This really is one of those situations...

... when one would like to ensure that they both lose.

Nick Griffin launched the “Battle for Barking” yesterday, declaring that he will stand against the culture minister Margaret Hodge at the next election.

Fuck me: what a choice for the people of Barking, eh? A choice between Nick "one-eyed, far-Left, racist shitbag" Griffin or Margaret "fuck the little children" Hodge (whose party leader also happens to be a hard-Left, one-eyed, incompetent shitbag).

You'd have to be barking to vote for either one of them. Unless by "vote" you mean "tar and feather and run out of town on a rail".

Fucking hellski.

That Question Time script in full...

Constantly Furious has kindly transcribed the whole of that Question Time session just for all of those cannot bear to watch the smug awfulness of the actual broadcast. I recommend that you read the whole hilarious transcript, but here's a sample for your delectation...

And what a night it was. A glittering gallery of all the key figures, the big beasts, in British politics: MP Chris WhoHe of extremist minority party the "Lib Dems", Jack 'thought he'd retired?' Straw for Labour, Sayeeda WhoShe for Conservatives and Bonnie Greer, a random American writer, filling that vital role of black-person-sat-right-next-to-nasty-Nick-ha-ha.

Through his contacts with the BBC (you just press '1' on the remote), CF is able to bring you a full transcript of what was probably the most tedious controversial Question Time yet.

Dimbleby: "Good evening. I'd like to welcome our panel tonight. Well, all of them bar one of course"
[audience laughs nervously]
Griffin: "I .."
[audience boos, ecstatically]
Dimblebore: "That's really quite enough from you, Mr Griffin"
[enthusiastic applause. Cries of 'quite right']
Dumbledore: "First, I must just apologise for the screaming and breaking glass you may be able to hear. I'm told that the UAF have peacefully stormed the building and are now peacefully smashing the place up".
Dumbledore: "and so, to our first question. Gentlemen with the cross face.."
Angry Asian: "Nick. Is it that you love Churchill and hate Muslims, innit?"
[applause]
Nick Griffin: "I didn't.."
Baroness Wassup [interrupting]: "Yes, you do, don't you, you do"
[prolonged applause]
Dumbledore: "Moving on now. I've got photos' Mr Griffin, of you standing near a man from the Klu Klux Klan. Does the very existence of these photo's not prove, beyond doubt, that you'd very much like to strap a black man to the front of your pickup and drive all round the bayou at high speed?"
Nick Griffin: "Well, I.."
Bonnie Greer [interrupting]: "Don't you try to tell me about no KKK. I'm American."

Indeed you are, Bonnie, and your impeccable right-on credentials were proved when you talked historical bollocks to Griffin—attacking him whenever you were able.

Then, Bonnie, you courageously shut the fuck up whilst the vile Establishment politicos happily chuntered away about the measures that their mainstream parties were taking to ensure that Americans like you, Bonnie, would not now be able to enter this country—let alone be able to stay and patronise wall-eyed loons on TV. Still, I shouldn't imagine that you are any stranger to hypocrisy, eh, Bonnie?

So I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, Bonnie Greer: truly, your ability to stand up to one man's bigotry, discrimination and injustice is to be applauded. What a pity that you, the Deputy Chariman of the National Museum, found yourself unable to stand up against bigotry, discrimination and injustice when it was advocated by your paymasters.

Yes, it was a pity—but hardly a surprise.

MSM Moron of the Day: Philip Johnson

As regular readers will know, your humble Devil is married to an American citizen who has been a victim of the disgustingly unfair and draconian immigration system currently extant in this country.^*

As such, I found last night's Question Time—during which Nick Griffin, Saida Warsi, Jack Straw and Chris Huhne tried to outdo each other in proposing ever more unfair, damaging and authoritarian legislation—enraging and thoroughly repulsive.

Of course, we should all note that the intelligentsia's fear of immigration is absolutely not in any way the same as the BNP's fear of immigration and you would be a fool and a racist to suggest such a thing.

No, these politicos were simply trying to pander to the bigotry and ignorance of a certain section of the British people suggest sensible ways of limiting immigration in order to defuse the more extreme views of Griffin. Which is, of course, much more sensible than trying to educate the viewers about the complicated arguments around immigration.

How fortunate for us all that the MSM also cannot be bothered to make that effort, as proved by a spectacularly moronic article in today's Telegraph.

Politicians appear unconcerned about the immigration-fuelled boom in Britain's population—despite the strain on schools, hospitals and quality of life. Unless we take action, the country will face an environmental nightmare, says Philip Johnston.

As I have pointed out, politicians do not seem to be unconcerned at all—in fact, they are outdoing themselves in their rush to close Britain's borders to skilled immigrants. But, leaving that aside, this article spouts some utter horseshit.

The first thing to note is that this country can hardly be described as over-crowded. In fact, the density of population in the country as a whole is pretty minimal.

Scale down the UK. To 99 football pitches.

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

Of course, you might disagree or, more pertinently, point out that the South East is pretty densely populated. However, I thought I'd just put the whole issue into perspective, i.e. there's plenty of fucking space.

However, Philip Johnson's true ignorance and stupidity is shown in this paragraph.

Indeed, it has always been the case that in order to have economic growth it is necessary to have more people. Countries whose populations stagnate and decline are countries with no future.

Bzzzzzzt! Wrong! Thank you for playing, Mr Johnson, but you are totally fucking wrong. I am no economist, but even I spotted this hideous falsehood.

However, I shan't bother to explain why you are wrong, Phil; instead, I shall pass those reins over to Timmy.

If economic growth were a matter of just having more people then there would be no rise in the size of the economy per capita, would there? And given that we do have economic growth per capita then ….well, you see the problem.

It’s possible to make a weaker claim, that we can only have economic growth per capita if we have a growing population but that too is nonsense. The onward march of technology, our ability to add more value to resources over time will lead to continued economic growth.

There’s just one special case where the assertion might be true: if population if falling faster than growth per capita is growing. Take a reasonable historical (for the capitalist world) average: 3% growth in GDP per capita over the years. If population is falling at 4% a year then total GDP will be falling while the living standards are rising. And as it’s that latter that we care about, not the former, even in this special case we don’t actually care.

And this is why the commenters at The Kitchen who bang on about population decline are also consistently wrong. A declining population does not mean declining growth.

In fact, if growth continues at a reasonable rate and the population declines, this is immensely good news. Why? Because it means that individuals are all getting richer.

If I have ten quid, and have to divide it amongst ten people, then they each have a quid. If, on the other hand, there are only five people to divide that tenner amongst, then everyone gets £2. They are twice as rich. Excellent!

Needless to say, the rest of the article is the same old scare-mongering bollocks. Instead of some reasonable cost-benefit analysis of immigration, all that we get is MSM twats and political tosspots trying to outdo each other in pandering to the BNP-voting section of the population.

But, as I said, these people's fear of immigration is definitely not the same as Nick Griffin's. Definitely not.

Understand?

UPDATE: in response to Andy's comment, I shall repost my solution to the problem.

So, here is my proposed solution, and it is a solution designed to be implemented tomorrow—that is, it assumes that we are still in the EU, etc. So, here it is: no immigrant may claim benefits until they have been working—and contributing tax (i.e. cash in hand work will not count)—for four years.

But wait! The EU will not let us treat EU citizens any differently to British citizens. Great! The same thing applies across the board, for British citizens too.

When National Insurance was first implemented, you had to have been paying in for a certain amount of time—and earned your "stamps"—before you could start getting payouts. To an extent, this is still the case, but other benefits are not, theoretically, part of the National Insurance system, so they are paid out without any requirement to have paid in.

This should stop, right now.

So, everyone—regardless of where they are from originally—gets treated in exactly the same way: no one shall receive any benefits until they have paid tax into the system for four years (an arbitrary number—we could make it higher, if you like, or lower—four years seems a reasonable time to me).

In this way, we can stop paying for people's lifestyle choices (including encouraging the feckless to have children); we can diffuse the resentment based on the "bloody immigrants, coming here and stealing our benefits" argument; we give people an incentive to pay tax rather than do cash-in-hand work; we stop people coming here with massive families in order to soak our ridiculously generous benefits system (and thus reduce immigration); we can remove these spiteful bars to non-EU immigrants working (and thus allow private companies to hire who the fuck they want); it will provide us with an incentive to ensure that our schooling is up to scratch (since natives will be competing with immigrants on an equal footing); it allows us to open our borders to those who want to come and work here (and neutralises Hayek's problems with doing so whilst a Welfare State exists); and, of course, we will substantially reduce our social security bill.

So, to be explicit, fewer (or no) border controls but also no benefits.

Those who want to work—native or immigrant—can work: those who don't will get no support.

^* Should you be a non-EU citizen interested in working in this country, here's the Devil's handy guide to just how much it will cost you.

Hain, the BNP and lack of distinction

Apparently, some people have been agonising about whether the BNP should be allowed on Question Time. And that perma-tanned moron Peter Hain has decided that, when the BNP appear, he will boycott the programme.

Mr Hain – a veteran of the anti-fascist campaigns of the 1970s – insisted the “no platform” policy should remain in place.

He said: “I was horrified when I heard about this, because it makes them [the BNP] appear as if they are another political party sitting on a panel along with democratically-elected parties.”

Look, you orange moron, the BNP are a "democratically-elected" party—they have councillors and even a couple of MEPs. They may be a repulsive bunch of knuckle-dragging, national socialist fuckwits but they are, nevertheless, democratically-elected.

Furthermore, the refusal of the three main parties to engage with the BNP gives the impression that there is—and can be—no refutation of their idiot policies. Trying to no-platform the BNP has not worked so far—so why the bloody hell would you continue with this policy?

Why indeed? The Appalling Strangeness puts it down to cowardice.

In fact, I'd argue that the rise of the BNP is in part down to the failure of the Labour party - and every other party in this country - to make the case against the BNP, and to offer people in this country a real alternative to the status quo. Hain is following the old strategy in relation to the BNP of sticking his head in the sand in the hope that they will go away. Unfortunately, the strategy didn't work. The main party policy of silence on the BNP allows them to get away with their unthinking ignorance without being called on it. And guess what? It helped them to win those seats on local councils, and helped them get those MEPs.

No doubt Hain sees his boycott as a chance for him to champion himself as a progressive politician refusing to give the cowardly and ignorant BNP a real platform in this country. Unfortunately, he comes across as the coward. He comes across as a man who won't debate the BNP because he is afraid of making his case.

Well, this may be so—but it may not be cowardice that is driving this motive. I think that the lovely Bella nails the real reason why all of the main parties are afraid to engage with the BNP...

But given what the ASI lists as some of the BNP’s policies, I suspect Hain doesn’t think them idiotic at all:

• The protection of British companies from unfair foreign imports


• The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services

Bring hospital cleaning back in-house and make high cleanliness a top priority

• More emphasis must be placed on healthy living with greater understanding of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a healthier environment and improved diets


• Develop renewable energy sources such as off-shore wind farms, wave, tidal and solar energy


• The introduction of a system of workfare for those in unemployment benefit for more than six months with compulsory work and training in return for decent payment


• Take all privatised social housing stock back under local democratically controlled council ownership

Perhaps Hain sees, as do the rest of us who are not blinded by polemic, that the only thing that separates the BNP from its more traditional rivals is its racism. And if the BNP refuse to be engaged on their racism, and want to talk about their platform of social justice instead, Hain and everybody else are going to find themselves in the unenviable position of agreeing with the BNP but not wishing to admit it. And so the BNP will come across as being quite firm in their ideas, whilst the three main parties flail about trying to show that their sort of social justice is somehow demonstrably different from the BNP’s.

It isn’t.

Quite so. And this rather excellent post does rather paint a stark picture of the political discourse in this country: we have two basic options—Social Democracy (of varying flavours but all, effectively, offering more of the same) and libertarian.

The choice is between political parties that believe that your desires should be subordinate to that of "society" (as personified by the state), and a political party that believe that the freedom of the individual is paramount.

The choice is between politicos who believe that it is not only possible but actually desirable to shape society—that's you and me—according to their own personal prejudices, and the Libertarian Party.

Just saying...

BNP: Left-wing party

It seems appropriate, after the Euro-elections, to recall that a little while ago, there was some discussion about whether not the BNP were a Left-wing or Right-wing party. Personally, I am surprised that there is still any debate.

While those of us who have steeled ourselves to read the BNP's manifesto long ago realised that their programme of nationalisation and protectionism were collectivist policies—and thus of the Left.

However, if you are in any doubt, Dizzy did a comprehensive fisk of their economic policies a little while ago.

"Ah!" I hear you cry. "But they are racists and that must mean that they are Right-wing!"

In answer to this, I shall repost this quote that I found at the Nameless Libertarian's place...

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

"By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.

"Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."—Ron Paul

Still, one thing does rather puzzle me...

How is it that that stout bastion of the free-market capitalism, individual achievement and competence—known as the North of England—actually elected two of these disgusting far-Left BNPers?

Immigration in the balance

(N.B. I am The Devil's Kitchen, and I am incredibly pissed off.)

As you know, I do not support what everyone on this blog writes: in particular, I disagree with Martin's piece below, filled, as it is, with rather poor sophistry. Let us take this, for instance:

How is 'a better life' defined? By the ability to earn more money here than in Lithuania?

Or by the right to be slaughtered in a flat in Brechin?

She came to the UK seeking 'a better life'—pity she didn't find it.

Well, if we are going to measure "a better life" by the ability to make more money, it is pretty certain that she did: after all, the detective involved in the case is quoted as saying that the men were...

...blinded by a callous determination to rob her of her hard-earned savings.

If her life was so bad, how on earth did she have savings?

It is, in any case, rather immaterial as to how we define "a better life"; what is important is how she defined a better life and, apparently, she decided that she could have a better life here than in Lithuania.

That she was a victim of a murderer is unlucky, but if we are to follow Martin's reasoning, we should all emigrate to another country just in case we, too, get murdered: the reason that we don't all fuck off to Lithuania, for instance, is because most of us believe—whether erroneously or not—that we have a better life here.

In any debate on immigration, you will hear British people who say that they run businesses, and that they prefer foreign labour because British workers are lazy, greedy, unbiddable, and stupid. These people must be forced to confront the brutal reality of their preferences - that they prefer serfs to employees; and if one serf kills another, well, there's plenty more where they came from. Then it's back to business as usual.

Your prefences helped bring about Jolanta Bledaite's slaughter - Jolanta Bledaite's blood is on your hands, not mine. You are guilty of using serf labour for your own gain. You are guilty. You, not me. You. You did this. You have to live with it. Count your profit now, and remember that you can't take it with you. I don't know if that phrase translates into Lithuanian - Miss Bledaite is no longer alive to tell us. She had hers taken from her under torture.

I fail to see how any employer can be held responsible for Miss Bledaite's murder: she believed that she had a better life here, and presumably her employer thought that she was worth the wages that he was paying her.

That one of her countrymen murdered her is absolutely fucking irrelevant. What if he had murdered her in Lithuania, Martin? Would that be easier for you—out of sight and out of mind? Or would you now be writing an article asking the employers of Lithuanuia to "count your profit now, and remember that you can't take it with you"?

What if Miss Bledaite had been murdered by an Englishman? Would you still be writing this article? Would you still be accusing her employers of murdering her? Do you not think that she had value to her employer? (Oh, and the answer is yes, she did. That is why her employer paid her.)

Or do you perhaps think that her employer should have organised and paid for 24 hour, 7 days a week armed protection for her? What would she have made of that?—do you think that she's like to be followed around everywhere, her every contact scrutinised? I think not.

The people that you should be blaming are the murderers themselves. And if you want to flail around for a secondary scapegoat, then I suggest that you turn to the European Union and the politicians that enact its laws. It is they who have signed away the right to control our borders—yes, even to the extent that we cannot stop those who have committed serious crimes from entering the country.

Because it is that one simple measure that would have stopped this crime: the ability to check on convictions, and stop those with serious crimes in their past from entering this country. Such a simple and, I think most would agree, common sense solution; for all that I am a believer in the free movement of people, even I wouldnot let foreign murderers into this country.

Because, Martin, there is a flip-side to your protectionist policy. Yesterday, a good friend of mine, an American, was told that—because of the new point-based immigration system—she will lose her teaching job at the end of this year because the institution that employs her is unable to justify her employment.

Despite the fact that she has been here for years and wants to stay here, speaks English and is, as far as I can tell, good at her job, she will lose that post because of the government's pandering to idiots like you and the BNP. And because of their dog-whistle policy, she has no chance of getting another job either: so, at the end of this year, with no work-visa (which both she and her employer have paid the British government for) and thus no right to remain, she will be packed off back to the US and be, effectively, barred from living here forever.

And why? She wanted to live here, she has lived here for years, hasn't committed any crime and has supported herself throughout her time here; but because that fucking cunt, Gordon cunting Brown, and his bastard NuLabour bastard cronies have to respond to stupid, protectionist fuckwits, she is out and with no appeal.

(We have, at my company, a South African who is in a similar position, although it is rather easier for our company to justify his employment.)

And because our politicians have signed away the right to control immigration from the EU—resulting in a flood of people who don't speak our language and don't share our culture—in response to the politics of the BNP, they have decided to clamp down and make it almost impossible for those who speak our language and share our Common Law culture to remain here, even though they are supporting themselves and demanding nothing from the British state.

In other words, in order to pander to the EU's crap, NuLabour have decided to make every effort to chuck out and screw over those who have come here from the Commonwealth and the general Anglosphere.

This is why, via A Very British Dude, Hague's idea that we should expand the Commonwealth is slack-balled posturing.

The Commonwealth should take on more members to increase its influence, shadow foreign secretary William Hague has said in a speech in London.

The organisation can act as a "bridge across divides of religion, ethnicity, culture and wealth, to the benefit of common humanity", he added.

Mr Hague also accused Labour of neglecting the Commonwealth.

A Conservative government would give it "unwavering support" as a foreign policy tool, he promised.

That slap-headed cunt is in absolutely no position to do fuck-all about the Commonwealth: we sold our former colleagues and colonies down the fucking river when we joined the EU. If I were a member of the Commonwealth, I would send a letter to that fucking slap-head, telling him that if the Tories wanted to use the Commonwealth as "a foreign policy tool" then they should have given their "unwavering support" in 1972, rather than fucking said countries over—and thus effectively abdicating from Commonwealth leadership—by joining the EU.

So screw you, Hague, you fucking hypocritical cunt. And fucking screw you Gordon, you thrice-cursed, one-eyed Scottish idiot. I loathe you and your disgusting BNP-style "British jobs for British workers". Most of all, I loathe the hypocrisy of you all: you would destroy the jobs of those who want to work, whilst allowing in hordes of people who don't.

And now I shall retire because I am so fucking, ragingly angry that I can barely type. Because what your stance means, Martin, is that people like Bella can have their livelihoods removed, their relationships and friendships ripped apart, and their lives uprooted because you think that one murder means that our borders should be closed.

Fuck you and the fucking politicos: fuck you all.

UPDATE: Bella has elaborated on the position...

In October 2008, the UK Home Office changed its immigration policy vis a vis overseas nationals. They could not, of course, do anything about immigration from within the EU. Previously, visa and work-permit applications were reviewed on a case-by-case basis (with, you understand, the payment of accompanying fees), and under that system, renewing my own work-permit and leave to remain was quite easy. I teach; teaching is a shortage occupation; my criminal record is clean; end of story.

The new system is points-based and extraordinarily complex. My background and qualifications (or lack thereof; see here) do not add up to the requisite number of points. The essential problem comes from my lack of formal teaching qualification, and this has always been a bit of a catch-22: I cannot work without the PGCE, but I cannot afford to do the PGCE unless I work. There are ways around that lack of paper-qualification, which I was going to undertake in the 2009-2010 school year.

Under the old system, while all secondary-education teaching was considered a shortage occupation, my employers did not have to prove that they could not find a British or EU national to employ to do my job. Under the new system, only the teaching of maths and sciences is considered shortage, and I teach neither. If the school wished to continue employing me, it would first have to advertise the position, interview candidates, then prove conclusively that, despite my lack of a PGCE, I am still more qualified than the native candidates. (My having worked in the post for the past two years does not, unfortunately, count toward that proof.)
...

Restrictions on immigration are something that have never particularly appealed to me, a libertarian. I support the free movement of labour, although I realise that on a tiny island like Great Britain, that’s not a terribly good policy. Restrictions may be necessary because space and housing are at a premium. But I cannot support any policy that puts me, and people like me, out of a job. Under the old system, I was a tax-paying asset to the common weal; under the new system, I am a dirty foreigner stealing a British job from a British worker. And yet the only thing that has changed is the system—not me.

And so to keep anti-immigration fucknuts happy, and to compensate for its inability to restrict immigration from EU countries, the British government is going to throw me out of my job and my home, and the British people will give their assent without a murmur.

Our politicians are cunts but so, unfortunately, are very many of the British people. There are 3 million households in the UK in which not one person works: we would be a fuck sight better off if we kept people like Bella and deported those three million households to a fucking rock in the ocean.

Cunts.

Racism in the police

Via Timmy, I see this outrageous piece of illiberal bollocks.

One of Britain's biggest police forces is investigating allegations that it has British National party members among its frontline officers, the Guardian has learned.

Greater Manchester police launched the investigation after complaints from its own officers, who say they saw colleagues at a BNP event to mark St George's Day.
...

The force vowed that any officer found to be a BNP member could be sacked.

Er, you fucking what? Look, the BNP are a bunch of far-Left, racist bastards but they are still a legal political party; how the hell can you be sacked from your job for belonging to a legal organisation?

Police officers are not allowed to be members of the BNP, which is widely seen as being racist and which has members with convictions for violence. The policy was passed by police chiefs three years ago. They say membership of the party is incompatible with officers' duties under race equality laws.

Er, right.

Ali Dizaei of the National Black Police Association, who is a chief superintendent in the Metropolitan police, called for an independent investigation: "It beggars belief that in today's police service we appear to have serving police officers who are members of the BNP."

OK, so the police don't want racists serving in their ranks.

Would someone then like to explain to me, precisely, how an organisation which determines whether you can join on the basis of your skin colour—which is, unless I am sorely mistaken, a racist policy and thus rather defines the National Black Police Association as a racist organisation—can criticise officers for (possibly) being members of the BNP?

And, whilst we are about it, did you know that you and I and all the other taxpayers actually fund the National Black Police Association? And did you know that the funding has actually been suspended whilst the Home Office probes the accounts for evidence of "improper activities"?

I object to funding unions and I certainly object to funding racist organisations: I would object to funding the BNP and I certainly object to funding the National Black Police Association. Given the fact that the organisation is overtly racist and, quite possibly, crooked, I would heartily recommend that Ali Dizaei shut his fucking face, frankly.

Tim Janman: better off out of... well... anywhere...

A very drunken night for your humble Devil at the Better Off Out Politicians Are Better Off In event on Monday night. Whilst I wandered around, bumping into various inanimate objects, Trixy bumped into an unpleasant piece of shit called Tim Janman, a former Conservative MP for Thurrock.

I'm not sure what he does now, but one of the things that he is currently doing is making obscene calls to Trixy and generally upsetting her. Let us hope that Mr Janman and myself do not meet again. What kind of fucking little turd meets someone, knows that she is seeing someone, but still thinks that it is acceptable to 'phone her up late at night and make obscene suggestions? Well, former Conservative MPs, obviously.

Janman's Wikipedia entry is quite illuminating. [Emphasis mine.]

On 10 October 1989, Janman joined Nicholas Budgen, M.P., and Jonathan Guinness (in the chair) as speakers at a major fringe meeting organized by the Young Monday Club, heralded as "The End of the English? - Immigration and Repatriation". Janman was subsequently quoted by journalist Judy Jones in The Daily Telegraph as saying that "if you look at the lack of immigration control in the past, then yes, Britain has become the dustbin of the world". He added that there was a need to offer voluntary repatriation to members of ethnic minorities settled in the UK, which groups did not wish to integrate with the indigenous population.

Now, if you were to look at the manifesto of the BNP [PDF], this is almost exactly what they advocate.

What was that, Mr Cameron, about UKIP being full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists"? Well, I must admit that your racists do seem to be very open about it.

I am not sure of the best way to define Janman's attitude to young ladies, but I would say that "obnoxious, stalking pervert" would suit nicely.

UPDATE: yes, your humble Devil did, indeed, meet Chad Noble and—despite some members of the UKIP leadership donning tin hats and leaping for cover behind the tables as we drew closer—your humble Devil was deeply irritated to find that Chad is actually a rather pleasant chap. Damn him! Oh well, I put it down to the healing effects of the unstinting distribution of copious amounts of free booze.

Guido was also there, as was Alex Singleton and a host of people from UKIP, Better Off Out and The Freedom Association. Good fun had by all, I think.

I have to say "I think" because my memory is slightly hazy...

Free speech and the BNP

It always amazes me how so many people seem to drop their objections to the curbing of free speech whenever the BNP are mentioned, such as in this article.

"POLITICIANS and anti-racism campaigners reacted with outrage last night when it emerged that the far-right British National Party was to get its own election broadcast during this year's Holyrood campaign as well as hundreds of thousands of pounds in free election publicity from the taxpayer."

Well, that's what happens when a party fields a certain number of candidates. Under one state funding scheme that I have seen posited, it was proposed that every vote a party received, the public purse gave that party £3. Well, the BNP got 800,000 votes at the last Euro elections, which would give them £2.4 million.

However, Shuggy is very unhappy about state funding and also very unhappy about the BNP getting any money at all.

Thing is, unless you're of the disposition that thinks public provision is always better than private, i.e. you're a Stalinist, it's usually customary to provide some sort of justification for spending other people's dosh on projects they didn't choose to spend it on themselves.

The primary one is the concept of the public good. There's things like national defence, or street-lighting, that people acting in their rational self-interest would conceal their preference for, since they assume that they will get it anyway because they can't be excluded from the benefits thereof.

Do party political broadcasts from the BNP qualify as a public good? Don't fucking think so.

Well, I'm sure that the 800,000 people who voted for them in the last Euro elections think that "party political broadcasts from the BNP qualify as a public good", for starters. As I have said before, I despise the BNP mainly because they are a collectivist, Left-wing party* but then so are fucking NuLabour (and the Tories aren't far off these days, either). I object to any of them getting any money whatso-fucking-ever.

But you have to be consistent; either you give money to them all, or none at all. As I said, I favour the latter myself but since the system was set up in order to try to overcome the massive inbalance in financial clout between the mainstream parties and the smaller parties, one can hardly complain when minority parties, such as the BNP, get awarded some of the vast amounts of our money swilling around, can you?

Stopping the BNP from getting the same help that other parties are getting in putting across their measure is simply the curbing of free speech by roundabout means. And there is no middle ground, no grey area here: either you believe in free expression or you don't.

* They are collectivist so that they can control who, i.e. what colour, nationality, etc, owns and operates businesses and industries. This is a tactic of which Stalin and Hitler would have heartily approved, of course.