Against Ken at Londonist

Your humble Devil has a short article up at the Londonist, about why Ken Livingstone was—and would be—a shit Mayor. Over the course of a little less than 700 words, I tried to cover all of the lying, corruption, waste and incompetence demonstrated by this vicious little shit.

Alas, the article had to be cut slightly; believe me, I could have written double the mount and still not have covered everything—even in the most cursory manner.

I shall, I think, expand that small start here at The Kitchen over the next couple of weeks: much as I dislike the man—and, believe me, I do—even I was shocked at his mendacity, venality and inability.

For balance, yesterday Londonist published a similar article about why Boris was a twat.

And you can find some of my views on him and, specifically, the booze ban on London transport here and here...

UPDATE: I believe that my reply to some of the commenters over at Londonist makes a number of simple but salient points about libertarianism (since that is what said commenters picked up on).

I admit that both I and BorisWatch could have simply pointed out that they are both politicians and are, obviously, both liars. However, I thought that I would attempt to provide some articles backing up the assertion.

@jaypeedee: "What's your problem with Unions?" Quite simply, the support given to them by government. They should not be able to distort the democratic process through massive amounts of funding (and the same applies to corporates) but, most importantly, it should not be illegal to sack striking workers.

@Chenobble: "Libertarians hate democracy..." No, we just don't worship democracy. The main point is that democracy is not the point of it all—freedom is. Democracy has been, so far, the best way of ensuring freedom for the longest time (until the next bloody revolution), but it is not an end in itself.

"They call it the 'tyranny of the majority'..." Because it is. The majority get to elect politicians—who, by the very nature of democratic re-election processes, will pander to that larger group of people—and so happily oppress the minority to do so. If you don't believe me, simply look at how politicians are oppressing the rich through vastly higher tax rates (clue: there are very few rich people, and lots of less rich people).

"Libertarians also hate anything that gets in the way of free market enterprise [...] unions are seen as an impediment to the free market because they stop business fully exploiting their employees." No. Unions—when not backed by government laws—are an entirely legitimate way for workers to rebalance power. It is the intervention of government—on both sides (corporate and union)—which makes them both enemies of the free market.

@David Levy: "There can be no question but that Ken supports cheaper fares..." He may well support cheaper fares: my point (delivered with evidence) was that he has—despite his "support" or his marketing—failed, consistently, to deliver them.

"... interesting you don't compare his fare increases with those under Johnson." My brief was to write about why Ken is deeply unsuitable, not why Boris is; this article has been shortened from it's original 700+ words as it is (and I could easily have written double the amount and still not touched on all of the corruption under Ken's rule).

In any case, why do you think that fares are going up 7%? Because the Tube drivers have demanded pay increases of not far less than that, plus energy is becoming massively expensive.

The first happens because the unions wish it so, and Ken is a supporter of those same unions; all other things being equal, he cannot support the interests of both the unions and the people of London.

The second is happening because of successive governments' policies on energy consumption, i.e. to tax it heavily (for a variety of reasons).

Regards,

DK

Being on foreign turf, so to speak, I decided to keep my tone—especially on the last two points—relatively neutral: after all, I do not expect Londonist people to be political anoraks...

A call to arms

My old friend Carpsio calls it as it is, in a frankly poetic piece of writing...

No surprise then, that no Government in recent times has been able to command the support an actual majority of the population – instead trying to create the illusion of popular support through the media to cover that fact. Policy has been determined by business and pressure groups – and very often these people have been co-opted into the government as ‘tzars’ or as the heads of the quangocracy. You think that democracy supplanted the courts of the Kings and the aristocratic merry-go-round of yore? Well more fucking fool you.

The result? An endless melange of “policy” that has left us unarmed, undereducated, dispossessed, in chattels and bondage to both a criminal underclass and a wastrel, dilettante aristocracy. Your money is taken under threat of violence and incarceration and given to the violent and incarcerated. Your every move and every pound you spend is entered into the ledger and used against you to prove your unfitness to live your life the way that you see to be fit.

Language runs amok: criminals run riot in the streets, do as they please and are called ‘dispossessed’ and ‘victims’. Those who squander and steal from the public purse are ‘public servants’. Your liberty is taken in the name of freedom and the man who defends his property is sent away in chains. And even today, after everything, Parliamentarians will rise and address each other as “my honourable friend”.

London may burn today at the hands of the scum at whose feet the state has prostrated itself for 30 years, but it doesn’t end there.

The touchpaper is lit.

There are more of us than there are of them.

Read the whole thing.

In the meantime, the "riot map" continues to pin-point the really shitty bits of London...

A Northern Line extension proposal

Like Blue Eyes, I am in favour of the proposed Northern Line extension, as far as it goes—which is not very far.

For a part of London so near to the centre, it is crazy how inaccessible this area is. If I had to find something critical to say, it would be that the route is not ambitious enough—could it not head further West to join up with somewhere on the District line?

When I replied to the consultation survey, my own suggestion was that the line should extend beyond Battersea and terminate at (the relatively near-by) Clapham Junction which, despite being the busiest rail station in Europe (by number of trains), has no Tube station.

The driver—and, indeed, source of much of the money—seems to be the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station, which looks to be (if it actually happens) a rather exciting development of a sadly neglected landmark.

Let us see how it goes...

London Underground

Your humble Devil was little affected by the RMT strike that brought the Tube to a halt. However, there really is only one comment to make...


I doubt that I shall be the only person who posted this...

This morning I was driving along behind a van for London Extensions Ltd, a firm of builders specialising, presumably, in house extensions. Their tagline?

Because everybody needs a little bit on the side...

Well, it amused me...

0.04% makes all the difference

As you will know, I think that RMT boss Bob Crow is an evil fucking cunt. Still, I was happy to see that the Tube strike had been called off at the last minute but I was just a wee bit puzzled: you see, the papers were reporting that the strike was called off after the pay deal was raised from 4.95% to 4.99%.

Does 0.04% really make so much difference? I mean, I know that there were allegedly problems with "bullying" suchlike, but surely that was a job for TfL managers and not worth holding a strike over?

On an entirely unrelated note, here's Banditry with a tongue-in-cheek (I think) conspiracy theory. [Apologies for quoting in full.]

[phone rings]
BJ: Wot ho, Bozza here.
BC: Hello. I’m Bob Crow, and I’m evil. I’m going to lead the Tube maintenance workers out on strike (a 5% pay rise just isn’t enough, you see) and paralyse the city.
BC: [evil laugh]
BJ: Oh. That’s dashed inconvenient. Is there, erm, anything we can do to appease you?
BC: Hmmm.
BC: [evil laugh]
BC: Well, there is one thing…
BJ: Jolly good, I always say that reasonable chaps can work things out reasonably.
BC: The guy you hired to run TfL—you know, the one with the record in taking over badly run, overmanned companies, cutting costs, improving services, breaking union strangleholds, that kind of thing?
BJ: Oh yes, Timmy. A bit of an oik—his daddy was a squaddie, what, but the only chap on my team who isn’t a completely useless buffoon.
BC: Hmmm.
BC: He goes.
BC: [evil laugh]
BJ: And that way your chaps will take the 5%?
BC: Oh yes…
BJ: Spiffing fun. Timmy goes, strike’s off, let’s all have tea and cakes.
BC: …until next time.
BC: [evil laugh]

I know, I know: it sounds ker-azeeeee, eh? But I wonder...

UPDATE: Guido's thinking along the same (Tube) lines, it appears...

Parker said when he started in June: "Throughout my business career I have been accountable to exacting shareholders. In my new role, my shareholders will be the taxpayers of London." He took a symbolic £1 in pay. 24 hours after he quit TFL and TubeLines caved in to a ludicrous London Underground pay deal. Hence the RMT's Crowe cancelling the strike. Do you think that perhaps Parker, a famous cost cutter, quit for this reason? Can it be a coincidence? Could Boris have hoisted the white flag because he was petrified of "Tory Cuts" rhetoric?

Hmmmm...

A person who is worse than Gordon Brown...

This man is a cunt. There really isn't any more I can say... oh... wait... yes there is. If you see Bob Crow, do feel free to punch him in the face, eviscerate him, hoof him repeatedly in the knackers and then beat him to death with his own face.

So, the Tube Lines maintenance staff, led by RMT's Bob Crow, have decided on two 72 hour strikes just to piss everybody off.

Around 1,000 London Underground maintenance workers are to stage two 72-hour strikes in a dispute over pay and conditions, threatening "massive" disruption to Tube services, a leading union announced today.

Members of the Rail Maritime and Transport union at Tube Lines will walk out at 12 noon next Wednesday and again from noon on Wednesday, September 3.

And their beef?

The workers voted by more than three to one in favour of industrial action in protest at a 4.85% pay offer, which the union said was an inferior deal to one accepted on behalf of staff employed on Metronet contracts.

4.85%? That's not too shabby; I warrant that it's way more than most people in the private sector will be getting this year. And this bit is just barking...

... the union said was an inferior deal to one accepted on behalf of staff employed on Metronet contracts.

Yes, Bob, that's right. Where the fuck have you been? You obviously failed to notice that Metronet went bust and had to be bailed out by the... oh, hang on...

Fuck me, Bob Crow might be even more of a cunt than Batshit Miliband...

A note to all UKIP London members

There is a fine upstanding gentleman who wishes to become one of your MEPs: his name is Tim Worstall. Tim has been one of my main blogging inspirations and has a talent for summing up complicated concepts in pithy prose. He has also been one of those who has helped me to clarify what it is that I believe in and, indeed, introduced me to the term "classical liberal".

He would be a superb MEP for UKIP being, as he is, not only a EU-sceptic, but an EU-nihilist; that is to say, he believes that it should not exist at all. As it does, however, he believes that we should not be a part of said political institution. His opposition to the EU is based on sound principles of economics and of legality and of sovereignty.

Tim is also a very nice man, offering to take your humble Devil (whom, at the time, he had never met) into his own home in order to allow him a short holiday from the stresses and strains of my life at the time. He also brings me cheap cigarettes and alcohol.

Tim has posted a full resumé over at his place and, if you are a UKIP London member, I urge you to vote for him in the upcoming UKIP London Region MEP selection process.

Boris goes economy

Londonist have a round-up of the latest cost-cutting efforts by Boris; this time he is cutting down the amount of money that we Londoners are handing over to the lovely People's Republic of China.

The Ramsay brand and a £400 a night hotel were among the items struck from the budget for London House - our city's presence at the Beijing Olympics this August - at last night's meeting of the Olympic Board, chaired for the first time by Mayor Johnson.

Bozza's frugality saw over £1 million knocked off the bill for London's PR exercise as 18 Ramsay chefs were deemed unnecessary for hospitality and the City Hall delegation to the Games reduced to essential personnel only. The new Mayor is putting our money where his mouth is and opting to stay in a cheaper hotel than was booked for Ken and asking to fly economy (although the chances of BA not upgrading the blond bombshell in all his glory humility for the 16 hour flight are pretty much nil).

Well, as long as BA upgrade him at their expense, rather than the Mayor flying first class at our expense, I don't give a shit what class Boris flies in, frankly.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that Johnson is making good on his pledge to cut spending: maybe the Mayor's precept section of the Council Tax (already sitting at around £300 per Londoner per annum) won't go up next year?

Tube philosophy

Here's a photo, taken by John Band, at King's Cross St Pancras.


As John says, I'm not sure that Boris would approve. Mind you, none of our politicians would...

Master Weasel

Author's Note: The author of this post is not The Devil's Kitchen

A timely reminder that a politician with blonde floppy hair and a semblance of a sense of humour is still a politician.

Boris Johnson's supporters justified the piece of illiberal fuckwittery that is the banning of the drinking of alcohol on public transport, saying "he is carrying out a key manifesto commitment".

Remind me. What was the key-est of all of Boris' manifesto commitments? The flagship policy, if you like? Was it perhaps:

• The bendy bus is unsuitable for London's streets, they are twice as dangerous as non-articulated buses and have almost three times the rate of fare evasion. I will phase out bendy buses and run a new competition to find a 21st century Routemaster that has full disabled access, runs on clean fuel and has conductors.

Are, we, after less than two weeks, starting to see the Boris Team weaselling out of this particular manifesto commitment? Er...

The Mayor's plans for a new generation Routemaster may not happen, his new transport boss admitted today.

Kulveer Ranger, Boris Johnson's director of transport policy, said that a design competition would be launched - but if no bid was good enough they would look again at the pledge. He added that although Mr Johnson is very keen to bring in a new-style bus in place of bendy buses, they would not press ahead with the idea for the sake of it.

...

But in a departure from Mr Johnson's policies, Mr Ranger said the new design would not necessarily be "hopon, hop-off" with a conductor, as on the old Routemasters.

He said: "Whether or not we have a conductor depends on the design of the bus. We want people to be creative...If we find there are initially no suitable bids we will review [the policy]."

So, to translate: There's a good chance there will be no new bus and, even if there is, it is very unlikely that it will be one that could reasonably be described as a 'Routemaster'.

It's the oldest trick in the book of representative democracy. Wait until you're elected, then tell the people who elected you that your policy is unworkable, despite the fact that you've been aware of this all along. Not a whole lot the voters can do about it now, is there?

Boris Johnson: Disingenuous cunt.

More: Boris Watch

As sure as night follows day...

... when one fuckwitted authoritarian cunt decides to implement an illiberal piece-of-shit policy, NuLabour will follow suit.

Travellers face a ban on drinking alcohol on trains, buses and trams across the country, it was revealed last night.

The drastic plan to cut loutish behaviour will be considered as part of a Government review aimed at making public transport safer.

Fucking hell, frankly. Why the cunting fuck does Jacqui Smith (or any of the rest of you) think that alcohol makes people into louts? Some people are simply louts and any alcohol merely emphasises that fact. You want to cut loutish behaviour on public transport?—ban louts from travelling on it (oh, and do please tell me how you'd enforce that).

And if you think that banning certain people from public transport is wrong, then may I suggest that you shut the fuck up on the issue of alcohol? I may? Then do.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said the Tories were delighted their ideas...

See? The Tories are going to be just as big a bunch of authoritarian cunts as NuLabour.

... were being copied by the Government, but added that the devil would be in the detail. He said: "Even when this Government looks like it is getting it right, it often ends up getting it wrong."

Police already have powers to designate trains and coaches going to and from sporting events as "dry", but a wider ban would prove controversial.

Critics warn that it could fail to curb violence as troublemakers have usually been bingeing in pubs and clubs.

Well, exactly. And that is precisely the same for public transport in London. You fuckwit, Boris.

It would also stop law-abiding travellers enjoying a glass of wine with a meal on an inter-city journey.

Well, as we've seen from the last couple of comment threads, most people don't care. That's right, isn't it? Guys?

It could even raise the farcical prospect of passengers on Eurostar trains being made to drink up before entering England.

Farcical indeed. But it's all for the greater good, isn't it? Guys? Commenters? Hello...?

Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: "A drinks ban on all public transport including long-distance rail would be completely over the top, widely ignored and impossible to enforce.

"This would be the nanny state gone mad. Ordinary passengers should not be punished for the misbehaviour of a minority."

But they are. And, as all too many of The Kitchen's commenters have shown, a lot of people are in favour of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty. Ain't that right, guys?

As ever, Falco brings another take to this.

It really is a mutual spiral of fuckwittery lead authoritarianism. The thing is that if you accept the principle behind the no drinking on the tube idea then how can you object to this:

No Muslims on the tube.

Boris today explained that while he accepted that most Muslims were no trouble on the tube at all, those few who were caused such serious trouble, (far more than any drunk), that it would be best to "send a message" to crack down on tube explosions.

or

No Blacks on the tube:

Boris launched his new policy of a "Darkie free tube" today. He explained to the baying mob that just because most blacks were law abiding did not excuse the increased incidence of theft by this ethnic community. The best way to send a strong message on crime was to ban the lot of them. When asked what would be the situation if you had mixed parentage Boris replied, "We are making the tube a safer, better place. So frankly I wouldn't show up if you've got even a bit of a tan."

Would anyone like to pipe up in favour of the above? No.

Well, what a fucking surprise.

A blow to belief

A few days ago, the ever-excellent Daily Mash satirised Boris's alcohol ban.

BORIS Johnson is to ban Scotsmen from the London Underground in a bid to make the Tube more bearable for everyone else.

The London mayor said a Scots-free Tube would be less intimidating for ordinary travellers, and would not smell so badly of chips, blood, spilt lager and urine.

He said: "As we all know the Scot is incapable of sitting on anything with wheels attached unless already drunk, or carrying enough booze to knock out an Irish bank manager and his wife for a weekend."

Most amusing, I must say. What has not been amusing is the reaction to my post of yesterday, protesting against the alcohol ban.

You see, I had rather naively imagined that the majority of people actually understood the concept of liberty; I certainly thought that readers of The Kitchen might get it. It seems that, in a large number of cases, I was entirely wrong.

To say that this is disappointing is a massive understatement.

The attitude of many of the commenters does remind me of a comment that I saw on a forum some years ago, which was along these lines.

That's the British for you. They love to talk about liberty, but they become fascists when confronted with things that they personally dislike.

That has pretty much been the attitude of many of the commenters, and it is the same deeply illiberal attitude that has allowed the cunt politicians to rape our freedoms.

Boris Johnson: still a totalitarian cunt. Just like many of my commenters.

The arguments, such as they are, appear to have two prongs. The first is the most lame and essentially goes like this:

I would never have a drink on the Tube, so who cares?

I don't think that I can possibly make a more eloquent argument against this attitude than did Pastor Niemoller, frankly.

The second argument is no less facile, but let's have a look anyway, shall we? This second prong can essentially be summed up in this hastily-constructed syllogism:

If people drink too much alcohol then they will get drunk.
Some drunk people make trouble on public transport.
Therefore we should ban everyone from drinking alcohol on public transport.

It is a completely stupid fucking argument, really, and is born of the pusillanimous and totalitarian tendences inherent in the average Daily Mail reader.

First, not everyone who drinks is drunk. I gave the example of consuming one beer on the way home; it was very pleasant, since from Southfields to Earl's Court is, like 55% of the Tube, not actually underground. The sun was streaming through the windows, the carriage was about only about half full, my Private Eye was interesting, and the gentle rocking of the train was complemented by my lovely bottle of cool ale.

The ale was all the more welcome since my colleague, who gives me a lift from Ockham to Southfields, needed to drop into the supermarket (where I had bought my beer) to buy his week's supplies and I didn't even get onto the Tube until nearly seven in the evening. With an hour on the Tube ahead of me, the beer really appealed.

The general tone of the comments was, first, "well, couldn't you have had a few pints before going home" (no. Have you been to Ockham recently?) and, "well, couldn't you have waited." Yes, yes, I could have waited, but why should I? Just because you wouldn't drink on the Tube does not mean that I should not be allowed to do so.

Was I drunk? No. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, when this policy was announced, how many people actually get drunk on public transport? Very few.

Have I been drunk on the Tube? Certainly I have. But not all drunk people cause trouble on public transport. I have never abused anyone, never shouted at anyone, never acted in a threatening way to anyone, never vomited on anyone, never... Well, you get the picture. I did once fall asleep on the Victoria Line and go to Brixton to Seven Sisters and back again, but I wasn't leaning or dribbling on anyone and I was more tired than drunk (I hadn't slept all night).

Have I been the subject of threatening behaviour on the Tube? No, but in Edinburgh I was once beaten up by a drunk guy, for no reason whatsoever. But because I am not a totalitarian cunt, I did not call for alcohol to be banned. Do you see?

So, so far we have established that drinking on the public transport does not automatically cause a nuisance, and that being drunk on public transport does not automatically cause a nuisance. OK?

So what is the issue? The problem is loud and threatening behaviour by certain people; sometimes these people are drunk. Sometimes they are sober.

A number of commenters think that, because these people are sometimes drunk, that we should ban drinking on public transport.

But sometimes people are cunts when they are sober; thus, the logical extension of this is that we should ban sobriety on public transport.

Because we pride ourselves on being a liberal society, we have framed our laws to deal with this problem. What we have done is only to legislate against the threatening behaviour, whether it is committed by someone drunk or sober.

This is only right; we recognise that neither being drunk nor drinking is actually a crime; it harms no one but the person consuming the alcohol.

In short, the problem is that the laws against threatening behaviour are not being upheld (nor, indeed, are the drunk and disorderly laws). That is a failure of policing, not a reason for more bans. The simple fact is that it doesn't matter how many laws you pass: if they aren't being enforced, then they are utterly pointless.

But those who commented on my last post would ban drinking on the Tube because it might lead to a crime. Do I have to spell out the logical conclusion of this position?

Oh, OK then.

Ultimately, being alive might lead to someone committing a crime so we should actually ensure that no one is born. We should sterilise everyone and then, eventually, we will have a crime-free society. When everyone is dead.

The commenters who are in favour of this ban are entitled to their opinions, of course; but don't you ever dare call yourself libertarian, or even liberal. You are nasty, totalitarian, little cunts and you personify everything that is wrong with this country.

I despise you.

UPDATE: some people still don't get it. Showing a quite astonishing level of delusion and wishful thnking is commenter Zorro.

Why do you think it would be acceptable for him NOT to do this when he pledged to do so?

He should never have pledged to do so in the first place. Boris has, himself, styled himself as a libertarian; we can now see that this is absolute horseshit.

But the really weird bit is this next paragraph. [Emphasis mine.]

Obviously not everything Boris or the coming Tory govt of 2009/2010 will do some things we don't like. Obviously, evert bastard govt does. But they will be less corrupt, less authoritarian (a little), less stupid, less spendy, in the end, less government. Which is good and the best outcome we can reasonably hope for.

So, the Tories are going to be "less authoritarian" and deliver "less government"? How can you possibly think this?

Boris, as The Nameless One points out, is now the most powerful Tory in the country and his policies are going to give some indication of what a Tory government might be like.

And Boris's very first act is to implement a policy that is more authoritarian than that of NuLabour's representative. It is a policy that involves more government interference in our daily lives (and if you think that this is the end of such policies then you are even more stupid than I thought).

Seriously, Zorro, what kind of weird, parallel universe are you living in?

Boris Johnson: illiberal cunt

No, Bruce, he's really not a libertarian.

So, our tousle-haired new Mayor has decided that, from the first of June, drinking alcohol will be banned on public transport. As a result, I would like to be the first to call Boris Johnson a despicable fucking cunt.

Mr Johnson said: "I'm determined to improve the safety and security of public transport in London and create a better environment for the millions of Londoners who rely on it. I firmly believe that if we drive out so called minor crime then we will be able to get a firm grip on more serious crime. That's why from June 1 the drinking of alcohol will be banned from the Tube, tram, bus, and Docklands Light Railway.

You stupid little tit, you don't stamp out smaller crimes by introducing more misdemeanors to the statute books! Why don't you try policing the laws that we already have—you know, the ones that criminalise being drunk and disorderly, or harrassment, or threatening behaviour?

Oh and, as PigDogFucker observes, being drunk is not threatening behaviour.

If you find any of the following “intimidating”, “threatening”, or whatever pathetic term-of-the-day gets used to mean “oooh, I don’t like it, help me mummy”:

1. people drinking


2. people being drunk


3. people being drunk and loud

...then you are a worthless cunt who doesn’t deserve to live.

Yes, if people start actually threatening you (which means “saying they’re going to do bad things to you”, not “being loud and common within your earshot”), that’s a bad thing and they should be arrested. But as long as they don’t, then either shut the fuck up or (preferably) kill yourself and everyone who shares your DNA.

As Timmy points out, coupled with the utterly unjustified reclassifying of cannabis, this seems to indicate a distinct trend.

In both cases we have millions of people being told what they may not do, both profoundly illiberal moves, on the spurious grounds of their possible effects on others. We already have rules agains being drunk and disorderly, we already have rules against bothering other passengers, we already have rules against any of the effects of either drugs or alcohol on other people.

But let’s ban them just to be sure, eh?

A good many commenters are saying that Boris will be a taste, the vanguard, of how the Tories might govern this country. For all our sakes, I hope that that is not the case.

But I fear that it is: we will merely swap one load of corrupt, incompetent, soft-Left, bansturbating cunts for another.

Politicians: hang them all.

UPDATE: some people really don't seem to be getting the point of this, so let's try this explanation from Banditry, shall we?

If we ban harmless things, then harmful things will magically disappear

It ought to be pretty obvious that banning drinking in a place is completely different from banning drunken louts from a place.

If you ban drinking in a place, it prevents people who aren’t louts but fancy a beer from having one, while doing absolutely nothing to prevent louts who are drunk from causing a nuisance (even if the drinking legislation were actually enforced against groups of rowdy chavs, which it won’t be).

If you actually want to stop drunken loutery, then you need to ensure that drunken louts are arrested, under the existing laws that provide a perfectly good arsenal of charges and punishments against rowdies, harrassers, disorderly conductors and affrayists. You don’t impose a new measure to punish the law-abiding.

It really cannot be made plainer than that, seriously. Oh, and just to finish up...

Side note: the ban appears to advertised as “making everyone’s journey more pleasant”. Since it will very clearly make journeys less pleasant for those who enjoy drinking while on a journey, this is clearly false advertising, and I’d urge everyone who sees such a poster to report it to the ASA.

Nice job, Boris, you fucking chump. Oh, and anyone who argues for this ban is still a worthless cunt. The next thing to go might be something that you enjoy perfectly harmlessly...

They're Voting Wrong!

Author's Note: The author of this post is not The Devil's Kitchen

If there's one thing that was more predictable about the aftermath to the Local and London elections than the moaning about the BBC's election coverage, it is the complete bilge that has emanated from large sections of the lefty blogosphere.

Like Neil Harding, for instance:

"Livingstone was the best politician of his generation but in the end it wasn't enough to beat the Tory press lies. This is a sad day for democracy, how this country yearns for a free press and a press that tells the truth as a rule rather than as an exception."

In what way was it a "sad day for democracy", Neil?

Is it because the turnout on May 1 was 45%, higher than either of the two previous Mayoral elections? Uh, guess not. In 2004, when Red Ken was re-elected, the turnout was just 37%. So which was the 'worse day' for democracy? Obviously, it's the one in which the Tory won! Because you're a fucking totalitarian who doesn't actually give a flying fuck about democracy, or for that matter even the most basic of civil liberties. Democracy is when Neil's lot win.

I guess it's possible to write Harding off as a loon. After all, he's put his utter, mind-boggling stupidity on display for all of us to marvel at over and over and over again.

But he's not the only one making this same witless argument. Vivienne Westwood(!) for instance, quoted by Zoe Williams in her deservedly pilloried hatchet-job article published in the Guardian G2 on election day:

"Boris as mayor? Unthinkable. It just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don't vote for Ken - he's the best thing in politics. Unthinkable."

Steve Richards, writing in the Independent also on election day, displaying unabashed contempt for the Londoners about to go to the polls:

"The failure of voters to make connections is the only reason why Ken Livingstone might lose today...Today it is the voters, not the political leaders, who face a series of tests. I wonder how many of them will pass."

These are among the worst examples of lefty arrogance I have come across over the past few days - I don't doubt there will be many more as the dust settles over the coming days and weeks. What they demonstrate is a toxic attitude amazingly common among left-wingers.

That is, if the people don't vote the right way, there's something wrong with the voters, not the politicians or their loyal supporters. There's little to no introspection. It's as if they think that if only the media weren't so evil/Brown weren't so incompetent/commentators weren't so negative then everyone would fall in line, trot along to the polling station to vote Labour (for it'd have to be Labour, despite the fact they've shown themselves to be no less corporatist and authoritarian than the Tories), and everyone would be happy ever after. Well, I don't think it requires me or anyone else on this blog to tell you that's bullshit.

Brown: I hate you too

Some fine work here from the Daily Mash.

PRIME minster Gordon Brown last night admitted he loathes absolutely everyone in Britain.

As Labour faced its worst election result in more than 4000 years, Mr Brown confirmed the long-held suspicion that he's never liked us either.

He said: "It has long been claimed that I am a miserable sociopath who has only ever cared about becoming prime minister.

"Well, guess what? It's true. Whoop di-fucking-do. Well done Simon Heffer and Quentin Letts, you were right all along. You fat pricks."

I can well believe it, you know; after all, every action has an equal and opposite reaction and the force of my loathing for the Gobblin' King must lead to some hatred from his side.

In other news, the Daily Mash gets something else spot on too.

VOTERS are heading to the polls today in the biennial ritual of choosing exactly which oddballs and thieves will run their local council.

I must confess to severely disliking the whole Mayor of London election rigmarole, which is why I haven't really written about it. All of the candidates make these grandiose promises and thus give people the impression that nothing could possibly done without some politician giving it his decree.

This isn't the case: always remember that the only reason that politicians are able to do anything is because they rape us for cash and power.

Keeping the torch burning

A number of people seem to have got extremely excited about the recent shenanigans surrounding the procession of the Olympic Torch through London. I haven't heard many people threatening not to buy Chinese goods, mind you; a fact that underlines the irrelevance of the Olympics: people can happily protest against them without any cost to themselves.

Having said that, the presence of numerous blue-suited Chinese security personnel does seem to have added an unusually sinister aspect to the proceedings. Amusingly, they have provided the perfect opportunity to expose Red Ken as a lying bastard, as Londonist reports.

Well, a Metropolitan police authority report has revealed that said security presence cost a whopping £750,000. And while it’s not Londonist’s style to bluster about taxpayer’s money and wotnot, according to Lib Dem mayoral candidate Brian Paddick, the very same Chinese torch escorts that Ken Livingstone chided as "thugs" and denied association with afterwards, were actually authorised as part of a Greater London Authority agreement with Chinese officials.

Paddick said:

The MPA report makes it quite clear, in direct contradiction to what Livingstone has told us, that the Chinese security guards were part of the legal contract between the GLA and the Chinese authorities.

For the Mayor to say he knew nothing about it—and would not have allowed it—is simply not true.

Whilst "politician lies like a lying fucking bastard" is hardly the most surprising news in the world, it is good to see Red Ken's untruths so neatly laid out.

Oh, and £750,000 for all of the police—will we just be adding that to the cost of 2012, or what?

Charlie Brooker: bigoted hypocrite

Charlie Brooker has an article in The Guardian, doing down Boris.

Now, even if the Standard photographs Ken carving a swastika into a dormouse's back, I'll vote for him...

Well, that tells me all I need to know about Charlie Brooker, frankly.

1. I'm genetically predisposed to hate the Tories. It's my default, hard-wired position.

Wow! An unthinking bigot supports Red Ken, unthinking bigot and supporter of unthinking jihadist bigots and unthinking socialist bigots. Who would have thunk it?

I can't be bothered with the rest of this utter tripe. Why not wander over to Longrider's place to read a comprehensive and pointed fisking of Brooker's steaming pile of horseshit...?

UPDATE: PigDogFucker maintains that I have misunderstood Brooker's satire. However, I might advance the idea that PDF has misunderstood me. For sure, the "all I need to know" line was a lazy comment by myself, but my accusation of bigotry on Brooker's part has nothing to do with the swastika.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology.

Brooker is intolerant of Tories and is, therefore, a bigot. Although, come to think of it, Brooker is a Grauniad journalist so he probably lives like a Tory, having enough cash to be able to afford the luxury of hating them...

London Wi-Fi map

Free Wi-Fi in London.

Londonist is a website all about London, unsurprisingly. Its team of writers highlight news and events, take lovely photos and other such exciting and multifarious activities.

More importantly, from your humble Devil's point of view, Londonist has an extraordinarily useful map of restaurants, hotels, cafés and—most importantly as far as I'm concerned—bars and pubs with free Wi-Fi. As of January 2008, they've got nearly 170 places surveyed: now that's what I call useful information.

The map only gives the name of the establishment and the address—it doesn't tie in with Beer In The Evening, Fancy A Pint or anything like that—but it's a great resource nonetheless...

What has Boris been smoking?

Boris has obviously not been smoking the liberal weed because, as Iain Dale reports, he seems to be on his ban-wagon again.

“London has a higher rate of alcohol-related crimes than any other region in England and I have been told time and again that people are scared of taking the Underground late at night because of aggressive behaviour by drunken yobs. Too many people find themselves forced to sit opposite someone swigging from a can of lager and engaging in behaviour that is intimidating or worse. I want everyone’s journeys to be safer and more pleasant"

And Iain does seem to approve.

As a liberal Conservative I instinctively recoil from banning things. However, is it liberal to allow tube users to be abused by drunken louts? No, definitely not. I think this policy will be welcomed by many as long as it is policed properly.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Is it liberal to allow anyone to be abused by drunken louts? Shouldn't we therefore ban alcohol entirely?

And "this policy will be welcomed by many as long as it is policed properly"? If the drunk and disorderly laws were being policed properly, then the drunken louts would not be on the Tube in the first place.

I mean, how many people get pissed whilst actually on the Tube?