All getting a bit silly now.

I wrote yesterday about the bovver in Tottenham on Saturday night. Last night we saw sporadic events in Brixton, Enfield and other spots. This evening I’m seeing pictures on Sky News from Hackney and Lewisham where it is kicking off.

What is surprising me is the simplicity with which the media are approaching these events. I do not see a connection between the events in Tottenham, where I maintain that a small number who were angry about the shooting were joined by a larger number who were just generally pissed off.

What we have seen yesterday and will no doubt see this evening is a different beast altogether. These are not demonstrations (whether I agree with the focus of the demo or not is irrelevant) but wilful acts of vandalism and looting. A tear-up as the result of emotions running high is one thing, pre-meditated destruction of property is another.

As I drove home from work, there was a discussion on the radio about the causes of this. Both the BBC and Sky have referred to these morons as ‘anarchists’, I’m not sure if they’ve sat down with them and discussed their feelings about the State and how it infringes on the private individual. I get the feeling it is just an easy tag to hang on people.

This has been described as violence by social network. Evil social networking. Before twitter and facebook it was impossible to sort this sort of thing out. Except when it’s happened in the past it was caused by mobile phones and the dangers of text messaging. Before then it would have been people talking to each other in the street and in the pub. Let’s not kid ourselves, this has nothing to do social networking, don’t be lazy. People have always communicated.

‘What could have caused this?’ comes the plaintive cry. Referring once again to yesterday’s posting, I believe that people are just generally angry and frustrated. This ain’t it. It has been suggested that it is due to the cuts. Don’t be bloody silly, it’s nothing to do with that either. It isn’t down to racial tension.

What has caused this is a systematic removal of people’s ability to think and act for themselves. We’ve had twenty years of people being told that they are not responsible for themselves, that the State will look after them, guide them on every step of their journey through life. We’ve had twenty years of the State providing, telling people they are entitled, telling people that when they do bad things it isn’t their fault. We’ve had twenty years of the judicial system, or more accurately the politicians behind it, failing to deal with recidivist offenders put before them, handing them ridiculously short sentences in a prison system which sees prisoners getting more rights and better conditions than those staying in NHS hospitals, or worse still, no prison sentence at all.

These people have been told they can do what they want almost entirely without consequence. They see the actions of the anti-cuts movement, of UAF and the EDL, of the people in Tottenham and they see a police force which seems helpless to intervene, a police force that will arrest people for singing ‘Kung Fu Fighting’ yet that will not move in to stop violent and criminal damage for fear of upsetting the left wing hand wringers, and a police force that has its hands tied by the judicial system. They think to themselves, ‘looks like a laugh, why not?’

The word being trotted out time and again is ‘community’ the community is angry, upset, fearful about and of these disturbances. Yet the powers that be demonstrate that the community doesn’t matter, it is ignored, insulted and destroyed, by successive Labour, Conservative and Coalition governments.

There’s been a spokesman from Lewisham council saying that it is the school holidays and there are many young people with not much to do. Well, who’s fault is that? I used to make my own fun, never stretched to setting light to a police car or a shop though. Once again, it is the people like the fabled ‘community outreach officers’ who have told people that they cannot, indeed must not, do anything unless it has been organised by some agency; controlled, regulated, register checked.

So, we’ve a generation of people who have been told that nothing is their fault, not to think for themselves, that their actions have no consequences, that they have no responsibilities, that they can have and do what they want, for free.

Your monster has just escaped. Scary, isn’t it?

Also available on thesnowolf.com

The Hempen Rope.

As alluded to in an earlier post, The Sun has a campaign running to re-introduce capital punishment. Anna has had a couple of articles about the same subject over at her place. I had starting composing a comment before I realised it was going to go on a bit, so decided to express myself here instead.

There are several points as to why I oppose the death penalty completely;

Firstly – If someone were to kill someone close to me, and I went and killed them, I would be, quite rightly, charged with murder. I see no difference between me going and killing someone and the State going and killing someone on my behalf.

Secondly – Taking the above into account, I see no distinction between the two acts, yet if I were to do it, it would be described as revenge. If the State did it, it would be described as ‘justice’. How is it just? It is not justice, it is revenge. Revenge carried out in the heat of the moment is bad enough, but revenge as a dish served cold? That really is chilling.

Thirdly – The signal it sends out is clear; you belong to the State. If the State has the power to decide to let you live or to condemn you to death then it takes the ultimate in power over our lives. Oh, sure there’ll be conditions and qualifiers and what-not, but things change. Remember the free trade block we joined? That’s all it was. How’s it looking now? No. I belong to me and no-one, no-one at all has the authority to say if I deserve to live or die.

Fourthly – It simply doesn’t act as a deterrent. It just doesn’t. Figures from the US show that the number of people on death row in 1968 was 517. In 2010 it was 3242. Granted, you are most unlikely to be executed in the year of your conviction, but even so, if the death penalty was effective we should still expect to see that 1968 figure decreasing, or at least holding steady.

Fifthly – How does locking someone up for 15 years in prison and then killing them constitute justice? If someone’s been sentenced to death, then take them down and kill them. Keeping them hanging around for a decade is expensive, and I would submit, perverse. What are we doing? Teaching them a lesson? Surely the point of doing that is so the offender can see the error of their ways and not do it again of their own free will. Teaching them the lesson and then killing them is a lesson wasted.

Sixthly – For what offences will the death sentence be handed down? The Sun goes for killing children and policemen. Well, what about little old ladies, what about terrorist attacks? How about planning terrorist attacks? Drug smuggling? Human trafficking? Rape? Arson? How about a crime of passion? Showing dissent and disrespect to the State? Eco-crimes? Being a pain in the arse? As I said earlier, that which is implemented today can look very different tomorrow. Once you give them that tool, they will use it and they will expand its use.

Seventhly – What when (and it will be when, not if) you get it wrong? Is it really acceptable to kill an innocent person? This all comes about because an innocent person has been killed, does killing an innocent person in return make it OK? Will ‘sorry’, a posthumous pardon and a compo payout to the relatives make that better? The phrase ‘for the greater good’ looms large in my mind here – that is a phrase which means individuals are worthless, and that if a mistake is made it is regretful but irrelevant, it is for some greater good.

Finally – What method do we use? Stoning? Oh, no, that’s too barbaric. No, no, you want a method that does the job, but doesn’t actually make someone feel like they’re killing another person, even though that’s what they’re doing. It means the executioner will not get upset and add a veneer of respectability to proceedings. Firing squad? Too military? Oh, OK. Guillotine? Too French. Hanging? A bit old school. Electric chair? Yeah, well, I’ve seen The Green Mile. Lethal injection, then. Yes, that’s nice and clinical, isn’t it? Again, I don’t know which is more horrific, the blind fury of a public stoning, or the cold calculated practice of tying someone to a table and injecting them with a cocktail of fatal chemicals.

If we absolutely have to have the death penalty, then I suggest it must be at the unanimous request of the immediate family of the victim and with the agreement of both judge and jury in unanimity. The entire immediate family of the victim (including children) and the entire jury and judge must be present at the execution, and the condemned must be killed by way of beheading, and the beheading must be carried out by a member of the family of the victim no more than three years from the date of conviction or dismissal of appeal. The family member will be obliged to take breakfast at the same table with the condemned on the appointed day. The remaining family, judge and jury must stand face on to the condemned as the sentence is carried out, in the same room, and at a distance of no more than four metres.

There will be no repeat performances, and any failure to meet the conditions above will lead to an automatic commuting to a life sentence.

Also available on thesnowolf.com

Compare and contrast.

An internet blogger has been jailed for 12 years after admitting soliciting the murder of MPs who had voted in favour of the Iraq War.

Now, he’s a very naughty boy. I may occasionally talk about lamposts and piano wire, but I don’t for one moment counsel such a course of action. You can’t go round inciting people to murder and expect to be given a free pass. And even accounting for:

Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, 23, from Wolverhampton, was also sentenced for other terrorism offences.

We have to assume that as these ‘other terrorism offences’ aren’t disclosed in the article that they aren’t sufficiently sexy or, dare I say it, explosive to bother about.

12 years does seem a little steep, mind. Trying to get someone to off an MP is one thing, actually making them do it is another. Given that no-one is in the dock on a charge of conspiracy to do so, or on a charge of actually doing it suggests he wasn’t that effective.

In what has been a bad news day for my fair city of Canterbury, I cannot help compare the sentence handed down to Ahmad with the sentence handed down to our former Sheriff:

A former Sheriff of Canterbury has been sent to prison today after admitting indecently assaulting a vulnerable youngster and downloading child pornography.

It turns out he’s got a young girl to undress and sit on his lap, he also seems to have, somehow, managed to get himself into a situation where he’s been able to grope a woman under her clothing, and also whilst she was in bed. I’m assuming he wasn’t in the bed at the time. Then there’s the 11 charges of indecent images, including sado-masochism being visited upon one poor child that he’s also been convicted of.

Fisher [. . .] was jailed for a total of 15 months and banned him from working with children for 10 years.

Really? 15 months?

I’m not going to blame the judge as she has a framework she has to work from, but it doesn’t seem right to me that writing about killing MPs is in the eyes of the courts almost ten times as worse as actually engaging in a physical act of sexual abuse against a child.

Something is very wrong here.

Also available on the new thesnowolf.com

And another one.

Wolfers' note: Also available on the new thesnowolf.com 

Isn’t it weird that when Ken Clarke starts banging on about the right to defend oneself that we now start getting cases that fit the bill?

An elderly shopkeeper has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a armed raider was killed in a botched robbery and a second left in hospital.

Attempted? He’s dead mate. Anyway, I thought this was a defensible course of action now. Scrub that, I thought this had always been a defensible course of action.

Cecil Coley, 72, is in police custody today after dramatic scenes at a florists on Shewsbury Street, Old Trafford, at 9.40pm last night.

It is understood the shop was closed at the time and Mr Coley, a well-known Jamaican man known as ‘Papa’ in the community, was playing dominoes with a friend inside when two men armed with. . .

(wait for it)

. . . guns broke in.

A struggle followed which saw one of the raiders, a 30-year-old man, fatally stabbed in the chest.

So, two strapping young blokes, tooled up with shooters (as I believe the criminal fraternity phrase it) burst in on an OAP and get stabbed? You’re not supposed to lose when you bring a gun to a knife fight. He probably died of shame.

A second man, who was wearing a mask, was seen running away from the premises.

It is thought he went to Manchester Royal Infirmary later where he was treated for a stab wound.

Fair play Papa, is what I say.

A police source said: “Early indications are that this is a robbery that has gone wrong.”

No shit.

The shopkeeper was described by residents as a regular church-goer who had run the shop as a fancy goods store for 40 years before handing it over to his children and retiring six weeks ago. They have been running it as a florists.

Local resident Leon Richards, 33, said: “He’s a proud man, very proud of his family. He used to go to the local church regularly and was a real part of the community.

“He is a quiet man, but a good man. He never caused anyone any trouble, he just got on with his business.”

Excellent, so when he’s described as being ‘well known’ in the community that isn’t code for him being some Yardie honcho. Well known would appear to mean a decent, respected and admired gentleman.

Perhaps if we get three of four more of these cases, and if, as is right, no action is taken against those who are defending themselves, the message may get back to the sort of sub-human scum who think it is OK to rob 72 year old shopkeepers at gunpoint. The message? Your turn to be scared.

Free Cecil Coley. Free the Manchester One.

Well, shucks.

Police said the stabbed man was found on Hospital Road and died a short time later.


Ch Supt Kevin Mulligan, who heads Greater Manchester Police's Salford division, said the man suffered "at least one stab wound" during an altercation in the house involving at least one person from the address and four people breaking in.


He said he could not comment further on the injuries or the cause of death until a post-mortem examination had been carried out.

Jesus, so four people break into someone's house and the householder gets stabbed to death?

Well, no, not exactly.

A burglar has been stabbed to death and the householder arrested on suspicion of murder after an attempted break-in at his house in Salford.

Four masked men attempted to get into a house in Ethel Avenue before midnight on Wednesday.

So, four masked men broke into someone's house and one of the intruders got stabbed and died. Well, them's the breaks, the stabber was probably scared out of his wits. The fact that there was only one stabee and that he only got stuck once would suggest that this was not a frenzied, rage fuelled attack of revenge. Preditcably:

Peter Flanagan, 57, son Neil, 29, and his son's girlfriend are being held.


The men and the 21-year-old woman are being questioned on suspicion of murder.

I cannot and do not support the death penalty, but if you and three mates mask up and break into someone's house, all bets are off. This, from the evidence at hand, seems to be a clear case of defense of property and life. In my opinion, a murder charge is not appropriate.

It is possible that the CPS will go for manslaughter, but even though the defender may end up escaping a jail term, he or she will still be stuck with a criminal record that could effect their life for the rest of their days. It seems unfair in the extreme to me.

Meanwhile over the pond:



No problem for law enforcement over there, and quite right too, you cannot cross someone's threshold and expect to be protected. IF the homeowner is lying in wait with the plan to kill the intruder, that is different, but in my opinion in a heat of the moment reaction there should be only one outcome. No charge.

Just to show there's no honour amongst thieves:

The stabbed man, 26, is believed to have been carried away by the other intruders as they fled, before being dumped in a street in Pendlebury.

Classy.

More of this please.

The best way of learning is through one's mistakes.

So when Saeed Khan, the man who, as far as I can make out, runs the only remaining branch of the Post Office in Kent not situated in a bastard WHSmith, was robbed in his shop, he considered the chain of events and wasn't about to make the mistake of being caught unprepared again.

So. . .

Saeed Khan, 62, was alone in his shop in Byron Road when a man armed with a knife entered and demanded money. 

Mr Khan said he had kept a hammer near the counter to protect himself after his shop was targeted last month.

He said: "I hit him on his arm, but then he tried to come closer so I raised the hammer again and that's when he ran off.

Fair play to Mr Khan. Mr Khan sounds like just the sort of chap we need more of in this country.

However. . .

Mr Khan, who has run the post office for 27 years, said he believed the same man was involved on both occasions.

So it would appear our robber has now learned a valuable lesson; don't try and turn over Saeed Khan's Post Office, because he'll hit you with a hammer, and that bloody hurts.

The outcome? Well, this may be a little shocking.

You think I'm going to tell you he's been nicked for twatting this cretin with a hammer, don't you? Well, he hasn't been. I doubt this is due to an outbreak of common sense at Gillingham CID, it is probably down to the fact that the robber has not come forward to make a complaint.

No, the outcome is actually quite predictable.

Det Insp Ann Lisseman said: "(Mr Khan) was very brave but I wouldn't advise that people make use of weapons nearby or try and physically challenge offenders." 

Now, if we had country where the Police (and I attach no blame to the rank and file here) actually arrived when asked and had a better than average chance of catching the little scrote, where protestations about being hit with a hammer whilst engaging in the act of robbing a Post Office being a flagrant breach of one's human rights would be dismissed with suitable alacrity, and where the judiciary had the latitude and disposition to lock these arseholes up in a proper prison for a term longer than the 50% handed down, then this would probably be decent advice.

My advice would be the opposite. Keep a hammer near, and if someone tries to turn your gaff over, go at him with said hammer like a kid with ADHD at a fairground whack-a-mole stall. Once someone tries to harm you and/or yours or to take you and yours stuff, all bets are off. You get what you deserve.

Mr. Khan, I salute you.

As an aside, and to highlight the wonderful stupidity of some of the criminals within our midst, a couple with whom Mrs. Wolfers and I are friendly with had cause to have a late supper at one of my city's numerous Indian restaurants recently. They were surprised when the old bill arrived during an unremarkable dinner service and thoroughly enjoyed the sideshow as two men sat a table nearby were arrested following the inspection of CCTV footage shot within the restaurant earlier that evening.

It transpired that the two gentlemen in question had entered the restaurant earlier that evening and had swiped the tips jar sat on the counter. No doubt having exchanged the contents of the jar for some drinks in one of the city's fine hostelries, they felt a little peckish and decided to go for a curry.

In the same place they'd turned over earlier, where they were instantly recognised by the staff.

/facepalm.

The One That Has Spotted A Flaw. . .

The first bit of fuckwittery under our new new politics new coalition new government new.

Exchange offices in the UK have stopped selling 500 euro banknotes because of their use by money launderers.

Oh, oh this will be good. Who has demanded this?

The Serious Organised Crime Agency says 90% of the notes sold in the UK are in the hands of organised crime.

Hooray! It's SOCA. One of Labour's crowning glories. It's also the BBC, let's see how long it takes for them to talk down to us. . .

. . . ah, here it is.

There has been mounting international concern over the note, which is worth more than £400, and its use by criminals or tax evaders.

€500 is worth more than £400. Did you know that, prole? Did you? Thank God they are there to tell us this important stuff.

The move means nobody will be able to buy the note in the UK - but travellers will be able to sell them if they enter the UK carrying them from abroad.

Oh that's nice. So you'll still be able to bring the item of perfectly legal tender across most of Europe into the country. For now. How long until someone with a €500 bill gets nicked under sus of being an organised criminal?

Hang on, I've spotted a flaw here. Won't these criminals just use smaller notes? And won't it be a pain the arse for everyone? If Spain sneezes then you'll need a €500 note just to buy a $10 bill.

Why stop there? I'll bet organised criminals will use £50 notes. Ban them. Actually to be on the safe side, better ban the sale of all money. And mobile phones, they use them too. And cars. I'm sure the last person I saw in court accused of being an organised criminal was wearing shoes and trousers. They'll have to be banned too.

Election season is over, normal service has been resumed.

The One That Is Being Pithy. . .

One thing's for sure, when we do get the chance to see Jim Devine in court, if he presents like this he'll be more fucked than a lone chamber maid walking into a room full of England footballers.

If this is the best in debating skills that someone who has sat in the house since 2005 can muster, then the mother of parliaments really is a bloody joke.

I hope the judge hasn't sent his black cap to the dry-cleaner, I've a funny feeling he'll need it come sentencing day.

The One That Is Abso-bloody-lutley Delighted. . .

Four out of six ain't bad.

Scared are we?

Theft, false accounting, 2 charges Elliot Morley MP.

Theft, false accounting, 3 charges David Chaytor MP.

Theft, false accounting 2 charges Jim Devine MP.

Theft, false accounting, 6 charges Lord Hanningfield.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead gets off.

One case still under consideration.

Let the games begin. Perhaps we can hire the O2 and hold the trials in there?

The One That Wishes They'd Make Sensible Decisions . . .

I try to avoid writing about sport, especially football. I love the game, but realise there are many more important things going on. Sport in general and football specifically are little islands of calm for me, something I can plug into and just watch without continually deconstructing and wondering about hidden agenda.

I will say that as I've got older, my love for football has diminished. That doesn't mean I don't still love football, but we've now got past that intense first stage of the relationship where you now realise your beloved's imperfections and bad habits. I'm still helplessly in love though.

However, to stretch the metaphor to breaking point, football and I would have had a massive barney this weekend, one of us would have been sleeping on the sofa.

I'm talking of course about the events surrounding the national team of Togo in the lead up to the African Cup of Nations. I was speechless at the time when the Confederation of African Football announced that Angola were to host the tournament. Even by African standards, Angola is a disaster, mentioned in the same breath as Somalia and Eritrea.

What on Earth were the CAF thinking when they awarded the tournament to this very definition of a failed state? Not only was the situation of a team bus being attacked forseeable, it was probably a given. For the tournament to be awarded with the promise of matches taking part in Cabinda is even more ridiculous. Cabinda, an 'exclave' seperated from the rest of the country by a corridor of D.R. Congo (formerly Zaire) jutting out into the Atlantic is very rich in oil and almost completely lawless.

It's not often you'll hear me agreeing with politicians on here, but the Prime Minister of Togo, Gilbert Fossoun is spot on when he demands the team return home from Angola as a result of this attack. Without doubt, professional footballers are spolit bunch, individuals often act in a fashion which portrays the profession in a very poor light, but no-one going to play football in a major tournament should be put in the situation where they are being peppered with bullets.

Part of the problem as I see it is that whilst Africa's golden children have grown up and gone to study at the great European footballing universities, the game's administrators on the continent are naive and foolish at best and grasping and corrupt at worst. One wonders how much cash changed hands in the process to select Angola as the host nation. The African players have grown up but the African game hasn't. A more unsuitable choice than Angola to host a major tournament it is hard to imagine, beyond Somalia and Eritrea. And it isn't as if the CAF don't have form in this area, the play-off between deadly rivals Egypt and Algeria for the last remaining African slot at the World Cup this summer, a match that was always only ever going to be explosive, was held in Sudan.

Yes, that Sudan, big place, lots of people very keen on killing people because of their religion, ethnicity or politics, Darfur and all that. With two of Islam's biggest footballing powers set to face off, they sent them to a country riven with religious violence. Nice one. It could have ended very, very badly indeed, it didn't, but one has to wonder what the supporters of these teams had going through their heads as they boarded planes and busses to the country. What are the supporters of all the other teams thinking as they sit in or en-route to Angola now? If they attack a team bus, offing a few foreign supporters won't even make the 'in brief' sections of the media.

The only conclusion I can draw is that nobody could be that stupid, so it can only be avarice and corruption. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but alongside road-race cycling and boxing, no sport is more corrupt than global football, we have bizarre decisions like this, investigations into huge match fixing ring in Eastern Europe, no doubt fuelled by shady bookies in the far-east and a litany of other examples.

Football is in danger of eating itself through its greedy business partners and amateurish administrators and it damn near breaks my heart.

Another sport which I am very fond of is the American version of football, it is superbly run with robust rules that are enforced with complete impartiality, albeit rarely, because people understand they are in a very privileged situation and don't want to do anything to attract the attention of the game's administrators who really do act 'for the good of the game' (that is FIFA's slogan). I take solace from the fact that Major League Soccer, the USA's initially much derided FIFA recognised national championship is run along the same robust yet egalitarian lines as grid-iron and is enjoying something of a golden period at present. Should global football collapse, as it may, make no mistake, Corporate America is ready and waiting with a tried and tested business and sporting model, and it would be no bad thing.

To read a damning document on the corruption and venality of football, I heartily recommend 'Foul!' by Andrew Jennings. It's quite an eye opener.

The One That Is Going Thieving. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yes, You Will Not Steal.

Can’t this moron be arrested for incitement?

The One That Will Be A National Hero. . .

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

How so?

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

Here it is:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The One That 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 Wants You To Confess. . .

Go on.

Leave a confession in the comments.

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

There's so much to be guilty of.

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

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

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

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

Now, here's a telling line.

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

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

Give me strength.

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

A what? A designated feeding area?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, I made that last bit up.

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

"They feel intimidated by the large numbers of geese.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The One That Wrote A Letter. . .

To his MP (Julian Brazier, CON). Probably a waste of time, but I feel very strongly about this. This is a watershed moment, a point of no return. As soon as the state owns little bits of innocent people, the rest of our mortal bodies will follow as sure as day follows night.

Commit a crime, you've got it coming.

Don't commit a crime, you should be free, free, free.

This is not freedom.

I will post the reply, if one is forthcoming.

Dear Venal Corrupt Trougher, (I didn't really put that, but was sorely tempted)

I am writing to voice my objection, in the strongest possible fashion, to the retention of the DNA sequences of the innocent on what I can only find referred to as 'the database'. (BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8353824.stm) and other major media outlets, today).

It is my belief that a person's DNA is their most private and personal data, and for the state to appropriate this material at their leisure fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state in a most disturbing and Orwellian way. I, and every other person resident in the UK, do not belong to the state. I am a private citizen, and my own personal bio-data belongs to me.

I am thankful that, as far as I am aware, my DNA sequence does not appear on 'the database', I have not been arrested and had my DNA taken from me. However I completely agree with the civil liberties campaigners who are so unhappy with the practice of retention.

I have always been of the impression that the police were an agency tasked with enforcing the law, however I become more and more wary as they embark on what amounts to lobbying and media spin. For them to say that 'retaining samples has helped solve crimes' seems a reasonable assertation on the face of it, but when one investigates the figures it becomes clear that a collection of almost 6,000,000 profiles has helped to solve 0.7% of crimes. Even when accounting for the hundreds of acts this government has declared criminal since taking power, one can only conclude that we are living in a society where crime is the norm, or that DNA retention is not as useful a tool as we are led to believe.

The argument is illogical. Where do we draw the line? It is all very well to talk in terms of rapists and murderers, but the Home Office and police seem to lose sight of the fact that these people have been arrested under suspicion of a crime, not convicted of its perpetration. The inference from the HO is that whilst it could not be proven that an individual committed an offence, they were arrested, so must have some degree of guilt - this goes against the practice of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If we take the argument that retention helps solve crimes, an argument built on weasel words if ever I heard one, then it would be logical to ensure everyone's DNA is taken from them at birth (this is not an argument I subscribe to). A step further? Those arrested and not charged or acquitted in court, being made to report to a police station on a weekly basis? Or being tagged?

Given this account from Cambridgeshire (Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226688/Grandfather-arrested-dawn-held-police-cell-SIX-hours-using-single-swear-word-council-official.html) 11th November) is this man to have his DNA sequence retained, lest he be a rapist or murderer?

This practice reduces the private citizen to the status of a chattel. It is the 21st century equivalent to a Stasi file, an indication of the attitude that everyone is guilty of something and it is only a matter of time before it reveals itself. It is also only as good as the people who administer it, and whilst I would hesistate to accuse the police of tampering with evidence, poor lab practice or searching only for a DNA sample at a crime scene can and will lead to miscarriages of justice.

I find this practice to be repugnant and deeply, deeply sinister, and would hope in the likely event of a Conservative victory at the next general election, that a new Tory administration would ensure that the data of the innocent is destroyed as soon as that innocence cannot be dis-proved.

Best wishes,

Wolfers.