission. I pointed out that I was in the sixth form because I chose to be, not because the law required me to be in education so where was the beef?

I turned 18 in the sixth form, and was subject to an attempted bollocking for pissing off home at lunchtime once a week because I had no lessons in the afternoon (this was a school, not a college), I pointed out that had I been in a college it wouldn't have been an issue. It was, I was told, for my own protection, that the school had a duty of care for my welfare. Which expired when I ceased to be 17, I explained.

I was an intransigent, obstinate, yet polite, annoyance. I think they were quite pleased when I pissed off to university. I steadfastly refused to do what I was told unless I could be provided with a reasonable explanation as to why certain rules were in place. 'Just because', or 'Because we say so' was never going to cut the ice.

Even now when I read stories like this about the imposition of ridiculous rules in schools it makes me bristle:

Dozens of pupils were sent home from a city secondary school this week - for wearing the wrong kind of shoes.

Around 100 pupils at Cardinal Newman Catholic School were sent home on Monday with a letter for parents explaining boots, trainers and pumps were banned.

Disgruntled parents claimed as many as 400 pupils had fallen foul of the footwear crackdown, but the school insisted the figure was nearer 100.

Why? What bloody difference does it make what sort of footwear someone wears?

I've heard the arguments over uniform for years, and I've never been convinced about them. There's the preparation argument; wearing an acceptable mode of clothing will give the child an understanding of what will be expected when they enter the world of work. And yet, the shcools will send kids out who are functionally illiterate and innumerate. How is that useful perparation? They can tell you when Eid is, quote chapter and verse on global warming, or tell you what it was like to be an Aboriginal child in the horror of the stolen generations, but they can't write a letter, construct an argument or balance a cheque book. But hey, they'll be able to pick out a nice pair of shoes (imitation leather, to avoid offence to others, naturally).

Then there's the argument about fairness and bullying; if you don't have a uniform then the poorer kids will be subjected to bullying because they don't have the latest or coolest kit. Well, bollocks. Firstly, there may well be kids who can afford it, but just couldn't care about the shallow materialism. Secondly, and this is a point illustrating an awful lot about what is wrong with this country today, how about actually dealing with the problem of bullying? Merely removing one focal point of bullying will just move the gaze of the bullies from one subject to another or one item to another. Any headteacher who tells you bullying isn't a problem in their school is either a fool or a liar. Don't remove the opportunity to bully, remove the bully him or herself. Teach a worthwhile lesson. That lesson is not 'Conform!', that lesson is 'your actions have consequences, you acted in such a fashion, here is the consequence'. Schools all over Europe and north America seem to survive quite happily without a uniform policy, why should the UK be any different?

My mind goes back to my term-time trip to Seattle. I was given the impression that those lessons were gone, irreplacable. I'd taken the trouble to speak to the teachers beforehand, to see what I would be missing out on and how to catch up. I think one of the problems was that I'd done it off my own back, rather than asking for permission and having some plan drawn up for me. Going away in term time, to see a foreign country, and to spend a good deal of time kicking around on the University of Washington campus with the daughter of the family friend who studied there was an education in itself, but I was made to feel it was an act of heresy. And yet, schools will send kids home, missing these vital, never to be repeated lessons, because they're wearing the wrong shoes? Really? I'm calling bullshit, it means either the lessons aren't all that important, or the school feels its arbitrary rules are more important than the education the teachers are paid to dish out. Which is it?

Not only is it dress code which gets educationalists juices flowing, there are other ways to get the authoritarian beating stick out, another method of teaching the kids that the most important lesson they can learn is to simply do as they are told, all throughout their lives.

New search powers being given to schools over mobile phones are more suitable for terror inquiries, human rights pressure group Liberty says.

England's head teachers will be allowed to search for phones without consent in a bid to combat cyber-bullying.

The Education Bill, to be debated in the Commons next week, also allows heads to delete data from the phones.

The government says heads asked for the powers and will be expected to use them sensibly.

What. The. Hell?
Search without consent? Just wait for the kiddie fiddling claims.

Delete data from the phones? Uh-uh. Not even the police can do that. If my kid is being cyber-bullied, I want the data retained, because I'm going after the little shit.

Heads asked for the powers? Did they know? Is there anything else they asked for? Will you give that to them? In my experience headteachers are used to being kings of their castles, I used to have regular contact with teachers, outside of schools but on school business, and they love to stamp their feet and make demands of everyone, expecting to be obeyed by all. They quite upset when it doesn't happen, and are not used to hearing the word no, not unlike many of their charges, really. Will they use the powers sensibly? Some won't. Once again, go after the bullies, not the tools of the bully.

I don't like this. The problem with giving people authoritarian tools of control is that they will use them. And then seek to expand them.

Finally, when we do get someone who absolutely tries to do the best for the kids, she gets pilloried, insulted, smeared and sacked. Anna Raccoon has the latest quest she is on. Please do pop over and read about it.

But who decides?

Let's see how this 'Big Society' thing works shall we?

People could give to charity every time they use bank cards in shops or at cash machines, the government has said.

 So you mean beyond the collection tins on many shop counters, the charity muggers on the high street, the envelopes dropped through your letterbox and the door to door collectors, the government has decided we need more opportunity to give to charity?

They could also be prompted to give money when they fill in tax returns, or apply for passports and driving licences, the Cabinet Office suggested.

We're already prompted to give money when we do all those things, that's the reason we have to do those things in the first place. What they mean to say is we could be prompted to give more money.

Lottery winners would get thank-you letters from ministers if they donated large sums to good causes.

Oh, that would be the icing on the cake, wouldn't it? Only a politician would think that winning a lottery prize would be made better by some arseclown, who is probably due to be sacked, voted out or convicted of stealing the equivalent of a nice lottery win from the taxpayer, sending a letter telling you what a good little drone you are.

But here's the thing, who decides what constitutes a 'good cause'? Of all the big charities, the only two I have any faith in are the RNLI and Help for Heroes. As far as I know, neither of these two take any cash from taxes. Both these charities save lives. Both these charities stand for what I believe charities should do. I'm betting that the 'good causes' the politicians have in mind are probably made up of the usual suspects: the RSPCA, who seem to no longer really care about the animals, all they care about are prosecutions and taking people to court to make them donate. The NSPCC, who spend most of their time spreading fear about noncism and picking the very lowest of the low hanging fruit. ASH who, well, go see Dick and Leggy.

To me, this looks like a scheme to get even more money out of our pockets and into those of organisations who already take a hefty portion of their income from the tax pot. You and I are well aware of the fake charity scam, but the vast majority of people aren't. When the subject arises and I explain my objections, I am looked at as if I've just said the moon is actually a giant vanilla cheesecake and the Royal Family are alien zombie robot lizards from space.

'But, but, they're charities.' It does not compute. It's kinda like pointing out to a seven year old child that Father Christmas doesn't exist. The bottom lip goes out, it is contrary to the evidence available. The TV goes on about him, he saw him at the shopping centre, the toys from Santa arrived the previous Christmas, even the mince pie and carrot were reduced to crumbs. So how can this be the case?

Here's a line to strike fear into all our hearts:

Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said it was not an attempt to "compel" people but to encourage the "big society" agenda championed by Prime Minister David Cameron.

And we all know what happens when government calls for something to be voluntary, optional or safe-regulating, and the preferred choice is not taken up, don't we children? Yes, that's right, they'll just pass a law.

 

The Big Society is goverment telling us 'give us your money, and we'll decided where it is best spent, once we've taken an admin fee, natch.'

Where's the difference?

What a waste of bloody money.

It is bad enough that money is taken from our pockets and pissed up the wall with gay abandon on projects you'd never even be able to dream up, let alone support. It is even worse when you willingly surrender your income for a service and then find that you've been stabbed in the back.

What am I going on about? This:

Workers at a district council in Norfolk must now clock off and back on if they take a cigarette break. 

Staff at Breckland Council will no longer be paid for the time they spend smoking after the proposals were given the go-ahead.

Simon Clark, from smokers' lobby group Forest, said everyone was entitled to a break during work.

That's old news. We've heard this story before. But here's a new spin:

The group described the plan as "tyrannical", but council management, unions and workers backed the change.

Council management I'd expect no more of. Workers come in the same group as 'the people' in Righteous speak, they are a homogenous mass, of one opinon and utterly identical to each other. But the unions? What the fucking flying fuck?

I don't even know where to begin. I really don't.

Firstly, I bet I can guess which unions are involved in this, at least two of them, and they are biggies.

What the hell? Are members paying their subs only to find that when management penalises people for engaging in a perfectly legal activity, an activity which sits very much in a bracket with other perfectly legal activities, the unions actually support it? As the bloke from Forest says:

Some take coffee breaks others go out for a cigarette.

In the old, old days, you could smoke at your desk, but they are long gone. I don't object to that. In the old days there was a smoking staff room where I worked, people would take their work in with them, so the loss to the business was nil, now we've been sent outside, from our sealed and vented room which no non-smoker had to go into, and having been sent outside we find ourselves being penalised for doing what we've been told to do.

Ah yes, but you don't have to smoke.

True, but then I don't drink tea or coffee, you don't have to drink it either. So why the fuck aren't you clocking off when you go out to get your umpteenth fix of caffeine of the day? Oh, they'll come for you eventually, your addiction will become as anti-social as mine, make no mistake, they're coming. Don't come crying to me. You've spat in my face, when your time comes, I will point, dance and laugh at you until I'm sick.

I'm getting side-tracked here. For a union to take subs from members under the pretence of representing their desires and interests, and then to arbritrarily abandon those members, members who are engaging in an activity which harms no other members, nor the union as a whole is a sickening betrayal.

I disagree with the TUC affiliated unions on a good number of subjects, but give them their due, they will support (by and large) the terms, conditions and rights of their members, even when those demands are excessive, outdated and completely against the interests of the public that fund them.

But this? This is a total betrayal, and if were a member of one of these unions, I would be livid.

The thing is these unions, the really big ones, I'm talking PCS and Unison here, the two I'm convinced are behind this capitulation, aren't really about staff in the way unions were when they first came into existence. They are more about politics than staff t&c's, it is the members' job to pay their subs and then dance to the tune which is played for them.

How loudly would they squeal if a clock was put on the computer terminals in the office to measure how much time was spent on ebay or slebrity news websites? How high would the pitch of that squeal get if that time was then knocked off staffs' flexitime?

Exactly.

Treacherous, spineless, hypocritical cowards. The fucking lot of them.

If you are a member of the union(s) behind this capitulation and you smoke, make no mistake, this will not be confined to one anonymous district council in Norfolk, it will come to your office soon and the precedent has been set. Be a good drone, pay your cash and do what you're told. They know best. Not you.

Late to the party.

I've not had the opportunity to fly a proper sortie over Blogland for the last few days, still haven't this morning to be honest.

This from Anna Raccoon is a wonderful piece of work, important, blood pressure raising and heartening in the response to it.

I've nothing to add to what Anna has written. Please do go and read it.

The One That Is Shouting 'GOOOOOAAAAAAL!'. . .

Ahhhh, World Cup year. I do love the World Cup. Always have, I have found it enchanting since I was a little boy. I love the way the players’ shirts shimmer in the hot summer sun (although not this year, it’ll be winter in South Africa), the reaction of the players and supporters of the smaller nations when they cause an upset, or even in some cases just score a goal. I love seeing the unbridled joy of one set of players when they score a victory over their bitterest opponents. I love the almost guaranteed emergence of a new star on the world scene and the drama of the penalty shootout (normally in the Quarter-Finals where England will lose). I love tournament football, there really is nothing like it. You can keep your Monaco Grand Prix, your Olympic Games, Six Nations, Wimbledon, Superbowl, hell, even The Ashes (which I also love), they are all fine events, but none of them compare to the World Cup.

I could write a huge missive about what is wrong with the game, and there’s plenty, but once every four years a large proportion of the country is brought together, collectively willing our players not to make an arse of it in the Quarter Finals against Portugal/Germany/Argentina/Brazil again. It is a good thing.

However there are one or two things in a World Cup year which are equally as predictable as England’s Quarter-Final exit. There will be the tut-tutting about working days lost when England are playing. There will be pursing of lips about the promo offers on booze in supermarkets and pubs. There will be children sent home from school because they’ve copied Beckham’s latest fashion statement (this year it’s called the ‘foot cast’) and someone somewhere will be banned from flying the St. George Cross.

Imagine my shame when I realised that is was my own home town.

Taxi drivers in a Kent city are upset after being told they are not allowed to fly flags from their vehicles during the World Cup football tournament.

Canterbury City Council has said attaching England flags to cabs would breach rules on what can be displayed on public service vehicles.

Why? What bloody harm will it do? No. People won’t get offended. It’s the national flag of England, for crying out loud. You wouldn’t see the same about the Saltire on cabs in Elgin or the dragon in Merthyr, would you?

Larissa Laing, from the council, said: "We accept that many taxi drivers want to be patriotic and we have been fully supportive of them wearing England shirts.

Oh, that’s nice. Isn’t that nice? The nice lady from the council will let the people in their own private businesses wear what they want. A big cheer for her.

"However, it is a public service vehicle and as such there are very strict rules and what can and cannot be displayed on a taxi and sadly an England flag, or any flag, cannot be displayed."

The rules ban any signs, letters, motifs, emblems, or marks from taxis.

Yes. But why? This is one of those we just want you to ask our permission so we can hum and har about it before making a great show of very generously granting the request which you so humbly put before us.

Larissa Laing almost won authoritarian fuckwit of the month. Almost.

The thing is, what do they do in places where there’s no World Cup participation? How does one show one’s absolute idiocy and total removal from pragmatism and reality then? Let’s go somewhere where the team didn’t qualify. Let’s go to Northern Ireland.

There was a policeman, sat in his vehicle, having objects thrown at him by a group of youths. What did he do? Did he shoot them? Did he hit them with his asp? Did he run them down? Did he refer them to an inclusivity outreach diversity community cohesion liaison officer? No. He played ice-cream van music over the speakers of his police car.

Young people were throwing bottles at a Land Rover vehicle in Lisburn last Saturday when the officer used the tannoy to play the tunes.

A police spokesperson said an officer had used humour to defuse the situation and the trouble had stopped.

However, senior officers are believed to have spoken to the officer involved.

I’m hoping that when they spoke to him they said. ‘Well done, you showed initiative, guile and humanity. You are a credit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.’ I’m betting they didn’t.

Ah, no, they didn’t.

"The youths stopped throwing the bottles. However, police accept that this was not an appropriate action.

"The officer has been spoken to by a senior officer in order to establish the circumstances of the incident."

Hang on, are you suggesting that you wanted the officer to get out to hand out a kicking, running the risk that he’d get one himself, or to sit waiting for backup to arrive and hand out a kicking, whilst running the risk that they’d get into his car and give him a kicking?

Look, I’ve problems with the way policing is done in this country. I’ve a problem with the way some police officers act. Senior officers will back these horrible little SS wannabes to the hilt. Show me an officer who acts in exactly the way we’d all want an officer to act in a difficult situation and you feed him to the lions. Really? Seriously? WTF? Look, these kids deserved a good, hard kicking, but he was obviously on his tod, what he supposed to do?

So we’ll leave the authoritarian fuckwit of the week award to Cllr Angela Nelson (SF):

Angela Nelson told the Andersonstown News that the officer's actions "beggared belief".

"The PSNI are put on the streets to do a serious job and that is to keep order on the streets and face down anti-social elements. This is like a sick joke.

"It goes against everything we are trying to solve and eradicate in the area."

Now, I’ve no love for either side in Northern Ireland, it’s like Israel vs. Palestine but with wetter weather and better music, they can all go to hell, but people still vote for them, so there you go. Anyhow, I’m betting that the kids were Protestant and the SF lot are disgusted that they didn’t get the kicking they so richly deserved, or the kids were Catholic and the Protestant humiliated them instead of calling for the inclusivity outreach diversity community cohesion liaison officer over his radio.

Jesus Christ in a World Cup Willie costume on a pogo-stick, what is wrong with these people?

The One That Wishes They Would Mind Their Own Business. . .

At the end of my road is an old fashioned greengrocer's shop. If this were an Enid Blyton story it would be run by a cheery, ruddy-faced old man in glasses with a big green apron. But this isn't an Enid Blyton storybook, it's 21st century Britain.

This means that my greengrocer's is run by a Bangladeshi couple. These Bangladeshis are people we want in this country. They are hard working, considerate and very pleasant people. Their shop opens at 8 (at the latest) and closes at 7 (at the earliest), their stock is fresh and (excluding the ingredients used in their ethnically specific cuisine) locally sourced. It is fairly priced and I know that when I go there I will get a friendly reception and will walk out with exactly what I want. My life is infinitely better for having this shop at the end of my road, especially since they started selling cigarettes.

Next to the greengrocers is a newsagent. This is run by a national chain and is staffed by a seemingly perpetual rotation of disinterested, rude, ignorant white school leavers who I doubt can spell their own names.

The difference between the two shops is remarkable. The newsagents are more expensive. The newsagents will open at 8ish (at the earliest) and will close at 5.30ish (at the very latest). There are no smiles, no good mornings, just a vacant stare and a 'what'? Lord knows how much stock they lose as you often have to shout in the direction of the door to the stock room to get the shuffling idiot out to serve you. You could walk out with £100's in stock, they wouldn't notice, nor I suspect care. I'm especially pleased that the greengrocer has started selling cigarettes as they are 10p a packet cheaper, and don't use a till with a CCTV camera attached which shows you it taking a still photo of you buying any age restricted item, this is probably then stored on the till's hard disk to be uploaded to some gummint website showing social undesirables. Doubtless it's for my security, but I don't like it, so now the only thing I bought in there is sold cheaper elsewhere, I don't go in there any more.

Strange, isn't it? I speak the same language as the people in my newsagents (the couple at the greengrocer are 1st generation, they speak English, but you have to listen hard and concentrate) and have more in common with them culturally than the Bangladeshis. Yet, because of the sort of people they are and their work ethic and business manner, I'd much rather put my money in the Bangladeshi till.

This is not some ringing endorsement of muli-culturalism. This isn't me proclaiming to the world that I am a glorious non-racist. Multi-culturalism is bunk, as the Levellers sang, there's only one way of life, and that's your own. Someone's skin colour and religion is as important to me as their eye colour or choice of footwear. Not hurting anyone? Carry on.

It's great here, it's like living in a little village where everyone helps out and looks out for each other and not a government advisor or leafelet in sight.

My community likes the Bangladeshis. The psychiatrist that lives next door to me uses them, as do the Brazilians that live on the other side. The Bangladeshis will go over the road to the chip shop run by the Greeks to get change, and the Greeks will go to the barbers run by the Iraqi Kurds to get their hair cut, the Iraqi Kurds will go the white butcher who orders in halal meat for them and others like them. Does the butcher do this because it is the nice multi-cultural thing to do? No. He does it because there is a gap in the market and he can make money out of it.

The Righteous would probably be up in arms, the nasty white man exploiting the religious sensibilities of the Muslims to make money. But the butcher isn't the villain of the day. There's worse, there's much, much worse.

It's the Bangladeshis.

They've come into this country and have neither sought nor taken any help from the State and their righteous minions. These graceless newcomers have set up business, learned the language, inserted themselves right in the middle of the community all by themselves. And they regularly lambast this government and local council.

Not only that, but now they want to do more. They want to expand, they want to make more money. This isn't supposed to be how it works. They are supposed to be pathetically grateful for the things that are given to them. They are supposed to do as they are told. Well, there's a storm on the horizon.

You see, the greengrocer's sits on the corner of my road and the bottom of the high street of this fair city. The main train station lies a 3 minute walk from the door of their shop and to get from the station to the centre of town you must walk right past them. So they came up with this wizard idea. From 8-9 they would make and sell takeaway hot breakfasts for the workers walking past their door to work. From 1-2 they would make and sell takeaway hot lunches for the workers and residents nearby. From 5-6 they would make and sell takeaway hot dinners for the workers going back to the train station to take home. Three hour long sessions of doling out hot, healthy, nutritious, locally sourced, cheap food (and given the aroma coming from the food that Mrs. Greengrocer eats, it would taste bloody fantastic) all made with produce they sell in their shop.

Mr Greengrocer had negotiated terms with the butcher to supply the chicken and lamb, he had made sure the kitchen in the back of his little shop came up to scratch, he and his wife had attended the evening courses, after the shop had been open all day, 7 days a week, to get their food handling certificates. He thought it odd that he had to go to the council and ask permission to sell this food. He understood about having to comply with food safety and kitchen cleanliness standards, but to go and ask for permission to sell stuff? Like he says: "S'my blinking bizzniss. What does counzil man know of bizzniss?"

The council, of course, have refused permission for this venture. Their policy on takeaways round my part of town are clear. There is already a kebab shop, a Chinese and a chippy that cater for the late diner. They don't want anymore hotspots of people hanging around late at night.

Mr. Greengrocer points out that they close at 7 and he isn't going be open at 2am, he has to get up at 5am to sort his stock and shop out, have his own breakfast, do his paperwork, pay his taxes, get his kids ready and off to school. He isn't interested in the lager brigade stumbling over his mushrooms and mangoes on their way back from the clubs.

It is irrelevant. Council guidelines equate takeaway food with rowdy pissheads, flashing neon signs and a sea of discarded poly food trays. There is no room in the rules to distinguish. There is no will to change the rules.

Mr. Greengrocer points out that a new Chinese has opened across the road from him recently. They got permission. He asked them how. They told him. They made four applications, and made four appeals. That cost them £9000 before they even opened for business.

Mr. Greengrocer is not a fool, he's joined the dots. "Counzil just want my money." It's not about the drunkards. It's not about the mess. It's not about the neon. It is about these unelected grey council mongtards showing you that they are in charge. It is absolutely about taking as much of your cash as possible.

Mr. Greengrocer has realised what 21st century Britain is all about. It can be summed up thus: Be thankful for what you have. Be more thankful that we don't come and take it all from you.

Mr. Greengrocer says that in Bangladesh you'd just bribe them. In the UK you pay a £2000 bribe up front, they even give you a receipt, then they still don't let you do it.

Mr. Greengrocer knows bad business when he sees it.

The One That Can Scarcely Believe It. . .

Warning to children: This post contains bad language. You might have been told swearing is not big or clever. Swearing if done with style and creativity is very big, and very clever. It will upset adults, so make sure you do it, with style and creativity, as much as possible. Go to BBC I-Player and look for Malcolm Tucker in 'The Thick Of It' - that's swearing with style and creativity. It really will upset the adults, but hey, fuck 'em.

Well, I'm writing this having got back in from an aborted attempt to get to work this morning. I only have to drive 20 miles, but the minor roads I have to use were completely untreated and bloody dangerous. Sod it, my work isn't important enough to risk having an accident.

The point being, not a rant against the failure of the powers that be to treat the roads, again, but that it is cold. Very cold.

When I was a boy, I'd always be getting grief from my grandmother for not 'wrapping up warm', I would apparently catch my death of cold. No right thinking person would send a child out in these conditions without a coat. Certainly no-one with responsibility for the care of a child. Or so you'd think.

Children at a secondary school in Kent had their coats confiscated in freezing conditions because they were not wearing regulation uniform.

Oh, please tell me you're having a laugh.

Students at Aylesford School Sports College who were not wearing the school coat were told to hand their own in and to collect them at the end of the day.

Right, yes, of course. And what drove them to take these coats (which of course the school don't own)?

Head teacher Doug Lawson said: "We sent a reminder letter out which outlined our expectations with our uniform."

Sounds to me like Doug Lawson is a prize cunt.

"The uniform was decided upon after lengthy consultations with students and parents, the parents' views being of particular importance. "

Doesn't he sound like a politician? Lenghty consultations? Parents' views?

And at what point did a parent give the view that if a child wasn't wearing a presrcibed coat then it should be relieved of what it was wearing instead?

You can't take pictures of your school play - it's for the safety of the children.

You can't have prizes at sports day - it's for the good of the childrens' self-esteem.

You can't discipline unruly children - it's because of their human rights.

You can't wear that coat - it's against MY totally arbitrary rules. Obey me.

Well, you know what, Doug Lawson of Aylesford School Sports College? Fuck you in the ear with a snowball wrapped around a bit of flint. Any person who deprives a child of a coat in sub-zero temperatures is not fit to look after children. I'd be making allegations of abuse.

Your expectations with your uniform? Do you put your wife in detention if she doesn't meet your expectations relating to oral sex?

Twat.

I live in Kent and given the weather round my way, I would imagine the school is closed today. Perhaps some kids from Aylesford School Sports College have been quite entertained with their school and Doug Lawson being in the news. Perhaps they've Googled to see what they can find. Perhaps they've found this.

If they have:

Kids; when your school re-opens, tell Mr. Doug Lawson he is an authoritarian fuckwit, more concerned with your unquestioning obedience to his senseless rules than your not being fecking freezing.

Get used to senseless rules, it'll be no better when you leave school. Get used to doing what you're told, get used to being pushed around. Get used to being penalised for trying to do your best whilst those who can't be arsed or cause trouble get the rewards.

Get on-line to i-tunes or some other online musical outlet and download Rage Against The Machine's eponymous album (ask your English teacher if you don't what eponymous means, or even better, find out for yourself), the Christmas number one is on that album. Use the anger on that album, it was written for people your age. It came out when I was your age.

Use your brain when you rebel, but make sure you rebel. Question everything. Ask yourself, why am I being told this? Realise that an education can be political as well as academic.

1+1=2 - that is an academic education.

You should feel guilty because British people who died over 200 years ago were involved in the slave trade - that is a political education.

Slavery is bad. It means you have to do as you are told and follow stupid rules, or you are punished, probably worse than having your coat taken off you on a cold day. But it isn't your fault that all this went on and was banned about 190 years before you were born, is it?

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.

Fuckers.

The One That Loves The Daily Mail . . .

This is how authoritarianism is ushered in and personal responsibility is abdicated.

There was a story in the media over the weekend about a party in Farnborough, hosted by two teenagers in adjoining houses which got a little out of hand after being publicised on Facebook and resulted in around 50 coppers with a helicopter and dog handlers turning up to control the crowd of around 150.

1 copper for every 3 teenagers and a helicopter and some land sharks seems a little OTT to me, but that isn’t the point.

I will say that I love the Daily Mail, no-one does indignant righteousness like the Mail, if it involves the young, the police, alcohol and technology then the shrieking gets ramped up past 11 and well into 12.

It is no wonder in their article that young Jordan is ‘giving it large’ he’s the centre of attention and is loving it. Just like the Sex Pistols with Bill Grundy he’s going to say whatever he thinks is going to cause most controversy. I’ll bet he was actually quite relieved when the old bill turned up and sorted out his mess, he’s just a kid and what seemed like a wild old time in prospect perhaps didn’t seem quite so appealing when it dawned on him that it was his house and his stuff that was in the firing line.

It is the comments on the article that intrigue me most. They have in the dead tree version a section called ‘Straight to the point’ or something similar, and it is full of fantastic Blimpish bon-mots akin to ‘My grand-father spent many happy years in Africa shooting darkies, and old sambo was grateful for it. We should send them all back there.’

The comments on this article have a similar feel. Although their scope is much more diverse and representative of people in the county. They range from the almost Libertarian: ‘Make the hosts of the party pay for the police time and any damage done and it will certainly cure any further self promoters from doing it again.’ – You made the choice, you deal with the consequences.

To the predictable but incisive: ‘And the parents were where exactly?’

To the almost apologist: ‘I thought the police were meant to close parties advertised on facebook. looks like they messed up here!’ – Yes, it was the police’s fault for not calling around at 6pm, kicking the front doors in and shouting ‘don’t even think about it, sonny.’

To the mildly alarming: ‘In fact more control over facebook could help.’ – Yes, but by who? Daily Mail readers?

And the downright mad: ‘Time to get rid of the internet. It's far to dangerous. We survived long before it was around and will long after it's gone.’ And ‘ban the internet! its the only way to make britain great once again.’

To the barely literate ‘This world has lost all a control in the name of demcracy and freedom’

Ban the internet? What? Of course last year there was probably a similar story about party publicised on MySpace, the year before it would have been on a message board, a few years before that, it would have been by SMS.

Three predictable things: 1- Kids will organise parties when Mum and Dad are away. Sometimes they’ll get out of hand. 2 – It will make headlines because it is summer and silly season. 3 – The dead tree press and their righteous attack dogs will blame whichever medium of communication was used to publicise the event as the end of our civilisation.

Kids do silly things. Make them take some responsibility for themselves, learn that their actions have consequences, make them face those consequences. It’s all part of the learning process. Banning the internet and democracy because some kids got a bit pissed up and rowdy, well, it’s as OTT as the kids at the party, isn’t it?

The One That Says 'You Will Look How I Say'. . .

As a kid I remember England playing a qualifying match for the World Cup or Euros away to Albania. I also remember some genuine concerns about whether Chris Waddle would be admitted to the country due to his infamous mullet. Granted, even by 80's footballer standards, it was shit, but I couldn't get my head around the fact that you could be refused entry to a country just because your hair was business at the front and party at the back.

Nowadays I believe that the reverse is almost true, and that some pointed questions may be asked at passport control in Tirana if you turn up without a mullet.

Well, 80's revival seems to be the in thing at the moment. God knows why, I remember the 80's and am glad we've got 20 years distance between then and now. Still history repeats itself, and the latter day Enver Hoxha is revealed as Joe Langley, the NASUWT branch secretary in Salford.

This person has decided that it is very important to jump into the debate surrounding a moustache.

Yes. A moustache.

I feel a certain solidarity with 14 year old Akaash Iqbal. He has been banned (there's that word again) for growing a moustache. Because? Well, as far as I can make out, because he's grown a moustache.

He's 14, when I was 14 I was turning into the hairy wolfman that sits before you today. My 5 0'clock shadow comes at about half twelve. I'm covered in the fucking stuff, and whilst I was at school, got so pissed off with the whole shaving lark, that I grew a full beard. Not some wispy poncy Che wannabe, the full beard like that bloke from Abba.

So yes, it 'grips my shits' to see this poor lad slung out for refusing to shave his face fungus off, and why the hell should he? It's his bloody face. Where do these fuckers get off, what business it is of theirs? He is doing no damage to anyone. I've blogged in the past about kids being beaten at school by their classmates and the schools taking no action at all, but grow a 'tache, you're out of here son.

Let's see what Enver Langley has to say:

Unless you start somewhere and make children abide by a code that's the start of the slippery slope if you let them get away with it.

Sub the word children for teacher and that could have come out of the mouth of Ed Balls. Make children abide by a code? Yes, wholeheartedly. Here's the code. Sit down, listen to your teacher, realise that you have to pick out the indoctrination. Be polite and respectful. Question everything you're told, think for yourself and whatever you do, don't conform. You'll be a long time conforming, so express yourself now, you're young, take the chance now because if you don't, the opportunity may not arise again.

Anyhow. . .

All the school [Manchester Academy] is trying to do is enforce standards and I would have thought everyone would be onside with that.

Ahh yes, but who sets those standards? What if the standard was to dress in Waffen SS uniform, or to have only one book on the set text list, and you had to learn it by heart whilst rocking backwards and forwards?

Nasty controlling little fuckwits who are the first to moan when someone tells them to do something. It smacks of the parlour boy kicking the cat.

You go on and keep growing those whiskers Akaash, really put the cat amongst the pigeons and tell them you've converted to Sikhism, and then ask them about Kesh.

The One That May Surprise You. . .

I couldn't help but notice the subject of ID cards raised its head on the Daily Politics on BBC this lunchtime. It included a marvellous peice of double think from Phil 'Custard Pie' Woolas when Brillo made the point that the biometrics could be stored on passports rather than ID cards. 'Not everyone wants a passport' said Woolas.

Where as you can't get through the doors at Marsham Street for people trying to force their way in to get an ID card, can you?

Here's the suprising bit; I have no problems with an ID card.

That is an ID card that I may choose to apply for, or not. An ID card that does not contain a copy of my fingerprints, DNA, inside leg measurement, favourite brand of breakfast cereal or number of shoes I own.

I have no problem with an ID card that contains my photo, my face is on display every time I set foot out of my door, if I didn't want it seen, I'd cover it. Nor do I have a problem with my address and date of birth being displayed on it, it is already on my driving licence. I don't even have a problem with an RF chip in the card carrying an encoded electronic version of my photograph, that would make it very difficult for someone to appropriate the card and substitute the photograph.

What I do have a problem with is the idea that I would have to have an ID card, and one would assume that being obliged to have one, I'd be obliged to carry it with me at all times. One can only assume that being obliged to carry it, a nice policeman would have powers to ask to see it if he fancied having a look.

The phrase 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' cuts no ice with me. Firstly, when I walk down the road to the shops, I'm doing just that. I am a private citizen, and where and when I choose to go for a walk is nobody's business but mine, I am doing nothing wrong.

I'm a reasonable person, and not given to unctious displays of resistance. If a policeman comes up to me and politely asks me where I'm going, I'd probably be minded to say 'I'm just walking to the shops, Constable.' I'm not about to make a big fuss about it, despite the occasional digs at the Old Bill on here, I actually quite like the police. I've always personally found them to be professional, sensible and reasonable. In the main, they are decent people who are doing a job which, through ridiculous over legislation, changes every day. They have little hope of keeping on top of the changes and have a management which implements initiative after initiative. In my opinion, most coppers just want to go out and catch bad guys. It is sad that they find themselves as pawns in a political battle.

The problems come where a simple question posed by a police officer who may have just seen something to get their spidey-senses tingling turns into the routine tap on the shoulder and the request 'papers, please.'

How many times have we seen the scene in the Cold War era thrillers, where the noble Communist regime citizen is stopped by a plain clothes agent with that same request?

I commented a while ago that it was the little things from Communist Eastern Europe that chilled me, the big monolithic systems of controlling government provide a dull ache, but the idea of being stopped on the street and being questioned, for no apparent good reason, checkpoints on the roads, having to provide details of where you are going and for how long when you leave the country, having to do the same when you travel internally, having your vehicle tracked, and your movements monitored when on foot, these all provide sharp pricks of pain.

Some we will hopefully never see in the UK, some will certainly happen, and soon, others are here already. The introduction of an ID card such as is proposed is a big step down that road and it makes me very uneasy indeed, not just for what this government would do with it, but for what the next one, and the one in ten years will do with it. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be almost impossible to put it back in.

The One That Will Not Be Going On A Booze Cruise. . .

. . . to Berwick upon Tweed.

Thankfully I do not live in the only country in Europe planning to introduce a regime to set a minimum price for a unit* of alcohol.

The SNP must HATE being in power to introduce a policy such as this. Another example of authoritarian fuckwittery. Poor old Scots, at least in England we only have 3 parties of authoritarian fuckwittery, those unfortunate bastards have 4.

I look forward to seeing Customs detection officers stood on the Anglo-Scottish border. 'And where have ye bin, sonny? Doon to England fer tha' cheap booze? Open the boot up. Hey, Wullie, c'mon and see all this booze!'

Good Lord, how to ensure a 'Summer of Rage' north of the border. Leg Iron quite rightly says that if we don't riot, Labour will be swept out office at the next election. If we do riot, there will be no election.

The SNP have the Scottish Parliament, Labour have a lot to lose north of the border in a Westminster election, a few riots, Civil Contingencies Act kicks in, no elections, SNP and Labour win. Be careful Scotland, be very careful, don't raise to the bait.

Of course, ALL Jocks are terrible alcoholics, so they'll all react like Father Jack. We've had it, Brown will clamp down on us, suspend 'democracy' and all because some Gorbals tramp sees the cost of a bottle Buckfast go up.

*That's the same 'unit' that was revealed to be a measurement with no more grounding in science than the creator's imagination.

The One That Wonders What The Phrase Means. . .

I encountered a new phrase yesterday; 'summary conviction.'

I'll contextualise it, in the fair city of Canterbury it is now an offence to let your dog walk off the lead. I'm a responsible dog owner, I always pick up after my dog and I do not let her walk off the lead except in places where I know she will be safe doing so. I'm not concerned about her savaging people, because I know it won't happen. (And yes, I do know, dogs are entirely predictible, read up on amichien bonding, it is surprisingly Libertarian and the results are startling, even in older dogs).

However the attitude is that dogs off the lead could alarm or attack people, therefore, anyone walking their dog off the lead is subject to a £60 fine. The logic is impeccable, and I await the next initiatives; fining people £60 for going into a pub because they may get pissed up and attack a passer-by, or fining people £60 for driving their car because they may run someone down.

I put myself in the hypothetical position of being confronted by one of the City's wardens, trying to give me a fine.

'Name?'
'Not telling.'
'Address?'
'Get stuffed.'

I'd refuse to pay it, take me to court, it will be my word against yours. I'll tell the Magistrate that these people are on performance related pay and have ticketed me to meet targets. My dog was on the lead. Actually, it wouldn't even get that far in court, I'll guarantee they don't meet their statutory disclosure requirements under Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act, it'd be thrown out through abuse of process.

Anyhow, the by-law refers to 'summary conviction', it has no definition in the PDF files provided on the council's website, I can only assume that it means 'you are guilty because we say you are, no caution, no representation.' Fuck that, that isn't what 2000 years of history and common law in this country says, and I'm not about to accept that with these arseclowns.

It all sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? But it cannot and must not stand, because once we accept one little bit of it, we are screwed, the police, bad enough at present, would be turned into Judge Dredd characters.

Let's look at another example, Obo hits the nail squarely on the head when commenting on this article. Harman has passed summary conviction on Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin;

"The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted.

"It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract, but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that's where the Government steps in."

Whoa! The law and process mean nothing. 'We have dediced this must be so, therefore it shall be.' Fred is a revolting little fucktard, but a contract is a contract is a contract. It is not up to the law to be popular, or to change with the direction of the wind, it is the law's job to be fair and to be applied consistently without fear or favour.

The rule of law is the glue that binds our society together, once that is washed away we find ourselves getting closer to Mugabe step-by-step. I'm waiting for the PM to remark on the next General Election by saying 'it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted.'

Only YOU can stop this from happening.

The One That Is Full Of Admiration . . .

David Blunkett earlier today when he realised he had a great chance to stick the knife in.

Sometimes I think I may have got some people wrong. I always thought that Blunkett was an authoritarian wankstain with no more right to live on God's green Earth than a weasel. It turns out I could be wrong.

In a stunning about face, he's due to tell Essex Uni's law students that Britain is in danger of becoming a 'Big Brother state.'

Christ on a bloody bike. Next week, Pol Pot will be popping along to warn people that working in fields can be, like, really bad for you if you don't take a breather every now and then, followed by Adolf Hitler warning against the threat of gas chambers.

Blunkett must have balls the size of fucking grapefruits to stand up in a public forum and say:

'It is not simply whether the intentions are benign, undoubtedly they are, but whether they are likely to be misused and above all what value their use may have.'

Let me guess David, the big boys made you bring all this shit in when you were Home Sec. Did they threaten to steal your dog or something? Or is it just that your mate Tony isn't about anymore, you don't like Gordon very much and you can't wait to stick the knife in?

Leg Iron is quite right when he says that there's no loyalty amongst The Righteous, they are the most self-centred, ruthlessly ambitious bunch of arseholes out there and God help you if you look a bit wobbly, because they will descend upon you like a pride of lions on a lame zebra.

Even taking into account that Blunkett has discovered a Libertarian heart, forged in the fires of the Peoples' Republic of South Yorkshire, he betrays his true authoritarian leanings.

'Let's make me popular! I think we should scrap ID cards!' The crowds will carry him shoulder high from the room, cheering and singing his name, especially when he chips in with 'holding a passport would become compulsory for all British people, who could choose to opt in to the ID card scheme if they wished'

Thicker than bottled pig shit. . .

The One That Is A Criminal . . .

European Commission meeting, earlier this month.

Yes! Finally made it! That's right folks, I'm officially a subversive. Chances are that you are one too, do you think if I'm really naughty that I'll find myself transported to Australia? New Zealand or Canada would be fine. Costa Rica and Switzerland wouldn't be so bad.

Anyhow, courtesy of Raewald comes this startling list of offences which could now see you sat firmly on the European naughty step database:

Offences related to waste - Check. I've put a battery in my household waste.

Unintentional environmental offences - Check. Intentional actually, jet washed my garden during a water shortage.

Insult of the State, Nation or State symbols - Check. Have you read this blog?

Insult or resistance to a representative of public authority - Check, see above.

Public order offences, breach of the public peace - Does Old Holborn's walk count?

Revealing a secret or breaching an obligation of secrecy - Not done this one.


Unintentional damage or destruction of property - Check.

Offences against migration law - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing) - Not done this one.

Offences against military obligations - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing) - Not done this one.

Unauthorised entry or residence - Eh?

Other offences an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing) - So pretty much anything they fancy then. I said boo to a goose once, does that count?

Other unintentional offences - See above.

Prohibition from frequenting some places - Check, wasn't allowed in a casino for 18 years

Prohibition from entry to a mass event - Not done this one.

Placement under electronic surveillance ("fixed or mobile" - eg: home, car, mobile phone etc) - Who knows. Oooh, yes. OH's walk again.

Withdrawal of a hunting / fishing license - Not done this one.

Prohibition to play certain games/sports - Check. Detention at school cut back on lunchtime football.

Prohibition from national territory - Not done this one.

Personal obligation - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing) - Eh?

"Fine" - all fines. inc minor non-criminal offences - Check. I've had a parking ticket and returned a library book late.

Fuck me, I make Fred West look like Gary Lineker. It's a fair cop, I'll come quietly.

But of course, we're much better in this organisation than out of it.

Give me a fucking break, is this really what my grandfather fought for in the 1940's? I've broken it a few times, so I'll do it again.

Dear EU,

You are the biggest collection of authoritarian fuckwits it has ever been my misfortune to encounter, your actions would have Hitler, Stalin and Mao walking around with ecstatic boners if they could see what you are doing.

I detest absolutely everything about you, and will resist your attempts to turn a whole continent into the most soul destroying, grey and hateful place on Earth.

I detest you, and hope you all die in a wide variety of humiliating, painful and agonisingly slow fashions, whilst the citizens of Europe urinate on you and stamp on your heads, and even that is better than you deserve.

Love,
Snowolf.

The One That Is Glad Someone Is Making Sure I Can Sleep Safely In My Bed At Night. . .

Phew. Thank God for that.

I've been very worried. Whilst I'm far from convinced that man has a major part to play in climate change, (indeed I'm not entirely sure the climate is warming, Xmas in the North East US/Maritime Canadian provinces, anyone?) it is true that over the last 100 years we have done some shocking and idiotic things to our planet.

The destruction of the South American rainforest could have very bad results, it could lead to the extinction of a number of animals, birds and insects, some yet to be discovered, not to mention flora that could prove useful in drugs development, it means the destruction of the way of life of aboriginal communities that have lived quite happily in leafy isolation for thousands of years and it means we'll still have to put up with Sting generally getting on everyone's tits and producing albums of lute music. It is a bad thing.

However it pales into insignificance when compared to the threat posed to our way of life by consenting men putting their willies up each other's bottoms. Well, that's what the Pope says.

He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction.

Well, I'll put aside the God bit for now. I've said before, if I was God, those who run organised religions and claim to know what He wants and speak for Him, would be right up the top of the smiting list. Self destruction? Certainly. Where will we start? Slavery? Hatred? Wars which still have religion as the catalyst? How about repression in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Saudi, Iran, China and a host of others? No, good old Pope Benedict gets right to the heart of the matter by saying self-destruction is brought about by a bit of bum sex.

I've never indulged myself. My arse is strictly a one-way street, but if it makes you happy, then carry on, it's not doing me any harm. The same goes for you ladies, if you want to take a close interest in the workings of another lady, that's fine.

People have been doing this sort of thing to each other before the Christian church existed and we're still here. If God really was concerned about it, I'm sure He would have taken some action by now.

So, Popey, why not get your own house in order first? Why not take some proper, radical action about the systematic sexual abuse of children perpetrated by your organisation? The old joke has it that Priest stands for Paedophile Resident In Every Small Town. I'm much more concerned about the harm done to unwilling or co-erced participants in this.

When push comes to shove, what two consenting adults get up to with each other is nobody else's business, as long as no third party is being harmed. That's harmed, not offended, by the way. It certainly isn't the business of some old member of the Nazi Youth who has swapped one ugly totalitarian auhoritarian regime for another.

Let's hope we see Stephen Fry deliver his own festive message, (this is a celebration of the winter solstice, I'm sure I read somewhere that the Romans held the census in the summer, so old JC is probably a Cancer) where he warns that old celibate Germans with ridiculous dress sense are a big threat to humanity.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. You religious lot have had it. You are corrupt, irrelevant and discredited. You've had a good run, but it is now time to go. So why not be good chaps and fuck off and leave us alone, eh?

The One That Thinks It Is A Step In The Right Direction. . .

Well done to the European Court of Human Rights for deciding that it is a breach of human rights to store the DNA and fingerprints of the innocent on a database.

What a sad day when the government of a country that used to be a bastion of liberty the whole world looked to is taken to court over this horrible and disturbing policy. It is even sadder that Jacqui Smith seems determined to ignore the ruling. But then this is what happens when you speak against our glorious leaders, you get ignored. At best.

Leg-Iron has a good posting on this subject.

I'll leave you with these points:

DNA and fingerprints of the innocent being kept against their human rights.
Opposition MPs having their offices searched without proper procedure being followed.
Opposition MPs being arrested.
People being stopped and searched on the street for no reason other than the plastic plod felt like it.
The threat of being carted off to the cells for being unable to provide ID for no reason other than the proper plod feel like it.

They may have been writing about the USA, but the line from Rage Against The Machine's 'Know Your Enemy' seems quite apt; 'the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy.'

UPDATE

I've removed a comment from some spammer telling me how I can earn £5000 buy doing something. I didn't really pay attention.

I don't like deleting comments and have never done so before. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but please don't try and sell me stuff. If I want it, I'll already have it or will go out and get it off my own back.