The height of naivety

The Very British Dude has, in recent months, written some of the best Remain arguments I have seen—they were not convincing enough to make me change my mind, but they have been eloquent enough to make me, at least, consider my premises.

However, his open letter to Junker is—whilst the sentiment is spot-on—I'm afraid to say, incredibly naive and, worse, just plain silly.

If, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland votes as expected to remain in the European Union, you should not take it as an endorsement.

Britain is a great nation, once the hub of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, a victor at the centre of alliances, in three centuries of conflict, and the mother of Parliaments.
...

We expect the European Union to realise that we on these islands will not ever be part of some 'United States of Europe', and we don't think France, Poland, Italy or Germany, or any other great nation of Europe should be expected to either.

Why am I irresistibly reminded of this chap...?

Oh yes—it's because the Black Knight shouted out a challenge, lost the fight catastrophically, and then remained shouting impotently from the sidelines.

It's fucking pathetic.

We, if forced to choose, will never choose Europe.

Don't be ridiculous, Dude. We are being forced to choose—you do recall that we're having a referendum, right? And if, as you fucking recommend, we choose to Remain then we will, indeed, be choosing Europe.

We expect the European Union to realise that we on these islands will not ever be part of some 'United States of Europe', and we don't think France, Poland, Italy or Germany, or any other great nation of Europe should be expected to either.

The European Union exists to facilitate trade between free peoples, and to solve problems best dealt with at an international level.

Yes. And you know how you can best solve Europe's current problems?—with a sodding United States of Europe!

As I have recently highlighted, you cannot solve the Euro problem without a unified political policy and a central European Treasury.

If you vote Remain, you are voting to become part of a United States of Europe (USE). Yes, Liar Cameron's fabled "renegotiation" might have slowed the pace of the UK's integration into this entity, but that's all it is—a delay.

In general, the polls show that younger people are far more likely to embrace the Remain side. So all that the political Establishment—both our own, and the EU's—have to do is wait another decade or so, and resistance to the UK being part of this USE will be weakened. If they decide to play the long game—something that the EU political Establishment is very good at—and wait for 20 years, then there will be no criticism whatsoever.

This is the last plausible chance, that I can see, to stick two fingers up at this project. If we don't, then we are shackled to this project for as long as it lasts—and the EU elites have shown us that they will do anything (currently politically possible) to realise this USE vision.

In twenty years, if we vote Remain, Britain's youth will be urging them on.

No—I'm Squander Two!

Squander Two has penned a superb post outlining the reticence (or, rather, politeness) of many non-Lefties on Facebook. Often in the face of considerable provocation from the Lefty "echo chamber".

Some of my friends agree with me about lots of things, and we can have a good old eye-roll together about how people genuinely thought Ed Miliband was Prime Minister material. (No, really, they did.) Some of them agree with me about almost nothing but are perfectly happy to have a good-natured argument with no hurt feelings. And some live in the Lefty Echo Chamber, in which case I do the sensible thing and don't talk about politics, because disagreement confuses and upsets them, and — and this is the crucial bit — they're my friends. I don't particularly want to confuse and upset my friends. As the old proverb says, better to offer another slice of cake than to laugh about Ed Balls. (Though I understand Yvette does both.)

Facebook, Squander Two maintains, should be treated like your living room. However, many people are unable to do so.
But even most of my friends who are willing to have an argument still have one foot in the Lefty Echo Chamber. What else could explain their reaction to the election result? Not just disappointment or upset but sheer uncomprehending bafflement. They have almost no experience of the existence of Tories, yet it turns out loads of people voted for them. Who are these people?

These people are the ones nodding and smiling. You know lots of them — statistically, unless you're in Scotland, it is highly likely that around half your friends voted Tory. Hey, some of your friends probably voted UKIP. Yes, even though you've been calling them "evil stupid Nazis" for years, to their faces. They still did it. They just didn't tell you. Because they knew, with absolute certainty, that you'd be an arsehole about it.

Yes—we know at least one young lady who might fit that bill, eh?

Anyway, the whole thing is long and so damn right. I cannot recommend strongly enough that you read the whole thing...

Perverting the language

Star Trek's Mr Sulu, George Takei, has written an article for MSNBC [Emphasis mine—DK]...

The so-called “Religious Freedom Bill” would have allowed proprietors of establishments open to the public to refuse to serve customers if doing so would violate the “sincerely held” religious beliefs of the owner. 

On the surface, the proposed law seemed like a neutral way to protect the First Amendment rights of business owners.
But beneath that surface lurked a dangerous and divisive effect, granting hotels, bars and restaurants the right to refuse to serve LGBT persons and couples such as Brad and me, simply because our love did not comport with the religious views of the owners.

But thanks to pressures upon the governor’s office in days before she was set to sign the law, and in the face of a boycott of the state by tourists and the NFL, which threatened to move the Super Bowl to Pasadena, Gov. Jan Brewer ultimately decided to veto the law. Tolerance and equality won out that day.

Hmmm.

So, "tolerance" for LGBTQ means intolerance—enacted with force—towards people who would like to choose who they do business with?

Whilst I don't support a religious position, this definition of "tolerance" does rather illustrate how our language has become utterly perverted.

To be honest, my attitude is pretty much espoused by Tim Cook, i.e. that serving everyone equally is good business.

Or, as I put it after the heated feminism debate at this weekend's Liberty League Freedom Forum...

I am an individualist. I discriminate on whether or not you are a cunt, not whether or not you have one.

That pretty sums up my attitude to all identity politics, frankly.

Quote of the day...

... comes from a comment under this snobby Grauniad article in which some author called Joan Brady whines about big chain coffee-shops.

Here is Joan Brady, wittering on about those evil corporations daring to set up shops...

Three quarters of [Totnes's] population protested against Costa: Totnes already has more than 40 independent coffee shops. That many people agreeing on anything approaches a miracle, a landslide of public opinion. Costa isn't bothered. It hasn't bothered with the populations of other protesting towns either. But isn't this supposed to be a democracy?

... to which our doughty commenter—one davidwferguson—promptly replies:

And if your idea of 'democracy' is 'a system where me and my condescending arsehole chums get to dictate to other people what kind of coffee they're going to be allowed to drink', then I hope you never develop any kind of inclination towards fascism.

Pithily put, I think you'll agree; and it exposes the big lie behind all of these Islington so-called "liberals"—they are snobs, and authoritarian snobs at that.

A taste of their own medicine

After the expenses scandal a couple of years ago, the few actual convictions belied the fact that the entire body of our lords and masters were engaged in widespread fraud, in a scandalous conspiracy against the taxpayers who they are supposed to serve.

Further, all three major parties in this country have proposed spying on our every communication for no good reason at all, something that surely breaks the Data Protection Act's provision that all data held should not be excessive.

Given these two vignettes, it strikes me as being utterly hilarious that one of these corrupt bastards should complain about HSBC demanding that they hand over "sensitive information" in order to prove that they are not corrupt.

HSBC has targeted MPs with demands for sensitive private information as part of a crackdown by the bank on "politically exposed" customers. The move has left some feeling they will lose their banking facilities unless they comply.

A Labour MP who is a longstanding customer of HSBC contacted Guardian Money to say he had been asked by the bank to disclose information about his finances, including accounts he has with other banks, and his "sources of wealth".

At first he thought it may be a "phishing" scam, where fraudsters try to obtain people's private details by masquerading as their bank or an official body, but the letter was genuine, and was followed up earlier this month by a phone call. The MP, who declined to be named, says he explained to the bank that the information being sought was "inappropriate", and when he asked what would happen if he didn't co-operate, the suggestion was that his account may be closed.
...

The answer, it transpired, is that HSBC has decided the MP is in a category of high-risk customers known as "politically exposed persons", or Peps. Even though, according to HM Revenue & Customs, he definitely isn't one of those. And he hasn't been singled out for special (mis)treatment. It is understood that every MP who banks with HSBC is being quizzed – and, presumably, other public figures, too.

Aaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaa! Ahahaha. Ahaha. Ha!

How nice it is to see these thieving, snooping, authoritarian arseholes getting a taste of their own medicine!

But, of course, on a more serious note, you might be wondering what the fuss is about? After all, surely an MP is a politically exposed person—how could they not be?*

Luckily, retired international lawyer Tom Paine can supply us with the answer to that little conundrum.

When practising abroad as an international lawyer, I often had to raise with clients dealing with companies associated with local politicians the delicate issue of money laundering. You can imagine how the politicians concerned reacted when informed that English legislation required enquiries as to their past, and contractual provisions as to their possible future, misconduct. I rather tired of apologising for it. I can't quantify how much business was lost because of these laws, but let's face it, the counterparties had other, easier choices.

As I never had to deal with UK politicians, I did not realise until this morning that they had exempted themselves. Here is the HMRC guidance mentioned in The Guardian article (my emphasis);

In some situations you must carry out 'enhanced due diligence'. These situations are:

• When the customer isn't physically present when you carry out identification checks.
• When you enter into a business relationship with a 'politically exposed person'. Typically, a politically exposed person is an overseas member of parliament, a head of state or government or a government minister.
  Note that a UK politician isn't a politically exposed person.
• Any other situation where there's a higher risk of money laundering.

Yes, that's right: as with the tax on benefits in kind, our lords and masters have exempted themselves from the rules which apply to others.

Once again, that old saw of "one rule for us and a different one for them" seems utterly appropriate.

This must stop. An MP is quite obviously a politically exposed person: further, MPs have proved themselves to be a body of people who are entirely untrustworthy every respect—those who are not actively thieves or liars are criminally stupid.

So, when this anonymous Labour MP whinges that his "financial integrity" is being questioned, my response is "well, whose fault is that? Cry me a fucking river."

And, given their plans to spy on everything we do, when this same anonymous Labour MP then asks...

"Why should they want this information, unless there's some indication that there is something amiss?"

... my reply involves motes, beams and "how the fuck do you like them apples, you totalitarian piece of shit?"
So, bravo to HSBC for giving me an excellent belly laugh this morning.

And perhaps this anonymous Labour MP might take a lesson from this; perhaps this Labour MP will drop his anonymity and start campaigning vociferously against the Coalition's plans to monitor our communications?

Or, more likely, he will continue to complain in the Tea Room and quietly continue to use his expenses to steal money from his constituents.

Either way, I am thrilled that he has been insulted and inconvenienced—it is the very least that he deserves.

Baby boomers

Here's a neat little pointed slice from the wife, commenting on Chris Dillow's observation that the roof of today are a bit tame and tedious... [Emphasis mine.]

If you [baby boomers in general, and Chris Dillow in particular] want angry, empowered youth, then don’t spend the first 25 years of their lives teaching them that the bland, unquestioning, isolating conformity which suits your desire to retain cultural and social dominance is for their own good.

Your methods of upbringing are what created today’s 23-year-olds who fret over whether they can afford to buy a house in Barnes. Your parental indulgence is why others of your children still live in your council house with three kids of their own, no spouse, and no job.

You didn’t teach them to see the value in standing up for their future because you didn’t want them to do that—because it might hurt yours. You’ve told them all of their lives that somebody else would sort out their problems, take their part, and make the world right for them; you’ve taught them that dependence has no cost and entitlements have no price and one’s desires are automatically others’ debts to pay—why should they not believe you now? You have no right to complain. You promised them the earth; they’re just waiting patiently for you to provide it for them.

Quite.

Black racist decries racism laws shock!

Shirley Brown: former LimpDumb councillor and racist.

The Daily Mail today carries a heart-wrenching puff-piece for a LimpDumb councillor—the appropriately named Shirley Brown—who called a Conservative councillor* a coconut and was then prosecuted for racially aggravated harrassment (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be).

Last July, magistrates in Bristol found her guilty of racially aggravated harassment under the Public Order Act for using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress’. In March, she lost her appeal against the conviction.

The court case followed a heated city council debate that Shirley, who was then a Liberal Democrat councillor, had with an Asian Conservative opponent. The public row culminated in Shirley calling the other councillor, Jay Jethwa, a ‘coconut’.

The word is used as slang to describe someone who is believed to be betraying their ethnic roots by pandering to white opinion – referring to a coconut being brown on the outside but white on the inside.

It is, without doubt, a crude term that many would find offensive, and one Shirley regrets using. Although she insists the remark was not intended to be taken in the way it was, she now realises it was unacceptable.

But what she still cannot comprehend is the lengths to which the legal system was prepared to go to ensure that she was punished.

Jay Jethwa: poe-faced, miserable old baggage.

Well, cry me a fucking river. Shirley Brown is precisely the kind of person who wanted these disgusting Though Police style laws brought in—and now she really has been hoisted by own petard. Or, as MummyLongLegs put it so superbly...

Funny old thing, Law. It applies to everyone. If you need a law to stop your feelings from being hurt you should be aware that others are entitled to use that very same law if you hurt theirs. It's called equality.

The reason you were so roundly turned upon Shirley is that, in your career working to help ethnic communities in Bristol, you will have used those very same laws to punish, silence or force into submission any who stood in your way. No one likes a fucking hypocrite.

‘When I think of all the time and money spent on my case, which could have been spent elsewhere, I just feel so sad. I’ve always been proud to be British but I feel that something has gone very wrong in this country when political correctness comes ahead of basic common sense.’

You wouldn't have given a tuppenny fuck how much it cost the taxpayer if it had been a white person in the dock, you know that and we know that. You care not a fig if political correctness overrides common sense, only that it does so when you want it to. You're pissed because you got called out for the racist you are, and the laws you can use to intimidate others bit you roundly on the arse.

Well them's the breaks Shirley. There's not a person in the world that would have taken your comment as anything other than racist. The law may be an ass but grab it by the tail and it can still kick you in the teeth.

Indeed. And I think that "tuppenny fuck" might be my new favourite phrase.

JuliaM also comments pithily on this case.

It's the Britain you and your ilk in the left-wing progressive movement created. It's a wee bit late to turn around and say 'What? Me? No, no, it's not supposed to be me...!'

‘I was proud to be a member of the council because I wanted to be a role model to young people from minority backgrounds,’ she says.

You were, love. That's just the problem, though; you were a role model for how chippiness, grudge-holding and waving your supposed trump card in Victimhood Poker was the way to win.

And you relished it right up until the time someone else laid down their own hand and said 'That beats yours, doesn't it?'

Don't get me wrong—I think that these race laws are absolutely abysmal. However, it is absolutely fucking hilarious to see a woman like Shirley Brown get kicked in the teeth—and even funnier to see her whinging about how she has been "publicly humiliated and [her] reputation has been ruined".

You see, that's what happens when you bring in these kinds of laws: as Shirley puts it...

It was a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes though...

Yes, they do. But thanks to people like you, they can now be prosecuted for those mistakes. As you have—hilariously—found out. Will you be campaigning to have these laws repealed now? No?

Well, fuck off then.

UPDATE: thanks to Anonymous in the comments, who points out that I may have been a little harsh on Ms Jethwa: this little nugget comes from the Mail article...

The row happened on February 24, 2009, during a Bristol City Council budget debate. Top of the agenda was the city’s Legacy Commission that had been granted £750,000 of taxpayers’ money to fund ethnic minority projects and was created in part to atone for Bristol’s historic role in the slave trade.

Shirley, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, believed passionately in the initiative.

During the debate, Mrs Jethwa, who moved to Britain from India 24 years ago and whose husband Nick is of Ugandan origin, stood up to say she did not agree with spending public money ‘righting the wrongs’ of past centuries.

I would like to apologise to Ms Jethwa who is, quite obviously, an excellent councillor and a decent councillor. On the other hand, Shirley Brown comes off as being even more of a desperate, ghastly racist crap-bag.

* No, I don't support that miserable, whining cow either. I mean, for fuck's sake, look at her.

Marred by his own hypocrisy

Andrew Marr: a face only a mother and two desperate, lackwit MSM slappers could love (occasionally).

You would have to have the sense of humour of a socialist not to laugh at the recent travails of Andrew "arsehole" Marr.

BBC presenter Andrew Marr has revealed he took out a super-injunction to protect his family's privacy - but says he will not pursue it any further.

Mr Marr told the Daily Mail he was "embarrassed" about the gagging order he took out in 2008 to suppress reports of an affair with a fellow journalist.

"I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists," he said.

Really? Then why did you do it—is it because you are a disgusting hypocrite?

Yes.

After all, this is a journalist who questioned and harried MPs (as long as they weren't NuLabour ministers) over stupidity, corruption and hypocrisy—and yet who tried to gag his fellow hacks from reporting on his own faithless behaviour.

After all, it wasn't as though Guido hadn't let us all know some time ago.

At the time he believed he had fathered a child with the woman, but later found out through a DNA test this was not the case.

Yes, Andrew Marr spent seven years allegedly paying child support to Alice Miles—only to find out that she was, apparently, quite as unable to keep her genitals in her knickers as he was.

That alone made me laugh for nearly half an hour. I wonder if Marr will be asking for his money back...?

Lest we forget, of course, this is the same Andrew Marr who decided to have a go at "socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed" bloggers.

As such, I thought it worthwhile digging around The Kitchen archives (not least because some 6,000 people seem to have had the same idea) in order to dig out my encomium to this "nightmarish Fraggle".

Andrew Marr, however, is a bald, jug-eared, media whore whose pathetic and slavish devotion to NuLabour may or may not be influenced by his employment by the extortion-funded BBC and his marriage to Jackie Ashley, the raddled-looking harridan daughter of a life peer who writes for both The New Statesman and The Grauniad.

But, Andrew Marr is at least correct when he accuses bloggers of ranting. After all, whilst many of us are very angry about how our country has been systematically destroyed and our futures mortgaged by his favourite party, we are—alas—unable to use taxpayers' cash to get our points across. This leads to a certain amount of frustration and, inevitably, more than a soupcon of cathartic ranting.

But, as Anna Raccoon shows, we in the blogosphere can do some genuine good by providing crowd-sourcing and expertise to those oppressed by Andrew Marr's favourite little technocrats.

Furthermore, many blogs provide an invaluable insight into certain professions because they are written by people at the sharp end—people who genuinely know what is happening on the ground, or have a specialist knowledge of the subjects that they write about.

Which, for me, provide far more useful information about the true state of affairs than Andrew Marr reading some generalised crap—written by some underpaid graduate with a 2:2 in English Literature—off a fucking autocue. No amount of ridiculous arm-waving, Andrew, can substitute for a coherent piece written by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Still, I suppose that Andrew can write with some authority about super-injunctions, eh? It's just a pity that the same does not apply to honesty, truth, faithfulness, straight-dealing and not being a cunt.

Penny's dreadful

It will hardly be a surprise that, like The Appalling Strangeness, I had a bit of a giggle when Guido highlighted the rampant hypocrisy inherent in Laurie Penny's advert for a researcher.

The job is to “find statistics and quotes and case studies, talk over what I’m writing and hunt down sources and stories for me, and keep meticulous notes of all sources in academic format.” For this the lowly researcher will be paid the grand sum of £500 for 85 hours work. As a fearless left-wing campaigner for higher living standards for the workers surely Laurie must know that £5.88 per hour is short of the minimum wage and far from the “living wage” she publicly supports (£7.85). Apparently the job would “suit someone who is currently out of work, working part-time, or parenting”. What planet is she on that she thinks parents can afford childcare on £5.88 per hour?

Even more controversial than the flouting of minimum wage legislation is her contempt for sexual equality legislation. She clearly states: “I’m probably looking for a female researcher”. The EHRC clearly says: “Stating a preference for a man or woman in a job advertisement is unlawful sex discrimination unless the requirements of the particular job mean that it is lawful to employ only a man or a woman”. Form an orderly queue…

All jolly hilarious but, to be fair to Laurie, she does point out that the research could be done at home and, in the main, through the internet—as such, it's not as though a parent would necessarily need to get childcare.

Although, of course, if one is not working alongside the great Penny Red, then it is going to be extremely difficult for Laurie to make good on her offer to "make you tea at any hour".

What really grips my shit though, is that darling Penny says that "this will be a lump sum coming out of my own not terribly well-stuffed pocket" and that she wishes she...

... could afford to pay the living wage for this rather than just minimum wage, but that's not an option for me at the moment.

First, £500 divided by 85 hours works out at £5.88—not the minimum wage of £5.93. So, not much of a problem: you just need to work fewer hours. After all, Penny is paying a lump sum for a certain amount of work to be done, not a certain number of hours.

However, if Laurie Penny cannot afford to pay £7.85 an hour, why the living fuck does she think that anyone else can afford to? Does she think that every else's pockets are considerably more stuffed than hers? Is she, as I suspect, one of these utter morons who imagines that companies—or, indeed, individuals—have vast amounts of magic money that they can just splurge around with gay abandon?

Yes, she probably is.

Because, like most socialists, she will be unable to connect her impecuniousness with anyone else's. After all, in Laurie's world, everyone is considerably richer than her, eh?

Second, as I did with the equally delectable Kezia Dugdale, it is worth looking at this "living wage"—because it is a complete and utter nonsense.

1. A person working a 37.5 hour week on the minimum wage earns £11,563.50 yearly. Once tax is deducted, that person takes home £9,903.02.


2. A person working a 37.4 hour week on the "living wage" earns £15,307.50 and, after tax, takes home £12,486.38.

As Timmy has repeatedly pointed out, we could practically eliminate the difference between the minimum wage and the living wage simply by extorting less money from the poor.

Then we have the living wage enthusiasts, those who would insist that wages should come up to the £7.60 an hour which constitutes the pre-tax income needed to live not in poverty as defined by the public through the Joseph Rowntree Trust. That’s 58% of median wage.

Now, I’ve long contended that there’s a trick being missed here. The difference between £5.91 an hour and having a personal allowance for tax and NI of £12,000 and £7.60 an hour under the current tax system is, for post tax income, if I remember my calculations properly, something like 3 pence an hour. So we can achieve our (joint, yes, I desire it too) desire of taking the working poor out of poverty simply by not taxing them so damn much.

Quite. Plus, of course, we will avoid all of those unfortunate undesired consequences discussed in Timmy's post.

Do we see her backing lower government spending in order to afford lower taxes for the poor?

Do we fuck.

What we do see is Laurie campaigning for everyone else to be forced to pay a certain wage level, whilst crying crocodile tears because she, herself, cannot—or, more likely, will not.

Why doesn't she follow the example of her favourite Labour government and put it all on someone else's credit card...?

The Dark Side of the Moonbat

"My, that's a nice house, George. A little large for one divorced man to live in though, don't you think? Why don't you find a couple of poor winos—I'm sure they'd appreciate the use of a room or two..."

A great many bloggers have rightfully excoriated George Monbiot's latest piece of arse-wibble, in which he calls for people to be heavily taxed for not filling their homes to capacity with... well... anyone at all.

And it's for the environment, naturally.

Yet the new homes the government says we need – 5.8m by 2033 – threaten to mash our landscapes and overload the environment.

Well, hardly. There are roughly 25 million households in Britain today, and just how much has that managed to "mash our landscapes"? Well, not massively, to be honest.

Scale down the UK. To 99 football pitches.

All built up areas plus gardens would be 6 of those football pitches.

All very interesting. But there was one particular sentence, in particular, that leapt out at me...

While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource.

No, it fucking well isn't. I mean, why not just declare that whilst most food is privately owned, the total food supply is a common resource? Or that clothes are a common resource? Or just about any other bastard thing?

Strangely, however, the only person that I have seen explicitly making this point is Shuggy—who sums it up very succinctly in talking about his mother's place.

Anyway - and I appreciate some might find this an unsettlingly rightwing argument - the house isn't part of some 'common stock'; it is hers because she bought it.

Quite. What Monbiot is, essentially, arguing for is outright communism—if a house that you have bought is, in fact, not yours but "common stock", then anything is "common stock". And if it belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one.

Leaving aside any concept of the tragedy of the commons—something that an idiot like Moonbat will be entirely unaware of (because he's a fucking moron)—if nothing really belong's to anyone, then we are in a communist state.

If you really want communism, George, why not be honest about it?

Anyway, any number of other people, of course, have pointed out Moonbat's colossal hypocrisy—living, as he does, in a four bedroom house which is, since his divorce, presumably rather in need of some lodgers.

Mind you, and perhaps because of his own situation, George is not planning to force you to fill your house to capacity—yet. He would like to see you clobbered under the tax system though.

The next step is to reverse the UK's daft fiscal incentive to under-occupy your home. If you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount.

Yes, George: that is because Council Tax is supposed to pay for the services provided by the council. One person uses far fewer services than two or three: and that one person will use far fewer services than a family (single-parent or otherwise).

The idea of tax, George, is that it is used to pay for services used: it should not be used to punish people who happen to have a lifestyle that you disapprove of.

The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty. Those who use more than their fair share should pay for the privilege, with a big tax penalty for under-occupation.

So, you would tax the self-employed who might use one of their "bedrooms" as a study, perhaps? Do you have a study, George, or do you toss this drivel off whilst lying in your plush bed, or posing at your trendy breakfast bar?

Actually, I imagine that you concoct this crap whilst sitting in the loo: you can take a big shit, wipe your arse with a few sheets of foolscap (a name well-suited to your profession) and—hey presto!—that's another few hundred quid shoved into your bank account by the tax-dodging Guardian Media Group.

If it prompts them either to take in a lodger or to move into a smaller home in a lower tax band, so much the better.

This is a man who, I imagine, has railed against the Tories' "ethnic cleansing" of our cities through reducing Housing Benefit from levels that most taxpayers would describe as "obscene" to merely "disgusting"; he has most certainly drawn a parallel between the Coalition's dangerously modest spending cuts and the "shock doctrine" and Pinochet of Chile's tendency to "imprison, torture or kill anyone who dissented".

For someone like Moonbat—as for far too many lefties—any deviation from his desired lifestyle makes you evil.

People like George weep bitter tears over "the poor" only receiving a maximum of £400 per week in free rent, but ignore the ordinary people who—hammered by the heavy tax burden that pays for George's dreams—worry about being able to feed their own families from the fruit of their own labours.

People like George witter on about how "astroturf libertarians are the real threat to internet democracy", whilst ignoring the fact that not only is the internet not a democracy but a collection of individuals expressing themselves—a model of a libertarian society, if you like.

Indeed, whilst fetishising democracy, people like George will whine about oppressed minorities but ignore the fact that democracy, as practised today, is a system the very foundation of which is the legitimisation of the majority's oppression of the minority.

People like George are, not to put too fine a point on it, evil.

And now, George has decided that you don't own your house—despite the fact that you have paid for it. No, your home is "common stock", a resource to society: it is an asset that highly-paid, bien-pensant hypocrites like George should be able to appropriate and dispose of as they see fit.

In short, we have seen the truly dark side of the Moonbat—and it's called "communism".

How can they live with themselves taking it?

This is a great post by Charlotte Gore—and is a nice counter to those shrieking about "the cuts".

Say I steal £1 off 100 people and give you the £100. Should I do it a second time? Apparently refusing to do it a second time is a greater crime, because I’m denying you £100 that you’re now expecting. The poor suckers who are losing the £1? It’s only £1 isn’t it? Hardly worth getting in a flap over.

If they knew how much you really really needed that money, they’d be happy to cough up, right?

See, whilst many (most of them apparently on Twitter) are psychologically able to ignore, or excuse, or basically discount altogether the taking money from people bit of public spending, there are some of us that just can’t.

One day it occurs to ask the question, “What exactly gives them the right to help themselves to whatever they want?” and the answer turns out to be because they can. Then you get a bit angry and frustrated, feel almost entirely helpless then, just to make things that little bit worse, everyone else in the world comes and slaps you in the face for even daring to consider such heretical notions.

The taking from me bit doesn’t count. I don’t matter. It’s the no longer giving bit that counts. Think about how people feel! Think about all the things they could do with that money, or that job, or learn from those people or achieve with the support of those others! Don’t you understand? Have you no feelings?

Apparently not. I just keep thinking, “But it’s not your money. How can you live with yourselves taking it?”

And this is the point: if the government spends money on anything, anywhere, then they have to steal it from people first. Even if they borrow it today, it will still have to be paid back by the proceeds of extortion.

You want Sure Starts for your kids? That money has to come from somewhere—and it is taken from me, by force. You want Child Benefit?—that money must be stolen from the fruits of my labour. Ultimately, my lifestyle is curbed to the tune of about £600 every month so that someone else can live a lifestyle that they cannot afford on my money.

Are we truly nation of shopkeepers? No—Britain has become a nation of thieves and extortionists.

The problem is that most people don't think about where the money comes from: it is magic money that falls from the sky. Except it isn't. It is money that is stolen from other people so that they can live a lifestyle that they could not otherwise afford.

Ultimately, the cuts are protested because people do not think about where the money came from originally, and because those in receipt of it think of the cash as their right. In far too many cases, we pay out large levels of benefits so that those living beyond their means are spared the embarrassment of begging their neighbours for a little charity.

If we want to put Britain onto a sustainable footing, these two things—understanding of where the money comes from and the shame of living on charity—need to be instilled in everyone.

Of course, one of the most succinct rebuttals to those screaming about the cuts is made by The Nameless Libertarian... [Emphasis mine.]

To all those complaining about the scale of the spending cuts, in particular those relating to welfare, here's a suggestion - if it bothers you that much, then find an applicable charity and donate money to it. That way you are doing your bit to help even though the government is no longer in a position to afford to help. And if you don't want to do that, then I'd like to politely suggest that you shut the fuck up.

To summarise, put your money where your mouth is, or shut the fuck up.

Austerity hypocrites

Brendan O'Neill has a rather excellent article up at The First Post, pointing out that the Greens (and their Islington-dwelling useful idiots) are screaming hypocrites.

Liberal, left-wing and green-leaning commentators are outraged by George Osborne's spending review, claiming it will lower people's living standards and throw thousands on to the dole queue. Which is a bit rich, considering that many of the liberal intelligentsia have been agitating for austerity for years.

Time and again, liberal thinkers have told us that we must learn to live with less "stuff", for the sake of our own sanity and for the good of the people-plagued planet.

So don't be fooled by their crocodile tears today—they laid the cultural foundation stones for this age of hardship.

These austerity hypocrites have short memories. This week, the Guardian's George Monbiot wrote an angry piece about the Tory-led cuts agenda, claiming that it will help the rich and hurt the rest.

"When we stagger out of our shelters to assess the damage, we'll discover that we have emerged into a different world, run for their benefit, not ours", he said.

This is the same Monbiot who wrote a piece in 2007 titled 'Bring on the recession'.

"I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises", he said, because only a recession could give us "the time we need to prevent runaway climate change".

A recession would hurt poor people, he acknowledged—but that was a price worth paying to halt out-of-control economic growth.

Do go and read the rest—taking note of the names on the roll-call of shame...

Bang goes the neighbourhood

Now, your humble Devil is not going to get all outraged about this particular piece of Green idiocy because, unlike hyper-sensitive, po-faced, Leftoid tosspots, I just don't get offended about stuff like this.



However, I must admit that I am struggling—really struggling—to see what the point of this film is supposed to be. You know, assuming that the point isn't "we are going to kill anyone who doesn't subscribe to the new orthodoxy".

And I really cannot understand why anyone would think that it was funny. In the mealy-mouthed apology on the 10:10 website, the idiot organisers assert that...

Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

I am not offended, but nor did I find it funny. Because it just isn't funny. At all. Because it lacks... well... jokes. Or even a joke.

Perhaps if the majority of the people in the video had reacted in some different way—with something other than horror*—then perhaps it might have been amusing.

But it just wasn't. And those who know me will testify to the fact that I have a pretty damn dark sense of humour.

I think that one of the things that made it very unfunny was the fact of human agency. Perhaps if the people had spontaneously exploded, there could have been some amusement value—it could even have been made into some kind of political point.

But there were people—those in a position of authority, in every case—who were actively detonating the naysayers. As someone who loathes the idea of authoritarian governments and structures, this is hardly going to appeal to me.

(And yes, businesses have structures, but I understand that when I sign up—I am certain that no contract that I have signed up to has ever intimated that, should I disagree with my boss on matters environmental (and I quite often do), he should have the right to sack me—let alone explode me.)

Over at EU Referendum, you can also view the "Making of..." video, where one of the kids involved says (slightly tongue-in-cheek. I hope)...

I think it is vital to explode children for a good cause...

Hmmmm.

In some ways, I can agree with 10:10's message. I don't think that we should waste energy, and reducing energy consumption in the West by 10% is possibly a laudable aim—if only to reduce my power bills.

But it is not a do-or-die situation, and I use just enough power as I need to. Because, you see, I do actually have to pay the bills.

And, given my attitude to catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (i.e. it ain't happening), I just don't give enough of a crap to try to do anything ab...

BANG!**

* It's true that the footballers seemed unconcerned. But then, we expect that of footballers. After all, they are generally too stupid to be self-aware and thus have no fear of death. Or spit-roasting.

** Maybe it is funny after all.

Chutzpah

Richard Murphy—a man retired from a profession only slightly less despised than that of lawyers—waxes lyrical about the right-wing blogosphere again.

[The "right wing blogosphere"] seem to be the ultimate definition of negativity—talk, and obstruction to all action for the common good.

I wonder if they ever actually created anything?

I'm sorry but... What?

I am a software designer and general creative artist. I have created hundreds of pieces of artwork for theatre shows, businesses, think tanks and charities, and designed and created a lot of software that enables people to be more productive in their work.

Richard, on the other hand, was an accountant.

And he is wondering if I have created anything...?

Timmy, of course, has a reply too...

More rent-seeking

It seems that—in addition to Ian Arundale (who ponces about somewhere in Wales)—yet another rent-seeking policeman is warning us all that the cuts that aren't cuts will bring Armageddon.

A top police officer urged ministers on Tuesday to protect forces from the worst of the public spending cuts so they can deal with potential social and industrial unrest arising from them.

Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett, president of the powerful Police Superintendents' Association, warned of "consequences" in a speech he is due to deliver at the body's annual conference in Cheshire on Wednesday.

So, one bunch of corrupt thugs who regularly break the law and intimidate law-abiding citizens are warning us about another bunch of corrupt thugs who regularly break the law and intimidate law-abiding citizens.

Why don't we just lock them all up and have done with it?

Too much information

Tom Watson MP: a man who has, clearly, Eaten All Of The Pies. I assume he became an MP simply because he realised that only by sponging huge amounts of money off the taxpayer could he possibly feed a pie addiction this large.

Now, obviously I don't condone the phone-hacking by the News Of The World, but am I the only person that thinks that Labour MPs—and their pathetic hangers-on at the Grauniad—are a bunch of fucking hypocrites?

I mean, this is a party which, when in government, passed legislation to enable them to intercept and examine every, single iota of our communications—and now they are kicking up a stink about the fact that the appointments of a few no-nothing, colossally stupid 'slebs (who were, apparently, incapable of taking even some basic security precautions) were revealed in a tabloid rag?

Sure, cracking the voicemail accounts of such worthless individuals is pretty bloody pathetic but, to my mind, the rampant hypocrisy of those currently spouting streams of false outrage (that we have to pay for) is pretty sickening, frankly.

Oh, and a note to Our New Coalition Overlords™: any time that you want to start repealing some of NuLabour's authoritarian and intrusive legislation, you just go ahead, yeah? Anyone?

Bueller...?

Not just dangerous—stupid and corrupt as well

To follow on from my last piece on Catherine Bennett and Harriet Bradley, my impecunious and peripatetic Athenian friend has dug a little deeper and found that the whole article is even more insulting and poisonous than even I had thought.

Do go and read the whole thing but—in the manner of the very best debaters (of which, I am assured, the poor little Greek boy is one)—Mr Eugenides's summary admirably encapsulates the entire sorry debacle in a few pithy sentences.

So, just to recap: a woman who used to live with a lord in a 365-room mansion, now in a household with a combined income of some quarter of a million pounds a year, has read a PR puff commissioned and paid for to advertise a price comparison website, and uses this as evidence that we should all just take what we're given by the state and shut up.

Welcome to the world of chattering-class leftism, readers.

That's right—chattering-class leftism involves fascism, gullibility, corruption, stupidity, massive riches and utterly piss-poor writing. I just can't imagine why everyone isn't bought into this...

Can you?

Wow. Just wow.

Now, for those of you who have not had the pleasure, Sunny Hundal—of Pickled Politics and Liberal Conspiracy fame—is a social democrat who supports (amongst other things supported by state violence) the smoking ban, lots of income redistribution and high taxes and is a man who believes that "expanding the size of the welfare state ... was one of New Labour’s greatest achievements."

Now, thanks to Obnoxio, I have found this utterly incredible tweet.

Yep, that is Sunny Hundal maintaining that...

I've not argued for state using force on its own citizens

Just wow.

Johann Hari is a liar

Just look at this fat, lying little turd. Don't tell me that you don't want to punch that face till it bleeds because I simply won't believe you.

Strong stuff, eh? But whilst I would always send you over to Timmy for his detailed and fact-filled ripping apart of Johann Hari's crapulous ignorance, in this case I wish to do so in order to point out that Johann Hari is a filthy, stinking liar. In fact, Johann Hari is such a fucking obvious stinking fucking liar that he must have ambitions to be a politician.

You see, Johann Hari—the total cunting liar that he is—claims that when Britain abolished slavery, its GDP fell.

After slavery was abolished in 1833, Britain's GDP fell by 10 percent...

As Timmy points out, this is a massive lie. Well, either its a massive lie, or Hari is pulling "facts" from out of his arse. And given how cultured and educated this little shit claims to be, I can only assume that he is a lying shitbag.

Well, actually, I am damn sure that he's a shitbag. And now I am pretty sure that he's a liar too.

Which makes Johann Hari a lying shitbag.

Anyway, what Johann is basically saying is that the Chinese are complaining about their working conditions—conditions that countries more advanced than them went through 150 years ago. Hari is basically also pointing out that—although such capitalism has raised more people out of absolute poverty than ever before—people always want more.

Well, of course they do, Johann: you see, as Adam Smith appreciated, it is self-interest that motivates human beings, not altruism. D'oh.

This is a splendid quote from his article though...

One worker said: "My job is to put rubber pads on the base of each computer mouse ... This is a mind-numbing job. I am basically repeating the same motion over and over for over 12 hours a day."

Yes, this is what factory line working is about, you nitwit. Working on a factory line is a shit job. So is mining: that's a shit job too.

And yet people like Hari will bemoan the "decline of manufacturing" and the "destruction of Welsh mining communities". Manufacturing and mining are—and always have been—shit jobs.

The only reason that arseholes like Hari deplore their lack is because posh, cocktail-drinking, Islington-living, Grauniad Independent-writing shits like him will never, ever have to do those jobs.

But because benefits in this country are so huge, people in this country never have to do those shit jobs either. This is what the Romanian President had to say...

In an extraordinary TV broadcast, Traian Basescu paid tribute to the two million Romanians who live and work abroad instead of claiming benefits at home.

'Imagine if the two million Romanians working in Britain, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, came to ask for unemployment benefits in Romania,' he said.

'So to these people we have to thank them for what they are doing for Romania.'

And Mr Basescu blamed the boom in emigrant Romanian workers on lazy Westerners.

'In those countries, the social protection is at a level that makes it more comfortable to be unemployed.'

'Romanians do that hard labour for them and to earn better and make more money than they could at home,' claimed President Basescu.

But someone has to do these shitty jobs—so Chinese people die so that our benefit scroungers can have cheap hi-fis.

And Johann "total fucking liar" Hari's solution is...?

Oh, that's right: he doesn't have one. The fat little bastard has some eighty pizzas to eat, so he's just phoned in his column and is going home to listen to his blood-splattered hi-fi.

What a fat, ignorant, lying little cunt Johann Hari is.

UPDATE: oh, look—Dick Puddlecote points out that little Johann has form in the making-shit-up arena.

For a lefty propagandist like Johann Hari, a chance to link the collective Copenhagen gnashing of teeth with an anti-capitalist rant against favoured socialist targets, Coke and McDonalds, was too delicious to resist.

Johann Hari: Leaders of the rich world are enacting a giant fraud

Every delegate to the Copenhagen summit is being greeted by the sight of a vast fake planet dominating the city's central square. This swirling globe is covered with corporate logos – the Coke brand is stamped over Africa, while Carlsberg appears to own Asia, and McDonald's announces "I'm loving it!" in great red letters above. "Welcome to Hopenhagen!" it cries. It is kept in the sky by endless blasts of hot air.

However, according to one of his commenters, the only fraud being committed here is by Hari himself.

As senior programmer on the sphere you complain so bitterly about, I know for certain that there is no coke logo or macdonalds either. Seems like you made the whole thing up (again).

No coke, no macdonalds.
In fact all of the logos move continually, so the bit about " the Coke brand is stamped over Africa, while Carlsberg appears to own Asia, and McDonald's announces "I'm loving it!" in great red letters" is patently false.

The only macdonalds advert is on a macdonalds restaurant 100m away.

But then, the story wouldn't have had the same righteous appeal if Hari had mentioned sponsors such as the prominently-featured Siemens instead. Their global involvement in energy and healthcare isn't as easy to dismiss as irrelevant to COP15 as a Happy Meal is.

As I said, poor Johann seems to have a little difficulty in distinguishing fact from fiction, and to have a big problem telling the difference between being a storyteller and a journalist. Or, to put it more simply, Johann Hari is a liar.

Piss-up, Brewery

Amongst those of us who think that MPs deserve everything that they get, IPSA continues to cause uproarious amusement.

I mean, yes, it is a massively expensive £6.5 million fucking shambles, but it was set up by MPs to serve MPs—that these loathsome idiots are starting to get a taste of what the increasing bureaucratisation of Britain is like for the rest of us is, frankly, a joy.

And has come not a moment too soon.

And, of course, given the ridiculously tiny number of these bastards who are being done for fraud, it is oh-so-delicious to see these grasping slappers getting kicked right where it hurts: after all, IPSA was set up because these cunts were picking our pockets—it is poetic justice to see our Lords and Masters getting hit in theirs.

Of course, the loyal bag-carriers are getting screwed over too (me? Couldn't give a shit) and, according to Tory Bear, things are getting pretty desperate.

TB's bag-carrying amigo is raging. The £6.5m omnishambles that is the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has been forced to extend the deadline for MP’s [sic] first claims. Initially the organisation had insisted all claims had to be submitted within 90 days, but MP’s [sic] are so bemused by the system that most of them are yet to make a claim.

So far just 279 out of 650 MPs have claimed expenses, whereas the rest have funded office equipment, travel and hotels out of their own pockets. The deadline for their claims would be 7th August onwards but IPSA has rushed out a note to say that MP’s [sic] will have until 1st October for these first claims.

While TB has little sympathy with many Members, the fact that they can't even run an office is a joke. There is a difference between lining their pockets and actually doing their job. The staffer told him earlier; “We all agree with the new expenses rules, but IPSA itself is an expensive shambles. Anyone wanting to go into parliament today would need at least £10,000 in cash to cover IPSA’s inadequacies. The fact is that the system is confusing and bureaucratic. They need to abolish IPSA asap.”

Oh dear, poor darlings—what's that sound? Oh yes, it's my bleeding fucking heart.

Of course, the real kicker line in the above paragraph is, of course, this one. [Emphasis mine.]

While TB has little sympathy with many Members, the fact that they can't even run an office is a joke.

No, TB: the joke is that—even though these stupid, ignorant, blinkered, thieving, lying cunts cannot even set up and run an office to manage their expenses—they are perfectly happy to try to run the lives of 65 million people in this country.

On top of their inability to set up such an office, they then either cannot be arsed or do not have the intelligence to work out how to submit their claims on time.

Perhaps these morons could try the old "oh, I couldn't work out how to do it" on HMRC and see what the reaction is? It would be something along the lines of "you owe us a £100 surcharge plus 10% interest for every day that you fail to submit. Oh, and stop fucking whining about it, twatface." Which, coincidentally, is pretty much what my response to this IPSA debacle is.

I say, more power to IPSA's elbow: make these MPs suffer and maybe—just maybe—these people will stop trying to tie the rest of us up in bureaucratic knots. And even if they don't, at least they'll be having a miserable time.

Hooray!