Edinburgh University Rector and BEER!

Via Mr Eugenides, an amusing poll for you all to take part in on the site of Rector nominee Mark Ballard, total nobody and Green MSP (is that tautology?).

And what are the current results?

1. Boris (super OE-type chap): 283 | 78.4%


2. Ballard (non-entity): 74 | 20.5%


3. Linklater (I'll link later. If I can be bothered): 3 | 0.8%


4. Pilger (supporter of moral equivalence and journo scumbag): 1 | 0.3%

This, despite the fact that, as sources tell me, Boris's recent visit to talk to the Edinburgh students culminated in some rude fuckers tipping beer all over him (actually, it was probably lager. The cheap, student fucks).

I always admire the way that the Left argue: it's always reasoned debate rather than beer-tipping, pogroms and gulags, eh?

Twats.

Evil walks the streets (again)

Via Snafu, yet another story of unpleasant little shits being, well, unpleasant little shits.

A MAN who told three young men to pick up litter that they had dropped in the street was subjected to a savage beating, a court was told yesterday.

Closed-circuit television pictures of the three attacking Raymond Beattie was shown to the court. The three men could be seen launching a “brutal and sustained” attack on their victim, who was knocked to the ground and then kicked and stamped on.

Bristol Crown Court heard how the men attacked Mr Beattie, 45, in broad daylight in the centre of Bristol. Danny Rich, 20, Craig Martin, 18, and Ricky Vockings, 20, pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and were each sentenced to one year in a young offenders’ institute.

One year? What the fuck is going on? And why the fuck are they in a "young offenders' institute"? They are all over 16, they should be in jail, and probably for attempted murder. The wee shitebags.

They should also be made to pay the costs of the case, and certainly the costs of any loss of income by the victim. The thing is with these little cunts is that the victim could easily have been one of us. We may not be involved in drug-dealing or crime families, but nor was this victim. He simply asked them to pick up litter.

This is why people do not feel safe in the streets: because little fucks like this get one year in fucking PrisonLite^TM. They should be sent to a hard labour prison, where they get beaten up and, hopefully, buggered to death. Actually, yeah, put them into a government care-home; that'll sort 'em.

The court heard all three defendants had been drinking heavily before the attack and were “deeply ashamed” of their actions.

Really? Good, then they won't mind being made to feel fucking sorry for doing it in the first place then. The violent, drunken, little cunts. I hate them and I hope that they suffer.

A Palestinian writes...

The Intifada Kid writes from Ramallah at Robert Sharp's weblog (and calls me "amateurish and wrong-headed": nice to know that someone gets the point of this 'blog). It is interesting to have an opinion from someone on the ground. However, I do have a few issues with what he writes.

Both effectively make the same point: that Palestinians democratically electing Hamas vindicates Israel’s argument that there is no peace partner.

That was not a point that I made; there was no vindication of Israel in my post. What I did point out was that Hamas have never acknowledged Israel's right to exist, nor have they renounced violence.

If they fail, well, we’ll be forced to keep colonising and occupying their lands, demolishing their homes and shooting their kids- ensuring that they “taste Israeli steel,” as Ottolenghi puts it. And of course, we have to accelerate construction of the Wall: the animals must be encaged.

Is this in the same way that the Israelis have kept colonising Gaza? And these kids that they are killing: are they the ones that run at those checkpoints with guns? Or explosives slung around their waists?

As for the invasion and colonisation, can we please remember who first invaded Palestine, in 1948?

The Arabs had rejected the November 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed the establishment of Arab and Jewish states in Palestine. Jewish and Arab militias had begun campaigns to control territory inside and outside the designated borders. Joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, which Israel, the US, the Soviet Union, and UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie called illegal aggression, while China broadly backed the Arab claims. The Arab states proclaimed their aim of a "United State of Palestine"[1] in place of Israel and an Arab state. They considered the UN Plan to be invalid because it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and claimed that the British withdrawal led to an absence of legal authority, making it necessary for them to protect Arab lives and property.

Were the Palestinians to look upon the Arabs as saviours? No: Plaestinians of all persuasions were displaced (by both Arabs and Israelis).

About two thirds of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories which came under Jewish control (see Palestinian exodus); practically all of the much smaller number of Jews in the territories captured by the Arabs, for example the Old City of Jerusalem, also fled or were expelled. About 700,000 Arabs (estimates vary from 520,000 to 957,000 [3]) became refugees during the fighting.

The fighting ended with signing of the Rhodes Armistice, which formalized Israeli control of the area allotted to the Jewish state plus 23% of the area allotted to the Arab state. The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan until June 1967.

Hang on? The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt? The West Bank was occupied by Jordan? What! I thought that it was only the evil Jews who had ever occupied those lands? What the fuck? And how did the Israelis get their mitts on those areas?

The Six-Day War, 1967 began as a strike by Israel, which Israel and its supporters consider preemptive, against Egypt and Syria following the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli, according to a possible interpretation of international law), a build up of troops along the Syrian border, expulsion of U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, stationing some 100,000 Egyptian troops at the peninsula, and a public announcement by Nasser that he intended to destroy Israel [6]. (In fact Nasser had said this would be an objective only if Israel "embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt"). Surprise Israeli air strikes destroyed the entire Egyptian air force while still on the ground. A subsequent ground invasion into Egyptian territory led to Israel's conquest of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. In spite of Israel's request to Jordan to desist from attacking it, both Jordan and Syria began to shell Israeli targets; Israel responded by capturing the West Bank from Jordan on June 7, and the Golan Heights from Syria on June 9.

Oh, whoops! You can read more about the Six Day War, a model—from the Arab side—of how not to fight a war, here, but here are some salient points.

On 18 May, 1967, Egypt formally requested the withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai. UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel.

On 23 May, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israel-bound ships, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel viewed the closure of the straits with alarm and demanded the US and UK to open the straits as they guaranteed they would in 1957. Harold Wilson's proposal of an international maritime force to quell the crisis was adopted by US President Johnson, but received little international support. The Israeli cabinet met on 23 May and decided to launch a pre-emptive strike if the Straits of Tiran were not re-opened by 25 May, later agreeing to a delay of another two weeks at US request.

On May 30, Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometers from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well co-ordinated tank assault would likely cut Israel in two within half an hour. Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. Nasser declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight". At the same time, several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, also began mobilising their armed forces.

However, because the Arabs were all fighting amongst themselves, and because they were fucking spastics, they lost the war and Egypt and Jordan lost the territories that they had previously taken from the Palestinians. Whoops, what a fuck-up.

The basic conclusion that we come to is that, essentially, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not belonged to the people who call themselves the Palestinians since at least 1948, and the original aggressive invasion was not by the Israelis, but by the Arabs. In truth, had the Arabs not made constant attempts, either by overt invasion or by "people's intifadas", to destroy Israel, then the Jews would not have the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or the Golan Heights.

Many have also objected to the Israeli strikes upon Arab leaders, which they maintain is no different to the killing of Israeli teenagers in an Israeli nightclub. Bollocks.

If these terrorists had not instigated the bombings (and rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip three days after the Palestinians moved back into it) in the first place, then Israel wouldn't be trying to assassinate them. Nor would they be building a bloody great wall around their country.

Whilst I think that the two state option is the best idea, regardless of the fact that the Arabs rejected this idea in 1947, it is not going to happen whilst the Palestinians keep bombing the Israelis (and the Israelis keep killing the Palestinians, obviously).

Hamas weren’t voted into office for suicide bombings. Hamas haven’t even carried out any suicide bombs since 2004.

Well, that really is very generous of them.

Another reason Fateh were ousted was that their leaders were considered corrupt and self-servicing while Hamas’s leadership has spent over a decade building a functioning network of social services that the PA should have been providing.

Well, that's really great. Well done Hamas, the gentle social workers. Wow. Perhaps they have reformed. I'll just not bet on it.

An interesting article by the Intifada Kid that, unfortunately, fails to give any concrete facts; just rhetoric about Israeli invasion and kiddie-killing. In fact, it is as dismissive and biased in its tone as my brief post was. Interesting to get a view on the ground though, as I said.

Rescued from misery by NuLabour

A weekend of over-indulgence in alcohol and some extraordinarily pure MDMA had almost brought your humble Devil back to his old self (despite going all-in at last night's poker game, with a pair of Jacks and pair of Aces, and being beaten by a pissy little triple six), but not quite. Which is why I must thank Tony Blair and his Merry Men for completing the process by utterly enraging me this morning.

Still, you might think from the title of this post that I am being a little melodramatic: fear not, I am not that self-indulgent: I have not been rescued from misery by NuLabour. Oh, no; I refer, of course, to all the little kitty-cats and doggie-wogs who are being routinely beaten to a pulp and starved of mental stimulation by their evil owners.

CATS, dogs and other family pets are to have five statutory “freedoms” enshrined in law — and owners who flout the regulations could face jail or a fine of up to £5,000 after a visit from the “pet police”.

What the fuck?

The Times has learnt that Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, is to produce detailed codes of conduct telling pet owners how to feed their animals and where they should go to the toilet, along with ways of providing “mental stimulation”. Owners of “sociable” pets should provide them with playmates, the codes will say.

I see, this will be the same Margaret Becket whose department presided over the illegal culling of millions of healthy animals during the foot and mouth epidemic, would it? The one who realised that it was illegal and slipped a retrospective law through parliament in order to protect the government employees who were reported to have bashed in the heads of piglets with shovels and other blunt objects, would it? To protect those animal "welfare" officers who, illegally, ordered the killing of animals who had not come into contact with the virus?

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will inform the owners of Britain’s ten million cats, eight million dogs and one million rabbits of their new obligations in a series of pamphlets distributed to vets, pet shops, kennels and over the internet.

I see, and how much is this going to cost? Look, you silly bitch, the country's skint as it is; can't you just do us all a favour and FUCK OFF AND DIE, YOU TROUT-FACED OLD HARRIDAN.

The five freedoms laid down by the Animal Welfare Bill are: appropriate diet, suitable living conditions, companionship or solitude as appropriate, monitoring for abnormal behaviour and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease. The law will be enforced by “pet police”; council employees with powers to enter property and seize animals.

This is a significant shift from the present situation, where prosecutors have to prove a domestic animal is being mistreated.

As to what now? Random searches? And if Fido's ears are a bit droopy, then it's into a government kennel for him? If that's anything like the government care-homes for children, Fido will be addicted to heroin and being regularly buggered by a Great Dane (and the people running the home) before he can bark "knife".

And we get a whole new swathe of jobsworths who have to justify their existence by exercising their petty powers by snooping through our letterboxes, filling in more forms and retiring at 38, on a full pension, suffering from "stress". What a bunch of seedy, little cunts.

The Bill, which has crossparty support and is expected to return to the floor of the Commons in March, also bans the docking of dogs’ tails and pets being won as prizes by anyone aged under 16.

OK, can anyone tell me a practical reason why we dock dog's tails? Right, here is one: dogs wag their tails a lot. When the tails get banged against things, it ends up getting damaged and split. This becomes increasingly painful, and often results in surgery. It's not purely an aethetic thing, OK? Jesus.

The Bill applies to all vertebrates, but a code of conduct for invertebrates, such as lobsters, may follow.

Fuck me, it's happened. They have actually lost their tiny, fucking minds. Oh, and, by the way, there'll be no more lobster on the menu (animal loons have long protested about the boiling of lobsters, citing their "screaming". The fact that lobsters have no vocal chords seems to pass by these dreadful, crusty hippie tossers, but there we are).

And, you see, it is the hippie tree-hugging fuckwits that this Bill is intended to appease. Massive amounts of money given to, for instance, the RSPCA no longer goes to helping to animals: it goes to lobbying politicians for exactly this kind of interference. The big charities must be smashed, for it is they, as much as the pusillanimous NuLabour loons that are driving this intrusive legislation.

If you think that this is ludicrous and just plain fucking wrong, then stop giving to charity, or at least to the big ones. Think that banning smacking is wrong and a stupid, unworkable policy? Stop giving money to the RSPCC. Think that this Bill is appallingly stupid? Stop giving money to the RSPCA, the Pet Care Trust, or any of those other bunny-buggers.

What is so egregious about this piece of shit is, as per usual, that there are laws covering the abuse of animals already. In that way, it is exactly the same as the moves to ban the smacking of children; there are already laws against abuse, it's just that they are not enforced.

As for the government, they are desperately attempting to curry favour with any lobby that will still associate with them—other than the terminally ignorant people in places that would vote Labour even if a ministry official came and culled their wife and family with a fucking spade—they are clutching at straws; anything will do. Keep the rate of change up and ignore the fact that none of the legislation that they have already introduced works, nor has it been followed up successfully (sorry, remind me again what's happening with the Lords). I think that Mr Eugenides sums it up best:

Dear God, why won't you just fuck off?

Quite. Fuck off and drown yourselves in a bucket of pigshit, you fuck-witted baboon-buggering bastard sons of camel-shit eaters. I fucking hate you, and I'm going to eat your children to ensure that your genes never pollute this world again...

UPDATE: The Longrider points out that not only is this a fucking criminally stupid idea, dreamt up by a bunch of fascist cunts, but that some of the advice therein contained is just plain wrong. We are ruled by fucktards. Can we stone them to death now?

Out to get you: James

I’m so alone tonight
My bed feels larger than when I was small
Lost in memories, lost in all the sheets and all old pillows
So alone tonight, miss you more than I will let you know
Miss the outline of your back, miss you breathing down my neck
All out to get you, once again, they’re all out to get you, once again

Insecure, what ya gonna do
Feel so small, they could step on you
Called you up, answer machine, when the human touch
Is what I need, what I need is you, I need you

Looked in the mirror, I don’t know who I am any more
The face is familiar, but the eyes, the eyes give it all away
They’re all out to get you, once again, they’re all out to get you
Here they come again

Insecure, what ya gonna do
Feel so small, they could step on you
Called you up, answer machine, when the human touch
Is what I need, what I need is you

Let me breathe, if you’d let me breathe
They’re all out to get you, once again, they’re all out to get you

Self-indugent post

Sorry, I've not been on my best form recently. I have suspected for some time that the realtionship was not going to last, even to the deadline that we had set (her leaving uni). I had thought that, maybe, compromises could be arranged at that point.

However, I am now looking forward to the next 21 year old student lovely lady that I meet. Anyone got any suggestions of how to meet them? Adelante might be an interesting conversation, even though I don't think that it's a match made in heaven, somehow.

Could I just quickly say "thank you" to all of you who have been so kind (I'll put links in later): MatGB (when are you going to write a piece for The Kitchen, eh?), NHS Blog Doctor (John has been recently, rightly recognised as a god), Tim Worstall (I liked him a lot. And thank you, Timmy, for my Portuguese adventure...), Pete Gray (also a very nice man), Deogolwulf, The P-G (I think that he's still assessing me. I think that it was the long-hair wot dun it. However, he also came up with some very interesting economic points about the Citizens Basic Income which I hadn't considered and definitely want to air*), Arthur (thank you for lunch, I enjoyed it so much. Are you up for a repeat? My treat this time. Why not bring the P-G?), Misha and all Rotties everywhere and, very recently, Katy Newton (whom I recommend by the way). All of these people have been very kind, or simply cheerful and interesting over the last few months in particular.

So, I'm no longer in a relationship: time to concentrate on the company. I have high hopes fpr my business and now it's time to concentrate on them. I will, Boris-style, ask for your feedback: I trust your judgement. Those of us who write and think here, in the political blogosphere, often disagree; I do like the fact that we can disagree and yet still be, I think, a community. There are a very few of my friends who can give as good as they get (Rhetorically Speaking, Tiny Judas (who should blog a lot more) and The Fluffy Econmist, amongst others, I know to be exceptions to that statement). However, in the meantime I have just imbibed vast quantities of pure MDMA and am feeling pretty good, frankly. But not tremendously coherent...

So, cheers all! Here's to a better 2006!

The death of Common Sense

Via Mr FM, the Gorse Fox has stumbled across the obituary for our old friend, Common Sense.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.

If you still remember him pass this on. If not join the majority and do nothing.

A sad death indeed. I, too, am stricken with grief at his passing...

Palestinians just want peace. No, really.

Well, that's gone and fucked it.

Islamic militant group Hamas has won a surprise victory in Wednesday's Palestinian parliamentary elections.

Preliminary results give Hamas 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing on 43.

It also rather gives the lie to the old idea that the majority of Palestinians just want peace.

The thing is that many lefties will start saying "well, if Israel hadn't treated them so badly, then this would never have happened."

Bollocks.

Israel sectioned off the West Bank, etc. because the Palestinians constantly attacked them, not for shits and giggles. And, lest we forget, Israel only had the West bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights because the Arab nations tried to invade them. At least three times.

You can find good summaries here and here.

Hamas's win does provide some serious problems for the Middle East: Israel has said that it will not treat with terrorists and Hamas has repeatedly stated that their aim is the total destruction of Israel. "We will drive them into the sea" was, I think, the particular phrase used.

It also presents a slight problem for the EU, which gives large amounts of money to the Palestinian Authority. As His Imperial Majesty points out:

It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO [Foreign Terrorist Organization].

Now, does the EU have a similar law? One would assume so. And does it have a list of terrorist organisations? And, if so, is Hamas on it? Also, to what extent is the EU willing to piss off the US?

Interesting times, my friends...

"And a litter tray."

Gorgeous George really has made something of an error, and only he seems not to realise it. Here's my nomination for Quote of the Day.

"I did nothing undignified while I was there," said Mr Galloway, to the sound of a million dropping jaws.

Astonishing. Still, we do at least have televised debate in the House of Commons: maybe we'll get to see this moment.

Over in the Commons, they can't wait. The Labour MP Steve Pound promised: "He'll have a saucer of milk waiting for him. And a litter tray."

I can hardly wait!

Definitely single

BOLLOX.

Scraping the bottom (of the barrel)

Yet more Lib Dem fun, with Simon Hughes admitting that he likes bottoms of the front and back variety (sorry, Doc)*.

The 54-year-old MP said in Thursday's Sun that in the past he had had relationships with both women and men.

He said he had considered pulling out of the leadership contest but did not think the issue should disqualify him from playing a part in public life.

Many others have said it, but quite so. It really isn't our business what our politicians get up to (although it's always amusing to find out), as long as they can't be blackmailed**. I think that I would rather that MPs admitted their proclivities rather than let some sinister fucker get a hold over them. However, the following is pretty priceless.

He apologised if he had misled people when he recently denied being gay - saying he had not intended to do so.

Really? Look, you lied, Simon. And you just did it again: and you've just told a lie about a lie. You intended to lie, you intended to conceal the fact that you weren't the "straight option". We're not surprised either about the fact that you swing both ways, or that you lied. Why not just admit it.

Asked by the Independent whether he was gay, he replied: "No, I'm not. But it absolutely should not matter if I was."

You see the lie there, chaps? Yup, it was a lie. A definite lie there, Simon. You meant to mislead people. Full stop. That's what lying is. OK? 'Kay.

Right, now what other exciting Lib Dem stories are waiting in the wings? That Chris Huhne once attended an orgy but didn't inhale? That Menzies Campbell—whilst simultaneously buggering a goat and jerking off his long-lost brother, the veteran journalist Bill Deedes—repeatedly called on Satan to appear and tell him the secrets of the universe? That any Lib Dem said something interesting once?

What more is to come? I can hardly wait...


* You can tell by the lack of swearing in this post, that I really couldn't give two shits about the whole thing. I merely record it for posterity. And I wanted to write the sentence about Menzies Campbell.

** Talk Politics wonders if The Sun could, in fact, be accused of blackmail. Can we try? That would be fucking hilarious...

The Griffin flies

As readers will know, I have found myself supporting, on free speech grounds, Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party. Via Martin, I see that the trial has moved onto Griffin's defence of himself.

[Griffin] said he genuinely believed that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith", but added that this was not a criticism of Muslim people.

As you'll know, there is very little I would disagree with there. There are many Muslims in this country who live their lives perfectly quietly, and who are not raving loonies who blow themselves up on Tube trains (however, quite obviously some are). However, Islam as a faith is easily used to justify these actions. It is also used to justify the appalling human rights abuses across the world, and the frankly mediaeval outlook of many of the cultures which any liberal needs must despise. I am referring, of course, to forced slavery in Pakistan, the "right to rape" mentality, the abuse of women and girls, the mutilations and general misery caused by its adherents. It could also be said that this version of Islam is adhered to by the majority of Muslims in the world.

Griffin described Britain as "a disaster" because of its attempts to become a "multi-cultural paradise".

Would anyone who watched the Burnley riots argue with that? Oh, yes, apart from those who have attempted that neither religion nor culture were to blame, only poverty. However, as we have seen, that poverty is often a result of religion or culture. Whether it is Muslim pupils refusing to use an addition sign, or husbands locking their children in the home in order to give them a "good Muslim education", the Religion of Pieces consistently manufactures its own poverty.

Regardless of any consistent proof that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith", no one should be prosecuted for saying that they believe that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith". What kind of country are we living in, for fuck's sake?

The court heard that he made a speech at Shelf Village Hall, Halifax, in which he said that an elderly Asian man had been the subject of a "wicked attack" in a London subway and that whoever carried out should be hanged.

Interestingly, it doesn't say who said this, but one assumes that this is still part of Master Griffin's defence. If this is true, was it recorded by the undercover Beeb guy? If so, why was this not brought up? Further, will the cameraman return to the witness stand to admit that this is true?

Griffin said the large crowd at the meeting had broken out into an "immediate, spontaneous and generous burst of applause" and after being shown the video in a police interview, he told the officers: "There's no hatred in this audience and there's no hate from me."

It would appear not (apart, of course, for hatred for the attackers; a sentiment with which I can agree, frankly). So we assume that this was on the video, and Master Griffin did, then, condemn the beating of an Asian. Is this trial going a bit weird or what? Are they about to prosecute him for inciting racial violence against whites beating up Asians? Won't the prosecution lawyers' heads pop at this stage?

Griffin said: "I admire people of all races but I would prefer my children, my people, to keep themselves to themselves. It causes problems."

He said his Sikh friends felt this too, adding: "They want their grandchildren to look like they do."

The trouble is with Griffin is that he is often rather plausible. I don't think that segregation works particularly well; in fact, "ghetto-isation" is often blamed by liberals for the racial tensions in this country. The trouble is that people of different cultures tend to segregate themselves to an extent. Naturally, the BNP's solution is to deport them, but that opinion is not what is on trial here (and is, after all, simply an opinion).

Griffin told the court he did not hate Muslims or Asians, claiming it was Islam which was responsible for problems sweeping country after country.

He is not alone here. That is not to say that all Muslims are evil fucks, disruptive to their host society but, as the riots in France, Holland, Denmark and Australia showed, the conditions that Islam imposes often creates divisions and that, in turn, breeds violence.

I would say that Griffin is probably going to win this one, although it's still a pretty close call. And if he does, that will be a victory for free speech in this country.

Griffin, of Llanerfyl, Powys, Wales, denies two charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred and two alternative charges of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.

The very fact that race is taken into account in criminal trials is a fucking farce anyway. What happened to the philosophy that the law is blind? Why is incitement to racial violence more severely punished than incitement to any violence? Why does a racial murder call down twice the sentence of a non-racially motivated murder? If a bunch of white guys kill a black guy and a white guy, are you telling me that the black victim's life is more valuable than the white man's? That is the sort of thing that feeds division, and feeds support for opinnions such as those espoused by the BNP.

Immigration policy in this country has been a complete and utter failure.

The Business

One is always considering new ventures, and the latest idea is to set up a "cool" t-shirt ordering site, very much as a proof-of-concept as well as a profitable enterprise. We would sell t-shirts, but also solicit people to send designs, which would be voted for by readers (no, it's not like Café Press). Designers would, of course, be paid.

An offshoot of this is that I have, since I drew him, been hankering after a t-shirt with my wee Devil on. Just as a quick feeler, would anyone else fancy a (very reasonably priced) t-shirt with my self-portrait, not unlike the one in the header (they would be properly screen-printed: none of that transfer rubbish here)? Do I keep "The Devil's Kitchen" header on, or just have the Devil?

The Devil would be best rendered as "spot" colours, so it would be a very bold design. Tell you what, here is a once in a lifetime opportunity: the first six people who ask for a "Devil's Kitchen" t-shirt in the comments will get a free one, which will also include the URL of the new site on (discreetly done). The next twelve to sign up will get them at £10 (about 1/3 off). We would expect to ship them out by the end of March, latest.

So there we are, sign up and get a free—or, if you are slow, a cheaper—The Devil's Kitchen t-shirt! Who can say fairer than that?

UPDATE: The plan is that your humble Devil will be tastefully rendered in black, white, red and metallic gold inks on a black, long-sleeved t-shirt with non-elasticated cuffs. The legend on the back is likely to be along the lines of "I sold my soul to The Devil at www.devilskitchendesign.com" or something of that ilk (suggestions welcome). It's either that or "I told a bunch of bureaucrat bastards to fuck off at www.devilskitchendesign.com" which some, of course, may prefer...! I shall post a wee piccie as soon as I have got a sample back from the printers (maybe Friday if I am lucky; the people that I have in mind are clients of ours and might do me a favour!).

And, naturally, if enough people sign up, delivery will be considerably earlier than March. So sign up, sign up, one and all...!

Via Deogolwulf, an amusing kicking is doled out, by Blimpish, to everyone's favourite Labour mouthpiece.

Neil, why won’t God strike down stupid, ignorant embarassments like you, to save us all having to read your utter crap?
...

As for your reply to MatGB, it’s the most confused crap I’ve seen so far this year.
...

Really - you are some kind of automated spamming device unleashed by Downing Street, aren’t you?

Harsh, but quite possibly fair, and hardly unexpected. Blimpish is a reformed atheist and Neil has a rabid and, often, ill-considered aversion to religion in all its forms.

What the fuck is going on? In relation to the government trying to ban haggis, Arthur asks if the world has gone mad.

No, the world is sane: it is our government that is bat-shit mad...

The Royal Bank of Scotland is shit*

Gosh, the things that you post when you're pissed, eh?

Still, the Royal Bank are a load of crap. I have heard (from Bill amongst others) that their personal banking—especially in the last two years—has become very good (although I have not found it to be particularly special). Unfortunately, their business banking leaves an awful lot to be desired. Just for clarifiation, I bank at the Edinburgh West End branch and, admittedly, my problems may stem from the unbelievable incompetence of the staff that they hire.

My dealings with the Royal Bank have been pretty poor; I was advised to go with them when I started the business, and that has been a mistake.

1. Firstly, I also switched my personal account to them at that time. I asked if, should I do this, they would match Barclays' £350 overdraft limit. They assured me that they would. Naturally, this was a lie, and they had given me an overdraft limit of only £100. The first that I knew about this was when I tried to take some money out, and couldn't. Because, equally naturally, no one had bothered to tell me that they hadn't matched the overdraft, and had thus effectively deprived me of £250 which I simply couldn't afford to lose.


2. That was when the letter from Barclays, demanding that I pay off the £350 overdraft with them, came in. I thought that the RBS would close that account. Alas not. Still, my bad, I'm sure.


3. All this meant that there were problems with bills being paid, me going over the overdraft limit, and these led to my first application for an overdraft for the company being turned down.


4. I have been through three (or, assuming that they have got around to appointing a new one, four) business managers. The first I never met, despite assurances that he would have a meeting with me, rather than one of his lackeys. This same lackey then became the business manager.


5. Eventually, he got an overdraft in place, and emailed me to tell me it was on the account. I went to the nearest branch to get some money out and, hey, guess what? The overdraft wasn't in place, and that branch had to 'phone him. When I pointed out that he was a bit of an idiot, the teller, with a rueful smile, agreed that he was.


6. When a bill, for which I didn't have enough money, was to go out of my account, the bank moved, without my authorisation, £250 from the business account to my personal. The auditors will have fun with that!


7. There were supposed to be no charges on the account for the first six months; they put charges on. I rang the business manager in a rage, and he refunded the charges, and then extended the charge-free limit until September. Or he said he had. Needless to say, the next bank statement had charges on, and I had to ring him again.


8. I communicated with the business manager mainly by email. Having emailed him several times and received no reply, I finally 'phoned the branch. He had left, and they hadn't told me, or even bothered to keep a watch on his email address.


9. Now on the third business manager, who I went to see shortly before Christmas. I wanted to try to extent the overdraft, and get some information on the Small Firms Business Loan Guarantee. I had a good meeting with her, and stressed the urgency of the overdraft request. I also offered to provide any materials that they might need in order to get it in place. She promised to phone me before Christmas. I sent a couple of emails asking whether there was any progress; answer came there none. On the 25th of January, here I am, still waiting.


10. So, I 'phoned the branch last Thursday: she wasn't available, but would call me on Friday. I 'phoned again on Friday; she wasn't available, but she would 'phone me on Monday. When I pointed out that she had failed to call back previously, the person that I spoke to stressed that I would definitely get a call on Monday. Here we are at the end of Wednesday, and still no call.


11. After applying twice for internet banking (it has to be a hard copy for limited companies), firstly last November 2004 and again last March, I still haven't got it. Apparently, even the business manager cannot call the internet banking people, they can only email. I need to apply again (which means tracking down the company secretary again).


12. Apparently, cheques paid into the business account (even from other RBS accounts) can take six—yes, that's six—working days to clear (as I found to my cost—about £35 worth of cost—at one point).

These are the gripes that I can think of, simply off the top of my head. There is a whole litany of other minor annoyances and irritations, but the above are the substantial points. So, as soon as this company's running nicely again, and I get some time to sort it out, I am going, very politely, to suggest that RBS shove their crap business up their collective arsehole. In the short term, however, I shall ring them in a blistering rage tomorrow. If the relevent person does not get back to me within half an hour, I shall stride down there in a towering strop and hang about looking menacing until they find the person I need to speak to.

In the comments, Adelante points out:

That'll be the private sector wealth creators for you then. Cunts eh?

Quite so. And, if private sector companies are shit, what do we do? That's right: we withdraw our business from them. And, in this case, we also do everyone else a favour and, quite seriously, recommend that no one else use that business's services.

What we say, in fact, is do not use the Royal Bank of Scotland, because the Royal Bank of Scotland is shit.

* Changed on advice from the P-G.

Bloody Devil #6

Right, now this really does deserve not only a Bloody Devil, but also a round of applause: Talk Politics is going Clarkson!

I think that I've finally reached the end of my tether with bureaucrats - no not just any old bureaucrats but the very worst kind of pencil-necked pen-pushing low grade morons that stalk the festering corridors of the bureaucratosphere. You know very well the ones I'm talking about, the ones with big desks and even bigger job titles, the ones who believe themselves to be experts, and worse still professional experts - the ones who think that they know best because that's their job.

I want you all to die. No seriously I do. I want you to go out this evening, go into the garage, fit a hosepipe to the exhaust of your car, run it in through the sunroof, turn on the ignition and sit there until you breath your last breath.

You think I'm joking here, right? Of course I'm fucking joking - that kind of death's way too fucking good for you, way too pain-free and easy. That's right I don't just want you all to die, I want it to be painful, really fucking excruciatingly painful, worse than 24 hours straight watching Galloway prancing around in a red fucking leotard painful.

Why do I feel like this you want to know? Of course you want to know, its your fucking job to want to know these things, makes you feel all warm and squidgy and fucking self-important doesn't it?

The whole post is a joy from beginning to end, and it's just so right. I too wish bureaucrats, and especially those of this particular stripe, would go away and kill themselves. It is the only decent thing for them to do. The only reason that I was considering withholding this Bloody Devil is because these cunts are not objects of public derision: they are a public menace, a danger to the freedoms of us all. They recommend and justify the state's further interference in our lives, these so-called "experts". They are all utter cunts, especially the women, and I hope that they fucking die.

More cancer wishes to the lot of them.

Free Jack Idema Blogburst

Last week, I talked about the way in which the September 2004 trial which landed U.S. Special Forces soldier Jack Idema and his men in prison was actually conducted by the very terrorists he'd spent three years hunting down.
But there's another side to the story of how Jack, Brent and Ed wound up in the infamous Pulacharke prison, and this involves elements within FBI and U.S. State Department, both of which have done everything within their power to hinder Jack Idema's efforts to gain his freedom.

Idema's problems, as those following this story know, appear to stem from his arrest of a senior Afghan judge, Sidiq, in July 2004. At this point in time, Jack was working with the Northern Alliance, operating a safe house where terror suspects could be held for interrogation prior to transfer to U.S. authorities. (There were fifty such safe houses in operation in Afghanistan, and their existence was not a secret from either the U.S. or Afghan authorities.) Although Idema knew the arrest of Sidiq might raise some eyebrows, he had good reason for believing the judge was a high-value suspect -- At the time of the arrest, Sidiq was found to be in possession of the following items:

• Photographs of Sidiq with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
• Bomb plans
• Explosive detonators
• al-Qaida and Hezb-i-Islami documents and recruiting cards
• A letter from Taliban leader Mullah Omar

Unfortunately for Idema, the arrest of Judge Sidiq seems to have prompted the Afghan interim government to move against Jack and his men. Sidiq was, after all, an important man, and his detention perhaps alarmed not only those 'ex'-Taliban who were now working with the interim government, but also those sections of the FBI and State Department who still cling to myths like 'containment' and 'realpolitik'.
Idema, it should go without saying, is very much the sort of man who believes that terrorists cannot be appeased or given settlements -- They must, he says, be captured or killed. This difference of opinion came to a head in the following way:

Instead of a "friendly meeting" the men were arrested at Kabul NDS Headquarters and turned over to former Taliban officials at NDS. When first "arrested," the men were placed in the NDS' underground torture chamber where Jack and Zorro were subjected to beatings until they were unconscious. Jack sustained a broken sternum, torn rotator cuffs, both eyes had detached retinas, etc. Major Ezmerai was electrocuted for days, and the screams could be heard throughout NDS. Syhail and Sherzai were beaten, threatened, and Sherzai finally drugged when he refused to sign a statement against Jack. Bennett was interrogated relentlessly, and threatened with death repeatedly shown a knife and told his ears and nose would be cut off. (To date Bennett has lost 8 teeth because of those beatings.) The torture was with the full knowledge and sanction of the FBI who were directing it, using the Afghans as proxies. FBI agents were at some points laughing about it in the hallway.

And yes, you read that correctly. After the arrest of Idema and his team, the FBI assisted 'former' Taliban guards in torturing American citizens and the Northern Alliance soldiers who fought with us to liberate Afghanistan.
The FBI's involvement didn't stop there:

On or about this time, NDS, acting with agents of the FBI [Unnamed Agents 2 & 3], and possibly Ingram [more on her later] herself, removed Bennett's and Idema's dog tags, removed the their Geneva Convention Identity Cards, and removed Idema and Bennett's U.S. passports. The FBI also removed crucial exculpatory evidence from NDS headquarters; including approximately 50 rolls of 35mm film, 200 videotapes, and 500 documents, many of which were official documents which were evidence of actual innocence.

This process of removing evidence of Idema's innocence continued even after the initial trial -- When Jack and his men were granted leave to appeal their sentences, more evidence was disappeared by the FBI.

Then there's the U.S. State Department, who have acted in a similarly illegal fashion throughout Idema's imprisonment:

Sandra Ingram, Acting US Consul, not only refused to acknowledge Idema's assertion [of his POW status], she refused to pass his request on to the appropriate authorities, and refused to provide him with a copy of the Geneva Conventions as required by law. Idema also asserted their POW status and right to protection to NDS, the FBI, and various Karzai officials. During a subsequent visit by Ingram, Idema put his request in writing and demanded she make an entry in her Embassy notebook (Ingram refused to sign a receipt for Idema's POW protected status request). Further, Ingram refused to forward this request to the Red Cross, stating her DOS bosses "ordered" her not to.

This sort of behaviour continues today, with U.S. authorities refusing to relay mail to Idema, Brent and Ed, and even going so far as to deny them access to food parcels, clean drinking water and medical supplies.

Why? There are two reasons:

1. As stated above, there are those in the State Department, the FBI and the Karzai government who believe that the best way to deal with the Taliban is to incorporate them into the democratic process. To a very limited degree, this makes sense, though only if the Islamofascists are serious about renouncing violence. Judging by the bomb plans and detonators he was carrying at the time of his arrest, Sidiq clearly didn't get the memo on that one.
2. There was Abu Ghraib. During the latter half of 2004, the people involved in Idema's arrest feared the U.S. would take a propaganda hit by refusing to pursue any allegations of torture by its forces, however baseless those allegations turned out to be. By allowing the Taliban to stage a show-trail and imprison Idema, it seems likely that people such as Consul Sandra Ingram felt they could earn Muslim goodwill and remove an obstacle to the political games they were playing with the Karzai government and its 'ex'-Taliban members at a single stroke.

It should go without saying that this is a shameful way for a Green Beret to be treated. After all, while the FBI and State Department in Afghanistan were playing politics, deciding on which Islamofascists it would be useful in the short term to ally themselves with, Jack was on a very different kind of mission. In his own words:

You can't fight terrorists with law enforcement and prosecution, Clinton tried that for eight years. You can't do it, they are animals– they are not human, just ask the families that lost their loved ones on 9/11. When the terrorists capture us they cut off our heads on television. When we capture them they complain that we don't let them p*ss for twelve hours. Well, sorry about that motherf*cker, you were about to drive explosive rigged gas tankers into Bagram and kill 500 American soldiers in a ball of flames. You should be glad I didn't defenestrate you. I believe that real Americans want real counter-terrorist operations, not bullsh*t press junkets and canned PR stories from PAOs that shot a gun once in their life on the basic training qualification range. I didn't start this f*cking war, not the one with bin laden, nor the one with the press, they started it, but I will finish it, or die in the process.

Just so.

Anyone reading this with their own blog can sign up for the weekly Free Jack Idema Blogburst by emailing Cao or Rottweiler Puppy for details. I'd urge everyone to do this, as we're still terribly short on takers. If you want to know more about the story, Cao's Blog has a large section devoted to Jack Idema. There's also a timeline here, and, of course, a huge amount of information is available over at SuperPatriots, without whose work none of us would have learned about Jack's story.

Finally, PLEASE NOTE: The SuperPatriots and Jack images on this site are used with WRITTEN COPYRIGHT PERMISSION and any use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US

jack idema
afghanistan
Technorati Search for Jack Idema

The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:

The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
The Lone Voice
Red Hot Cuppa Politics
Kender's Musings
Irate Nate
The Devil's Kitchen
Cao's Blog
Big Dog's Weblog
Theodore's World
NIF
Rottweiler Puppy
Making Headlines
My Newz n' Ideas
Right For Scotland
Freedom Folks
The City Troll

Howling Mad Murdoch

Given the way in which he runs his empire, I don't suppose that it should surprise me that Rupert "Howling Mad" Murdoch can hold at least two opposing views at once.

Mr Murdoch said that while he thought Labour had been "a pretty good government in many ways", he believed the country was "over-taxed", which harmed business.

Well, he's right about the tax although, since neither Murdoch nor NewsCorp pay tax in this country (and possibly not in any other either), it's difficult to see how he relates that to his life. But, seriously, in what way have Labour been a "pretty good government"? Only Neil Harding and really stupid people believe that NuLabour have been anything other than a complete disaster.

But, harken, for the real lunacy is yet to come.

"They have... extended the nanny state, the welfare state, and destroyed, gone a long way to destroy, this idea of personal responsibility for people's lives.

"It's up to people to get on, and it's up to the government to get out of their way, tax them less, give them more incentives."

You are absolutely correct, Rupe. So, what do you think about the Cyclopean old Labour bastard who has implemented all of this?

When asked about Chancellor Gordon Brown, expected to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister at some time in the future, he said: "I like Gordon very much and I share a lot of his values. The Calvinist background I guess... Scottish blood, you know he does seem to believe in the work ethic."

It seems that Murdoch is a very Christian sort of a guy: he hates the sin, but loves the sinner.

Or can it be that he simply hasn't made the connection between Gordon "he's me best mate, mate" Brown and the high-tax economy? And, yes, Rupe, we all know about Gordon's work ethic: we work, and then he takes the fruit of our work, and hands it over to those who don't work. I'm not entirely sure where his ethics come in though.

Rupert "Howling Mad" Murdoch: what a twat.

A very successful twat, for sure, but a twat nonetheless.

The Scotsman on trust

The Scotsman reports that the private sector in Scotland is fucked.

Businesses have shed 17,000 jobs over a period where the government and its various agencies have hired 24,000 more staff - the exact reverse of the trend promised by Jack McConnell, the First Minister.

The CBI has warned Mr McConnell that his avalanche of government spending is now hurting the economy by squeezing out companies.

An unpublished survey of Scotland's labour market by the Office for National Statistics has found 707,000 people are now employed by the government - almost one in three jobs in Scotland. Such a ratio is rarely seen outside Scandinavia.

This is far higher than the official 577,000 figure published earlier this month by the Executive. But the ONS study includes people like GPs and quango staff - who are technically independent, but work only for the state.

This is fairly appalling. Although not as appalling as the Leader which—and as it's a paid link you'll have to take this on trust—contains a sentence saying that the public sector is starving the private sector of workers.

No, you tossers, it's not. The bloated salaries and jobsworths in the public sector are being funded by massive taxes on business, and thus it is cash, not workers, that the public sector is taking from the private. The private sector has "shed" jobs. This means that it doesn't need any more workers, so the public sector can hardly "starve" the private of workers. It's really very basic, isn't it?

Meanwhile...

SCOTLAND'S job market outpaced the rest of the UK for the eighth month running in December, with wages and salaries continuing to rise.
...

A further robust expansion of staff appointments was recorded, with permanent placements rising at the fastest pace for more than three years.

Despite the threat of fresh cut-backs as Scottish companies, particularly manufacturers, battle sluggish economic growth and strong overseas competition, the country's labour market appears to be in rude health.

Well this is wonderful news! Would you care to tell us exactly how many of those jobs are public and how many are private sector? You wouldn't?

Oh.

Smack my bitch up

As you may have gathered, your humble Devil often has something of a short fuse. Some things tend to annoy him more than others, and the state's interference in our personal lives probably gets my goat-legs the most. So this was always going to be a flashpoint.

Scotland's children's commissioner has called for smacking to be outlawed.

Professor Kathleen Marshall wants to see the removal of the defence of "justifiable assault" for parents who hit their children.

That is because she's a silly bitch. Unfortunately, I have been unable to ascertain whether or not she has any children of her own, although, since one might expect it to be mentioned here—you know, as some sort of justification for the position she holds—I rather doubt it. I'd be happy if anyone could enlighten me. Still, at least she looks a little bit more honest that her English equivalent, Margaret "No, there's no paedophile network in my carehomes. No. No, I'm not listening. No, I'm sorry. No. Lalalalalalalalalalalalalala" Hodge.

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop her being, as I said, a silly bitch.

The UK's four children's commissioners have issued a joint statement calling for further debate in parliament.

They have been urged by the United Nations and the Council of Europe to ban all forms of corporal punishment against children.

Oh, for fuck's sake, I might have known. What a fucking surprise! I should have guessed that the dictatorial hand of an EU institution would be involved here somewhere. Oh, and I really should have guessed that the United "No, there's no genocide in Darfur, lalalalalalalala, we're not listening, lalalalala" Nations might be salvaging their consciences by endorsing this crock of crap.

A year later the Scottish Parliament voted to restrict the scope of "reasonable chastisement" by setting out criteria for determining whether an assault on a child was "justifiable".

Twelve months ago Westminster voted to restrict "reasonable punishment" in England and Wales.

However, the children's commissioners have said the concessions do not go far enough to protect children or to respect their rights under international law.

Prof Marshall said: "This is an issue that is not going to go away.

"We need a clear statement in law that gives children the same rights to protection from assault as adults, and we need more positive support for parents."

God, she really is a silly bitch.

Right, stuff this. We are going to give children the same rights as adults. However, we are also going to give adults the same rights as children. Parents are no longer responsible for children under 16; feel free to abandon your child outside the nearest government office. All children are to slave away, 9 to 5, to pay for their accommodation, Council Tax, food, nappies and other expenses. If they do not, parents can now take their child to court and get an arrestment order against them. If the child still can't pay, then it's debtors' prison for them.

Does the above start to sound completely stupid yet? That's because it is. Children do not have the same rights as adults because they are not adults. OK? 'kay.

The commissioners' statement said: "We believe that condoning smacking gets in the way of progress.

Because progress is always so utterly wonderful, isn't it? Ah, wait, here comes the kicker...

"It conflicts with our governments' aspirations for children and our society."

Does it really? Well, what a surprise. The government wants you to raise your child in the way that the government wants; presumably with more Respect. (Strange, I would have thought that these NuLabor bastards would be in favour of more summary punishment than not.) How long before the bastards come around to put your newborn into the state-run, taxpayer-funded podding hutches, eh? Presumably Professor Kathleen Marshall and fucking Toynbee will be sitting there running the pods and brainwashing children into better new Labour acceptance...

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council said it was concerned parents could be alienated if the law was changed.

Speaking on BBC Scotland's Sunday Live programme, spokeswoman Judith Gillespie said: "The whole idea of physical punishment is moving away from where it was 10 or 20 years ago.

"People are not actually pro-punishment in any way, shape or form. If you then cut across this and criminalise parents at this stage then you're likely to up the ante rather than allow this natural process to carry on."

Yes, yes, but also criminalising parents is not going to do the child any good. What happens if you, for instance, jail the parents? Do you take the child into care? Well, we all know exactly how good for children the government-run care homes are.

Maybe Professor Kathleen Marshall should look at the government's record on child care before attacking the parents. Perhaps some sage advice such as "Please ensure that the care workers are not savagely and violently buggering children in care homes, and do try to ensure that 14 year-old girls are not sneaking out of the homes and working as protitutes to feed their heroin habit; also ensure that, if they are, and their frozen little fucking corpse is found outside King's Cross station, that the press do not get their hands on the story."

Luckily, we have yet another silly bitch to comment and elucidate us.

Kelly Bayes, of the charity the Aberlour Child Care Trust, said the issue needed to be re-examined.

"A growing number of organisations and professionals support the commissioner's stance," she said.

"We're looking at legal reform because those involved in protecting children from abuse want the law changed to provide a clear basis for child protection.

Right, Kelly, you fucking moron, we already have child abuse laws; they didn't help wee Victoria Climbie very much, did they? What we need is effective application of standing laws, not the criminalisation of sensible and moderate parents. So I suggest that you find ways of making sure that actual child abuse doesn't happen—perhaps Margs Hodge can give you some pointers—and leave everyone else alone. How about that, you interfering bag? Eh?

"As the law stands it undermines the work of health visitors, midwives and all those who try to promote positive, non-violent discipline."

Yeah, well, the key word here is "promote". It's a long way from "force with threat of prosecution". Do you see you hideous, fucking gorgons? Do you? Do you understand yet why I fucking hate you and wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire? In fact, I'd probably be the one who'd lit you in the first place.

Scottish Conservative justice spokeswoman Margaret Mitchell said the current law was firm enough to protect children and parents.

She said: "The law differs from adults and children for very good reason and the law on reasonable chastisement is fair and sensible.

Bloody hell, yet another woman, this time saying something vaguely sensible. Thank fuck for that. Pity she's not in power really.

"It puzzles me why the children's commissioner, who is appointed by the devolved parliament, now appears to be taking this issue to a UK minister who has absolutely no competence to deal with it."

It's because interfering busybodies love to show everybody how clever they are. Besides, I'd be willing to lay odds that the insidious stench of EU money is somewhere in the funding of that report and I am willing to bet that it is stipulated that Professor Kathleen Mitchell's report is relevent to the UK Parliament as a whole.

Christ! I'm so fucking angry that I think I'm going to have to go and have a pint before I rip my table apart with my bare hands. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! You fuckers!

UPDATE: Seriously, I've got a headache now. I'm going to the pub.

UPDATE 2: The Herald's coverage includes four children who say that they think smacking should be banned (although they don't seem to say whether they'd be happy to dob their parents in to the government, see mummy and daddy go to jail and be taken into care where a regular, hard fucking awaits them). In other news, cows say that they aren't too keen on slaughterhouses, water is wet, and Mark Oaten is sleeping in the spare room tonight.

Run for your life! Bees!

Straight from the horse's mouth...

... or the gigolo's cock.

You decide...

Scottish Executive make sensible decision shock!

In a strangely out-of-character move, the Scottish Executive have made a sensible decision, by overruling the ludicrously incompetent City of Edinburgh Council.

A controversial children's playhouse in an Edinburgh back garden has been saved from demolition.

City councillors had ruled that it should be pulled down because it was out of place in a conservation area.

However, Scottish Executive ministers have decreed it can stay because it is no more intrusive than garages nearby.

They actually employ people to discuss this shit. I mean, really.

Biometric ID Cards by the back door*

Via Nosemonkey, a Register article on biometric ID Cards.

The UK is to go ahead with a biometric-backed system of ID verification this year, whether or not the ID Cards Bill is passed by parliament. The 'Plan B', which is going ahead under the auspices of the Passport Office and which does not require parliamentary approval, was touched on by Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland during the recent House of Lords debate ID cards debate.

She described a new service, "passport validation, a commercial service that will come on stream in 2006," which is an aspect of the Passport Service's Personal Identification Project (PIP). The validation/verification service is referred to briefly in the organisation's 2005-10 business plan, and is itself a sort of prototype for the ID card scheme. It would be likely to have greater prominence if the ID card itself were to have a final unfortunate accident on its way to the statute book, but it's striking that most of the significant components of the ID card scheme already exist or are being built within the Passport Service, to the extent that one could easily view the Passport Service's planning as representing the key strategy, while the ID card scheme is more about extension, rationalisation and legal tidying up. So maybe not so much Plan B as Plan A.

This represents something of a problem to ID scheme opponents. Because the ID Cards Bill is simply one (albeit wide-ranging and high-profile) implementation of Government policy on national identity management, killing it without also overturning the strategy would at best slow up implementation. And, probably, make it more likely that other components of implementation would be put into place without parliamentary oversight and regulation. Lop off a tentacle, and more will grow for as long as the brain lives.

I'm sorry, I can't comment on this right now: I am just too blazingly livid**.


* Sorry, Mark.

** But not too livid to make another bad-taste and utterly gratuitous joke at Master Oaten's expense, obviously...

Anyone for a soggy Oaten-cake?

Chris Dillow neatly sums up what I was trying to put across in my earlier post.

Politicians, though, don't offer demonstrable, testable skills. Instead, they are like tele-evangelists. They sell us hope and illusion - the hope that things will get better if they were in office, the illusion that things have gotten better when they are in office.

Like tele-evangelists, this trick requires not so much technical skills as particular character traits - plausibility and credibility. As Richard Sennett pointed out in his great The Fall of Public Man, character therefore necessarily enters politics.

Quite so. Personally, whilst I am sorry for his family (and most are assuming, of course, that his wife didn't know), but I am afraid that Master Oaten should bloody well have considered that before he decided to carry on this "long-term affair" (or should that be long-term rolling-over contract?) with his pet gigolo. So, whilst I do feel for his wife and children, I have less than zero sympathy for him; amongst other things, given the constant "invasive" scrutiny by te media, how could he think to get away with it?

As for these—in some cases, pretty vicious—attacks on Guido and Recess Monkey, who are claiming the "scalp", there is something almost tabloid about certain bloggers' hysteria.

Why is Guido claiming a scalp here? Manic has a transcript of the relevent sections of the podcast, and it's a crock of shit. There's pretty hefty speculation that Oaten is gay, based essentially on what he looks like; well, we've all done that (if we're being honest with ourselves). Personally, I'm usually right (it's often the mouth...) and it's an amusing past-time. There is also a good deal of rubbish about him hanging around in playgrounds and being a paedophile. There is stuff-all about him hiring gentlmen of the night.

He was caught hiring a gigolo, not buggering kids. The two speculate that he might be gay, essentially from phenotype alone. This is hardly insider-stuff. In terms of being gay, well, they got lucky. It's possible that Guido and Monkey had some inside information that he definitely was, but it's not put that way in the conversation.

They didn't say that he was using male whores, but they did imply kiddie-fiddling. He didn't, and hasn't*, done. So, as far as I am concerned, Guido and RM have no right to claim this scalp. The two of them just got "lucky". So, can we stop with the hysterics now*, and all calm down a bit, please? Let's just sit back and enjoy the Schadenfreude.

UPDATE: It seems that Nosemonkey agrees with me.


* Unless, of course, there's more to come...

** I do have enough self-knowledge to accept the irony in your humble Devil calling for calm...!

A quick reminder

Remember, if you use the Haloscan commenting system, your remarks will not be saved for posterity; they will disappear into the aether. So, please use the Blogger commenting system, and then I can delete Haloscan...

Regards,

DK

A joke that I've just thought up for you (and it's better than that blonde joke).

Q: How do you know when a NuLabour minister isn't lying, obfuscating or otherwise concealing the truth?

A: When you've just read their obituary (and that never comes soon enough, does it?).

This on DNA records, this on the unelected cunt, and this on Caroline Quinn's abysmal interview with Lord Adonis (and he's pretty far from being an Adonis, frankly).

At the risk of sounding like a sycophantic little Devil, the boy Yoghurt is on fire.

From one who knows, this post on ID Cards and criminality by edjog is absolutely first class.

Read it. And weep. Probably.

Harding on Respect

Neil Harding is, once again, banging on about how wonderful Princess Toni's Respect agenda is. Like Chris, your humble Devil gives kudos to Neil for his sense of humour in changing his blog title to Brighton Regency Loony; although this post, once again, only proves that the truth is in the blog name.

I won't go into detail: The Longrider has, once again, done an excellent job of arguing the civil liberties agenda.

Well, I guess I agree with the balance thing. However, the point he - and government seem to consistently miss is that this is a common law democracy. Under such a system, unless something is specifically outlawed, it is permissible. Therefore, those of us who value liberty are under no obligation to justify or quantify it. It is anything that statue does not specifically prohibit. It is beholden on those who wish to remove them to make their case and justify the prohibition.

However, I would like to just take a tick to look at this little paragraph.

As I have stated before of course these measures need to be accompanied by more positive measures such as helping parenting skills and reducing poverty. These are areas where this government has made huge progress and these measures also make up the majority of the respect agenda.

Yeah, well, the problem with this is that it is utter shite. Firstly, no government which includes Tony "Liar" Blair, Jack "Dob My Son In For Dope" Straw and Dave "Shagger" Blunkett is going to try to teach me parenting skills. I must have missed the meeting where politicians, such as Mark Oaten, demonstrated how much better than us they are at bringing up children. In fact, other than Marc Dutroux and his ilk, I can think of very few groups of people I would rather didn't raise my kids than politicians.

Secondly—and once more we turn to the ever-excellent Strange Stuff for a good summing up—reducing poverty by giving people money doesn't work. As Chris points out rather eloquently.

The Welfare State has turned prudence from a virtue to a sin, rewarding the imprudent with the wealth of the people willing to work for their own futures. So it is no wonder that the savages are thriving at the expense of the civilised.

The Welfare State is, to a very great extent, the cause of the problems which has led to the proposal of the Respect agenda. Also, NuLabour have not reduced poverty, they have increased dependence on the state, and decreased social mobility. The greatest burden of increased taxation has fallen on the poorer people in society because our Cyclopean Chancellor has refused to increase the personal allowance in line with earnings growth, and the increase in the NICS contributions has hit the lowest earners (and the smallest companies) hardest.

If NuLabour really wanted to curb poverty, rather than simply bribing millions of people to keep voting for them paying out vastly complicated means-tested benefits, they would raise the personal allowance to, for instance, £10,000, or even £12,000. They have no interest in doing this, of course, because that would render many of the bribes benefits unnecessary and would put power back in the hands of the people rather than the state.

NuLabour are a cancer in this country, and the kindest thing that I can say is that I wish cancer on them. And most of their supporters too.

Tony's flatmate: what a cunt

Lord Falconer is, once more, pontificating on ID cards.

Lord Falconer told BBC Radio Four's Any Questions: "The question is should you require - and I think ultimately, unless there is compulsion, you won't get the benefits of an ID card system - is it right to compel those that don't have a passport also to get an ID card?

"I think it is, I think it will become inevitable that you need reliable means of identification, both to stop people stealing your identity, and also making it much, much easier for you to deal with the state.

Can I just take a minute to point out that this fucker has been elected by precisely no one. As far as I can make out, he got the job of Lord Chancellor (shortly after Toni tried to abolish the post and then found that he couldn't without primary legislation) because he lived with Bliar. The question being, as always, what does he know about Toni? Or is it simply that Our Glorious Leader still owes him a tenner for the electricity bill in 1978 or something?

Personally, I don't want any more dealings with the state: I try to keep my dealings with those bastards to an absolute minimum. As Nosemonkey points out, every time I deal with the state, they try to take money off me.

Besides, Falconer, you fucking tit-faced arsehole, what exactly are "the benefits of an ID card system"? I mean for us, the ruled, rather than you, the unelected rulers? We all know what you get out of it: power. What exactly do we get? Apart from spied on?

The government has admitted that ID cards will not stop terrorists, and it will not stop fraud. Apart from anything else, the documents which one will use to get a card are easily forged. If they weren't, we wouldn't need these crappy biometrics (which don't work).

Falconer then tries to appeal to the 20% of fucking illiterates that Labour's shitty schools churn out every year.

"You won't every time you want to change something have to fill in a long form, life will just become much easier."

Go and boil your head, you whiney old trout. Since most of these forms ask you considerably more than "who are you" this is, essentially, a tacit admission that everything about your mundane life will be held on file and scrutinised by some bastard in government. Actually, not having been to one of NuLabour's wonderful comprehensives, I don't find filling in forms too difficult. Of course, if NuLabour made the forms a fuck sight simpler, it would save time and money all round. As would sacking Brown, who is, pretty much single-handedly, responsible for making everyone's lives a good deal more torturous.

You make my eyes bleed in rage, Falconer; just the sight of your fat, smug face is enough to make me want to kick a spaniel. So, fuck off, Falconer, you cunt.

Bummer

Bad luck, Mark. Hahahahahaha. How entertaining...

Curious Hamster is asking whether this actually matters or not.

The question is, does it matter who Oaten chooses to associate with in his free time? Does it affect his ability to be an effective politician? Why does anyone care who the man sleeps with?

OK, firstly, protitution is illegal. Therefore, as a client, Master Oaten is in a legally dubious position. And, secondly, he is married, and has therefore lied to his wife.

Does any of this matter? Well, fundamentally, not really. However, since people already think that politicians are slippery liars with the morals of an alley-cat, having it proved is always a disservice to both said politician's party and politics in general.

On the other hand, everyone who works for Murdoch is an utter cunt.

I find myself somewhat conflicted.

Celebrity Big Brother

I am currently, for lack of anything more attractive to do, perusing, for the first time, Celebrity Big Brother. Your humble Devil doesn't know who most of these people are, and is bollocksed if he can be bothered to look at a website to find out, so you'll have to bear with him.

Michael Barrymore
Doesn't he look old? Almost as though he were being sued by the parents of Stuart Lubbock...

Blond bit
Thick as shit. Patently fancies the speccy guy.

Black bird
American tart.

Black guy (Dennis Rodman?)
In bed.

Tall unshaven one (Maggot?)
Silent as the grave.

Short speccie guy
Seems OK, if a little uncommunicative.

Pete Burns
I would have voted this weirdo out by now; I simply cannot deal with something so ugly first thing in the morning. What's with his fucking lips...?

Gorgeous George
The guy has the eyes of a psychopath; when he looks straight into the camera, you can tell that the man is absolutely bat-shit mad. Run! Run while you still can...!

No, but seriously; he is totally fucking looney-tunes.

There you are: that's all you need to know. Ta-ra, chuck...

Bloody Devil #5

A bloody Devil, nominated by myself, for Chris.

They own civil liberties be cause they are LIBERAL, somebody please clue the bitch in. IT IS IN THE NAME POLLY.

I must have another go at her myself; it's endlessly entertaining. One would feel sorry for La Toynbee, only she's such an stupid, irritating old trout. With gout. Like a lout. Over and out.

Via Clare (who's blog, incidentally, shows what interesting things you can achieve with CSS), I really think that Americans take their doughnuts* way too seriously.

You Are a Caramel Crunch Donut

You're a complex creature, and you're guilty of complicating things for fun. You've been known to sit around pondering the meaning of life... Or at times, pondering the meaning of your doughnut. To frost or not to frost? To fill or not to fill? These are your eternal questions.

What Donut Are You?

* And they spell "doughnut" wrong.

Bollocks disease of the day

Today's horseshit load of old crap from the world of Made-up Diseases (and Psychiatry) is Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD).

All children are oppositional from time to time, particularly when tired, hungry, stressed or upset. They may argue, talk back, disobey, and defy parents, teachers, and other adults. Oppositional behavior is often a normal part of development for two to three year olds and early adolescents. However, openly uncooperative and hostile behavior becomes a serious concern when it is so frequent and consistent that it stands out when compared with other children of the same age and developmental level and when it affects the child's social, family, and academic life.

In the olden days, parents would have treated these children cruelly, realising that, even were this some sort of disease, the little fuckers would never get on in life until the disease had been beaten out of them. A bit like left-handedness, really. These days, no doubt, we drug them instead...

This really is a load of old bollocks.

Watch out, Beer's about...

Via Mr FM.

Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties & local pubs, to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. Many females use a date rape drug on the market called "Beer" to target unsuspecting men. The drug is generally found in liquid form & is now available almost anywhere. It comes in bottles, in cans, from taps, & in large "kegs." Beer is used by female sexual predators at parties & bars to persuade their male victims to go home & have sex with them.

Typically, a woman needs only to persuade a guy to consume a few units of Beer & then simply ask him home for no-strings-attached sex. Men are rendered helpless against this approach. After several Beers, men will often succumb to desires to perform acts on horrific-looking women to whom they would never normally be attracted. After drinking Beer, men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that "something bad" occurred.

At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life savings, in a familiar scam known as "A Relationship." It has been reported that in extreme cases, the female may even be shrewd enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer-term form of servitude & punishment referred to as "Marriage." Apparently, men are much more susceptible to this scam after Beer is administered & sex is offered by the predatory females.

Please forward this warning to every male you know. If you fall victim to this insidious Beer & the predatory women administering it, there are Male support groups with venues in every town where you can discuss the details of your shocking encounter in an open & frank manner with similarly affected, like-minded guys.

For the support group nearest you, just look up "Rugby Clubs" in the Yellow Pages.

The really insidious thing about Beer, of course, is that it is the man who is expected to pay for it...!

Well, exactly.

Now that I've had my eyes opened regarding what Islam means for the world, these kinds of stories are everywhere. Trouble in Nigeria? Bangladesh? Sudan? Egypt? In every case, it's the Religion of Peace versus its neighbors.

This is something that I have come to realise, especially over the last year. This is why the RoP worries me...

Still, on a lighter Islamic note, here's The Trouser Quandry Resolution...

Then our reported pointed out that as a woman Harpi Braindrain would not even be allowed near a university in an Uttabollux country, nor would she be allowed to have an education, a career, or even freedom of speech, movement, and association with men not of her husband's family. In response, Harpi Braindrain then called our reporter a fascist racist warmonger in the pay of the male-dominated Western media hegemony and called for security to escort our reporter from the premises.

Others have pointed it out, and it is, indeed, genius. Go read.

Wow! The entire management and staff of my local hostelry have been sacked by the owners! This is going to be interesting (although, as long as I still get to choose some of the beers and drink them, I'm not too fussed)...

An open letter to those people who are trying to sell ten years' supply of Scandium Oxide (or Sc₂0₃ to give it the ionic designation).

Piss off, you talentless, Welsh, ginger cunt.

I think that one of the saddest things about this world is that some people just don't realise when to piss off and slit their wrists in a warm bath.

EU Tax?

Nosemonkey points out that the EU appears to be trying to push for a direct tax on its citizens. Now, as you know, I have the greatest respect for the man, but he does seem to have something of a blind spot as far as this dictatorial piece of crap is concerned.

Never mind the arguments in favour of such an approach (after all, it could well help to increase transparancy and leave less budget flexibility for the notoriously weak EU accountants to "misplace" dosh with, plus would make it clear to each EU citizen precisely how little the EU actually costs them while getting rid of the constant disputes over who should pay what, rebates and the like)...

You see, NM is in favour of the EU as principle, but fails to acknowledge that the EU in this model will never embrace "transparency", as EU Serf so rightly pointed out in response to this article.

EU finance commissioner Joaquin Almunia announced on Tuesday (10 January) that he supports boosting the union's budget from a new EU tax, which would also give greater autonomy and room for manoeuvre to EU institutions.

These institutions, and the EU as a whole, have not had their accounts signed off for eleven years. As I have constantly pointed out, the fact that we still pay money to an institution without properly rigourous accounting procedures in place is, in fact, a breach of the EU's own rules on fraud and money-laundering. Strangely, I haven't seen the EU taking any countries to the ECJ for paying money to itself. What a surprise.

The last thing that we want to do is to give these fuckers more wriggle-room. These accounting practices are not mistakes: there is a systematic campaign of intimidation of EU accountants who blow the whistle on EU fraud and corruption. Paul van Buitenen or Marta Andreason (who suggested, fairly strongly) that the EU Commission was unable to properly account for over 90% of its £20 billion budget) could tell you all about it; so could the reporters Hans Peter Martin and Hans-Martin Tillack. Andreason and van Buitenen were removed from their posts and the reporters, Tillack in particular, were subjected to a sustained campaign of intimidation and persecution (see Private Eye, passim ad nauseam).

The commissioner said that such a fiscal instrument, which he preferred to call a "community resource" rather than "community tax", would have to conceal the origin of money collected from individual member states, to avoid the constant fighting over net and gross cash balance.

Does that really sound like they are going to introduce more transparency? As the Serf put it, what they are saying is actually something pretty similar to this:

We want your cash, we don't want you to be aware of how much we are taking and we want to choose what to spend it on.

Look, I don't support even the idea of the EU, as should be obvious from my banner description: I'm with Worstall on this one. There are others, such as NM and Mat, for whom this EU idea is a noble project, merely being derailed by a few bad eggs.

Please understand, the EU is rotten to the core. If this project is to work, all of the people, institutions and power structures currently involved need to be destroyed and rebuilt from scratch. Everyone involved in a fucking corrupt piece of squirrel-turd. I mean, just look at a couple of our Commissioners: Neil Kinnock, a political failure, and Peter Mandelson, a man so corrupt that he makes the entirety of the Major government look squeaky-clean. And do you think that it is only Britain that sends their failed and corrupt to serve out their days in the EU? No. Unio Europaea delenda est and, if not, the current one certainly has to go. And given this, there's no fucking way that I am paying any of my wages directly to that piece of shit organisation.

However, NM does enquire as to why this whole tax business might be rearing its ugly head again.

Even if dear old Tony "This lady IS for turning" Blair tried to give in and accept an EU tax, there's no way in hell Gordon Brown would let him.

So why all the shit-stirring? What is Schuessel up to?

It's an interesting question, with a couple of factors in the answer. Firstly, Schuessel must think that it might be possible at this time. As NM says, Britain is going to be the real problem here; however, Our Glorious Leader has already proposed to give away a load more of our cash, and the backlash wasn't too bad. Besides, Toni's leaving at the end of this parliament; he doesn't have a lot to lose; what does he care?

The other thing is a slight desperation: the EU's main "secure" source of income is the tariffs on goods entering the EU, which go straight to the EU's coffers. These tariffs are coming under intolerable political and economic pressure; they are going to have to be reduced at the very least as the demands, and bargaining power, of the Developing World—and, most especially, China—increases. The US has already offered considerable concessions and looks like it may even drop its farming subsidies too. The EU is under increaing pressure to at least match the US offers. Besides, EU pride is at stake: Europe is meant to be the compassionate one, and the US is meant to be the exploititive, world-raping, Third-World-economy-fucking superpower. Interesting times, my dears.

None of this changes my opinion that the entire EU should be razed to the ground and never re-established; fuck the EU, its corrupt Commisioners, its lazy MEPs and all the other cunts in and around it. Unio Europaea delenda est.

UPDATE: Why won't you get the message? It's our fucking money, you corrupt bunch of cum-sucking, baby-raping cunt-slappers. Get your filthy paws off our money and go throw yourselves into the sea, you utter, utter bastards.

Can we please, in the name of all that is holy, get the fuck out now?