Thursday, 31 December 2009
Another WTF? moment
Apparently, I'm 19 in the top 100 twat bloggers.
I couldn't really care, but I was sneakily pleased to have beaten both that clueless twat Ellie Gerrard and the equally inane Councillor Tim.
It's interesting how many Labour people are in the top 100, though. It seems very much to me that blogging belongs to the right and twatter belongs to the left. Probably because it's easy to pack vacuity into 140 characters [ipse dixit] but more reasoned thought takes more space to express.
I couldn't really care, but I was sneakily pleased to have beaten both that clueless twat Ellie Gerrard and the equally inane Councillor Tim.
It's interesting how many Labour people are in the top 100, though. It seems very much to me that blogging belongs to the right and twatter belongs to the left. Probably because it's easy to pack vacuity into 140 characters [ipse dixit] but more reasoned thought takes more space to express.
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
"It's the economy, stupid!"
Bill Clinton won his first election on this bon mot. Unfortunately for us, it hasn't always been the decider that it should be.
Here in 1997, the electorate decided that a bunch of tired old has-beens who had been delivering a fantastic, sound economy were not as appealing as fresh new faces who had excellent media control. And ignoring the fact that every single Labour government has ended in catastrophe, people were swayed by the promise of a Labour government that finally had its head screwed on when it came to economics. Mandleson famously said that Labour was intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich. Ed Bollocks came up with the "neo-endogenous growth theory". It all sounded so promising.
But to my skeptical eyes, Labour did very, very little in their first term. They managed to spend vast swathes of money but none of it made any difference that I could see. Still, the economy boomed, mostly because the government did nothing. However, in their second term, people started asking questions of Labour, so they started to need to prove that all the money they were spunking out was doing something. And the culture of managerialism and targets came to the fore. Do you see how it all went wrong there?
Because while they were "just" spunking out huge amounts of our money, things were going fairly well. But when they started to actually do things, it all went tits-up.
And actually, can you point me at one department of government that could be considered "well-run" or effective or even cost-effective? The mantra is that we must "preserve front line services", but an "efficient" government only has one pound in two reaching the front line. The norm is one pound in three reaching the front line. So when you see that "eye-catching initiative" of 10 billion spent on schools (or whatever), the reality of it is that somewhere between 3 and 5 billion will actually reach schools. And that excludes the traditional arse-raping of taxpayers by government suppliers everywhere.
Government has recently decreed that the 270,000 poorest Labour voters would all receive a free laptop and internet access, with the laptop coming off an "approved list" and up to £500 for every voter bought. Now, to you or me, that would look like £135,000,000, in itself a nice chunk of cash, but nothing compared to the £135,000,000,000,000 or so of government debt that the Gorgon has signed us up to. However, this is misleading, for three reasons:
So, getting back to the economy and, to an extent, why voters are so "disengaged" with politics: we are offered a choice between a party that will continue the idea of tax and spend, a party that will fellate a shotgun of insane tax and spend, a bunch of flip-floppers who will tax and spend somewhere between the other two and the BNP's command economy.
Curiously, in all these models, the people who get to decide policy are all immune from the consequences of their decisions.
I suspect that the only sensible decision left to people who care about their future is to vote.
With their feet.
Here in 1997, the electorate decided that a bunch of tired old has-beens who had been delivering a fantastic, sound economy were not as appealing as fresh new faces who had excellent media control. And ignoring the fact that every single Labour government has ended in catastrophe, people were swayed by the promise of a Labour government that finally had its head screwed on when it came to economics. Mandleson famously said that Labour was intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich. Ed Bollocks came up with the "neo-endogenous growth theory". It all sounded so promising.
But to my skeptical eyes, Labour did very, very little in their first term. They managed to spend vast swathes of money but none of it made any difference that I could see. Still, the economy boomed, mostly because the government did nothing. However, in their second term, people started asking questions of Labour, so they started to need to prove that all the money they were spunking out was doing something. And the culture of managerialism and targets came to the fore. Do you see how it all went wrong there?
Because while they were "just" spunking out huge amounts of our money, things were going fairly well. But when they started to actually do things, it all went tits-up.
And actually, can you point me at one department of government that could be considered "well-run" or effective or even cost-effective? The mantra is that we must "preserve front line services", but an "efficient" government only has one pound in two reaching the front line. The norm is one pound in three reaching the front line. So when you see that "eye-catching initiative" of 10 billion spent on schools (or whatever), the reality of it is that somewhere between 3 and 5 billion will actually reach schools. And that excludes the traditional arse-raping of taxpayers by government suppliers everywhere.
Government has recently decreed that the 270,000 poorest Labour voters would all receive a free laptop and internet access, with the laptop coming off an "approved list" and up to £500 for every voter bought. Now, to you or me, that would look like £135,000,000, in itself a nice chunk of cash, but nothing compared to the £135,000,000,000,000 or so of government debt that the Gorgon has signed us up to. However, this is misleading, for three reasons:
- firstly, the laptops will not be worth what is being charged for them and the level of usurious profits made by the approved vendors would attract recriminations from the Guardianistas. So we would be spending £135,000,000 to buy, at best, £100,000,000's worth of laptops. If this doesn't sound too bad, I need to point out that the normal margins on commodity hardware are paper thin.
- secondly, there will be the inevitable administration costs. If we are lucky, then spending this £135,000,000 will only cost us £270,000,000, but it's actually more likely to cost us the thick end of half a billion pounds. Still think that buying 270,000 votes for half a billion of your British pounds is such a good idea?
- thirdly, do you really believe that everyone who has been given a free laptop will not flog it down the pub for some much-needed money? Or that they will use it for the intended purpose? So the money spent will not have achieved £135,000,000's worth of benefit to society, which is what the money is supposed to be spent on.
So, getting back to the economy and, to an extent, why voters are so "disengaged" with politics: we are offered a choice between a party that will continue the idea of tax and spend, a party that will fellate a shotgun of insane tax and spend, a bunch of flip-floppers who will tax and spend somewhere between the other two and the BNP's command economy.
Curiously, in all these models, the people who get to decide policy are all immune from the consequences of their decisions.
I suspect that the only sensible decision left to people who care about their future is to vote.
With their feet.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
The kindness of strangers
Once again, I've been touched by the simple kindness of strangers. I can but wish them well and thank them again from afar.
Nothing will go wrong, I promise!
Cunts:
Five hundred quid????????
Jesus, I bought the current Mrs Clown a new laptop in the sales and you can get a fucking lot for £500! We got a fuck-off HP for £400. What's wrong with a £300 netbook for the fucking cunts anyway?
Ah. Labour out buying votes with my fucking money again.
CUNTS.
Well, Vernon Cockhead, can I suggest that instead of fucking pissing money up against a wall for laptops that these cunts will sell on ebay immediately after you fucking give them the dosh, why don't you rather fucking focus on the fucking schools, you fucking incompetent spendthrift fucking turd?
Why the fuck are you once again fucking abrogating your fucking responsibility, which is actually fucking schools and hoping that these cunts will sort out their own education via the fucking intermong?
You unspeakable incompetent piss-boiling cuntwaft of a fucking poltroon.
Poor families will also receive 12 months’ free internet use under the terms of the Home Access scheme, launched next year, which will allow parents to spend up to £500 on a computer from an approved list.
Five hundred quid????????
Jesus, I bought the current Mrs Clown a new laptop in the sales and you can get a fucking lot for £500! We got a fuck-off HP for £400. What's wrong with a £300 netbook for the fucking cunts anyway?
The move is part of a bid by ministers to drive up standards in deprived areas, with the white working classes thought to be at particular risk of being left behind.
Ah. Labour out buying votes with my fucking money again.
CUNTS.
Vernon Coaker, the Schools Minister, said: “We want to give every pupil personalised learning.
Well, Vernon Cockhead, can I suggest that instead of fucking pissing money up against a wall for laptops that these cunts will sell on ebay immediately after you fucking give them the dosh, why don't you rather fucking focus on the fucking schools, you fucking incompetent spendthrift fucking turd?
Why the fuck are you once again fucking abrogating your fucking responsibility, which is actually fucking schools and hoping that these cunts will sort out their own education via the fucking intermong?
You unspeakable incompetent piss-boiling cuntwaft of a fucking poltroon.
Phil Space, MP
What a prize fucking cock Phil Hope is. I happened to catch him being interviewed by a surprisingly ferocious BBC newscaster, after he appeared to comment on the fact that they are "looking at" doing away with parking fees at English hospitals, after the Scots, Welsh and Nornirish have already done so. Needless to say, there was mention made of the "hundreds of millions of pounds of vital revenue" that butt-fucking us with London rates for our local hospital car park brings in. (Never mind that you can't buy less than two hours, even if you're just popping in.)
But when the newscaster took the flannelling fuck to task about why the English are the only people getting arse-raped like this, the smarmy cunt sprang a weapons-grade filibuster, wittering on about how they'd been focused on reducing waiting lists and shit like that (completely irrelevant) and how there was a patchwork of charges (completely fucking irrelevant) and how "now was the right time to look at this". By waffling on about irrelevancies, he managed to get away with not answering the question.
I fucking hate their fucking bullshit and their fucking attitude.
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, YOU CUNT! THAT'S WHY YOU GET PAID THE FUCKING BIG BUCKS!
But when the newscaster took the flannelling fuck to task about why the English are the only people getting arse-raped like this, the smarmy cunt sprang a weapons-grade filibuster, wittering on about how they'd been focused on reducing waiting lists and shit like that (completely irrelevant) and how there was a patchwork of charges (completely fucking irrelevant) and how "now was the right time to look at this". By waffling on about irrelevancies, he managed to get away with not answering the question.
I fucking hate their fucking bullshit and their fucking attitude.
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, YOU CUNT! THAT'S WHY YOU GET PAID THE FUCKING BIG BUCKS!
Monday, 28 December 2009
Missing the point
This has been sitting in my browser window for a couple of days, because I just didn't understand it:
"The concept of Britishness"?? What the fuckety fucking fuck is that, then? And how was this roadshow advertised? I never fucking heard about it, and this is the kind of thing that would get any libertarian exercised (one way or the other) as well as tickling the angry button of a group like the TPA.
But I can't help but feel that the whole idea of "promoting the concept of Britishness" is a bit like trying to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: unanswerable and yet pointless and of no use, even if you do get an answer.
Ooh. Rights and duties? That sounds a bit ominous, even to a libertarian. I know that your rights come with equivalent responsibilities, but I can only imagine that Gordon Brown's idea of rights and equivalent duties would be a mile or two away from my own.
"You have the right to watch EastEnders seven nights a week and the duty that flows therefrom is to perform six months of forced labour for the government's sole benefit", or "you have the right to receive junk mail and the duty that flows therefrom is that you have to prostate yourself before any passing MP and ululate".
No thanks, fuckmonkey.
Oh for Christ's sake! So we are going to get a bill of rights and duties defined by people who are paid by the government to pitch up? How likely is that to be in the favour of the common man?
Nobody's fucking interested, you cuntwaft, because every fucker knows that you're just going to piss all over us and charge us for the privilege, no matter what the fuck we say we want. And that twat of a buttered new potato is no fucking better.
I love the way "duties" comes first. We all know where you're coming from, you fat fascist prick.
Fuck off, Gordon, and take your bill of fucking duties with you.
Cunt.
Gordon Brown’s national roadshow to promote the concept of Britishness has turned out to be an expensive flop.
"The concept of Britishness"?? What the fuckety fucking fuck is that, then? And how was this roadshow advertised? I never fucking heard about it, and this is the kind of thing that would get any libertarian exercised (one way or the other) as well as tickling the angry button of a group like the TPA.
But I can't help but feel that the whole idea of "promoting the concept of Britishness" is a bit like trying to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: unanswerable and yet pointless and of no use, even if you do get an answer.
The public, councillors and even ministers have declined to attend events organised to determine if there is a case for a full British Bill of Rights and duties, or a written constitution.
Ooh. Rights and duties? That sounds a bit ominous, even to a libertarian. I know that your rights come with equivalent responsibilities, but I can only imagine that Gordon Brown's idea of rights and equivalent duties would be a mile or two away from my own.
"You have the right to watch EastEnders seven nights a week and the duty that flows therefrom is to perform six months of forced labour for the government's sole benefit", or "you have the right to receive junk mail and the duty that flows therefrom is that you have to prostate yourself before any passing MP and ululate".
No thanks, fuckmonkey.
The Conservatives say ten members of the public turned up to the first event in Leicester in December 2007, which cost £37,000 and was hosted by Jack Straw. They say that after that embarrassment, his Ministry of Justice restricted attendance at Governance of Britain events to people selected, and even paid, by the ministry.
Oh for Christ's sake! So we are going to get a bill of rights and duties defined by people who are paid by the government to pitch up? How likely is that to be in the favour of the common man?
They also claim that councillors have increasingly spurned the events. A total of 21 local authority representatives turned up in Leicester, but attendance fell at subsequent events to 11, then 10, 7 and 2. Finally, at an event in Newcastle on November 21 this year no councillors or officials turned up.
Even ministers are understood to have snubbed the roadshow. Nick Brown, the Labour Chief Whip and Minister for the North East, pulled out of last month’s event. Michael Wills, the Justice Minister, who had attended the previous events, also failed to attend.
Eleanor Laing, the Shadow Justice Minister, said: “Since 2007 we have had gimmick after gimmick on what it means to be British . . . Now, the public has spoken: Gordon Brown’s Britishness roadshow is a colossal waste of money. With the public finances in a mess, any plans for an even bigger nationwide non-event should be scrapped now.”
Nobody's fucking interested, you cuntwaft, because every fucker knows that you're just going to piss all over us and charge us for the privilege, no matter what the fuck we say we want. And that twat of a buttered new potato is no fucking better.
Mr Brown laid out his vision of a Britishness roadshow in his first statement to Parliament as Prime Minister. “It is right to involve the public in a sustained debate,” he said, urging Britons to consider their common values and the case for going farther with a single document codifying the duties and rights of citizens.
I love the way "duties" comes first. We all know where you're coming from, you fat fascist prick.
Fuck off, Gordon, and take your bill of fucking duties with you.
Cunt.
Time to put the old horse down?
I was amused to hear that Top Gear was the iPlayer doodad of the year or whatever and that it was favourite show of the decade, because I think it's over.
Really, it is. Yesterday, I got about ten minutes into the tedious 4x4 "adventure" with Hammond's made-up screaming, got up to make a cup of tea and didn't bother going back. It's all so samey: one car with no brakes, one car with faulty drive, the plucky British entry ruined by an incompetent driver. One of them having hissy fits and doing something stupid. Yawn, yawn, yawn. The director suffers from ADHD as well, no lingering shots of amazing scenery, it's all chop, chop, chop, funny angle, silly thing, chop, funny angle, silly thing ...
Yawn, yawn, yawn.
The thing is, I want to like it. I love cars and I love watching them being driven hard. I find the "star in a reasonably priced car" to be the best segment, because it's not subject to the artsy-fartsy direction and it shows people really driving the car. Same for the Stig.
Come on, BBC. Either fucking put it out of it's misery (and mine) or make the fucking thing about cars and driving again. If I want to watch half-arsed fantasy "entertainment", I'll switch over to 'stenders.
Really, it is. Yesterday, I got about ten minutes into the tedious 4x4 "adventure" with Hammond's made-up screaming, got up to make a cup of tea and didn't bother going back. It's all so samey: one car with no brakes, one car with faulty drive, the plucky British entry ruined by an incompetent driver. One of them having hissy fits and doing something stupid. Yawn, yawn, yawn. The director suffers from ADHD as well, no lingering shots of amazing scenery, it's all chop, chop, chop, funny angle, silly thing, chop, funny angle, silly thing ...
Yawn, yawn, yawn.
The thing is, I want to like it. I love cars and I love watching them being driven hard. I find the "star in a reasonably priced car" to be the best segment, because it's not subject to the artsy-fartsy direction and it shows people really driving the car. Same for the Stig.
Come on, BBC. Either fucking put it out of it's misery (and mine) or make the fucking thing about cars and driving again. If I want to watch half-arsed fantasy "entertainment", I'll switch over to 'stenders.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
Saturday, 26 December 2009
A good day to bury bad news
I can't help but feel like this chap might have fried himself in vain:
Apart from the fact that this cunt is going to make air travel even more of a pain in the cock than it already was, no-one is watching the news, fuckbag. I hope you die an excruciating, miserable death anyway, you fucking hateful bastard cunt.
A Nigerian engineering student at a British university tried to blow up a transatlantic aircraft in a suspected al-Qaeda plot.
Apart from the fact that this cunt is going to make air travel even more of a pain in the cock than it already was, no-one is watching the news, fuckbag. I hope you die an excruciating, miserable death anyway, you fucking hateful bastard cunt.
Friday, 25 December 2009
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Christmas Crackers
Went into the shops and bought some Christmas crackers.
Did you know you have to be over 16 to fucking buy Christmas crackers?
Jesus - this cuntry really, really is fucked.
Did you know you have to be over 16 to fucking buy Christmas crackers?
Jesus - this cuntry really, really is fucked.
Medical licensing
Following on from my thoughts about what a libertarian driving model might look like, I then thought about other kinds of licensing, specifically one of the issues that causes me the most confusion: medical licensing, or the licensing of both medicines and medical practitioners.
Although I am adamantly in favour of a free market in medical practice and in providing nostrums it is on the basis that the medical practitioners, purveyors of medicines and manufacturers of medicines are somehow competent to do so. While I am quite happy for Boateng and Demetriou to open their competition to Marks and Spencer from their spare bedroom, I'm considerably more ambivalent about the idea of going to Boateng and Demetriou Proctology Practitioners or sending my daughter to Paul Gadd, Pediatrician.
While doctors are fairly regularly "struck off" for various shenanigans and pharma companies occasionally display questionable ethics in their research and we have the odd Shipman-alike, by and large, I think most people are reasonably comfortable when they go to a doctor, he or she is not a complete charlatan. They may be fucking useless (and all the doctors I've dealt with in the UK seem to need detailed lessons in telling their anus from their antecubital fossa) and ... OK, so the UK's doctors may not be the best example for this. But I've been in countries where I did trust the doctors pretty much implicitly or did trust that if I tried a couple, I'd eventually find someone that I did trust among the list of regulated doctors.
But if there was no regulation, we'd have to do a lot more research into our doctors. So, gentle reader: does the convenience of medical regulation outweigh the cost of the barrier to entry? Is there a way to square this circle?
Is it possible that a voluntary submission to regulation to reassure the average punter while still allowing anyone who wants to, to practice, dispense or produce medicine with a greater warning of caveat emptor to the consumer?
Although I am adamantly in favour of a free market in medical practice and in providing nostrums it is on the basis that the medical practitioners, purveyors of medicines and manufacturers of medicines are somehow competent to do so. While I am quite happy for Boateng and Demetriou to open their competition to Marks and Spencer from their spare bedroom, I'm considerably more ambivalent about the idea of going to Boateng and Demetriou Proctology Practitioners or sending my daughter to Paul Gadd, Pediatrician.
While doctors are fairly regularly "struck off" for various shenanigans and pharma companies occasionally display questionable ethics in their research and we have the odd Shipman-alike, by and large, I think most people are reasonably comfortable when they go to a doctor, he or she is not a complete charlatan. They may be fucking useless (and all the doctors I've dealt with in the UK seem to need detailed lessons in telling their anus from their antecubital fossa) and ... OK, so the UK's doctors may not be the best example for this. But I've been in countries where I did trust the doctors pretty much implicitly or did trust that if I tried a couple, I'd eventually find someone that I did trust among the list of regulated doctors.
But if there was no regulation, we'd have to do a lot more research into our doctors. So, gentle reader: does the convenience of medical regulation outweigh the cost of the barrier to entry? Is there a way to square this circle?
Is it possible that a voluntary submission to regulation to reassure the average punter while still allowing anyone who wants to, to practice, dispense or produce medicine with a greater warning of caveat emptor to the consumer?
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Licensing driving
One of the more ambivalent results of my poll was the area of vehicle and driver licensing. My unthinking reaction is that we need it and that government should do it.
But when I thought about it a little more, I was a lot less certain. It is, after all, an area where I'd be encouraging government regulation. And you would also then have to accept all the regulations that apply to driving, like speed limits and "keep left, pass right" and "this sign means you have to do this" and so on.
And I wondered, from an anarchist point of view how I'd feel about driving on completely unregulated roads. I initially thought that insurance would be extortionate, although if it wasn't compulsory, the market would probably counteract that - people would insure on their expectations, rather than taking it up the arse because the government said we had to.
But would the compromise of knowing that most drivers have at least a basic level of skill and all tentatively agree on the same basic rules improve safety to the point that we would have a better life? Or would the fact that you really would have to assume that everyone else out there was an uninsured, untrained driver make people drive more carefully and courteously?
It's an interesting thought.
But when I thought about it a little more, I was a lot less certain. It is, after all, an area where I'd be encouraging government regulation. And you would also then have to accept all the regulations that apply to driving, like speed limits and "keep left, pass right" and "this sign means you have to do this" and so on.
And I wondered, from an anarchist point of view how I'd feel about driving on completely unregulated roads. I initially thought that insurance would be extortionate, although if it wasn't compulsory, the market would probably counteract that - people would insure on their expectations, rather than taking it up the arse because the government said we had to.
But would the compromise of knowing that most drivers have at least a basic level of skill and all tentatively agree on the same basic rules improve safety to the point that we would have a better life? Or would the fact that you really would have to assume that everyone else out there was an uninsured, untrained driver make people drive more carefully and courteously?
It's an interesting thought.
The results are in
I had a poll up to ask what services should only the government provide.
Some of the popular choices were fairly uncontroversial: defence, police, courts, embassies, border control (although a libertarian society would be much more relaxed about borders than we are) and prisons.
Oddly enough, external spying was seen as a popular choice and I suppose that you might make a case for it on the grounds of defence. However, if you can make a case for external spying, then I can't really see why you would believe that there is less of a case for internal spying.
The coastguard is another popular choice, although in its current form it's as much use as tits on a bull.
Regulators were an unpopular choice, possibly because they are so fucking useless in their current incarnation, but also because libertarians believe in an unregulated market. However, even in an unregulated market, you need to have some form of protection against predation or fraud. And that protection must have real bite.
I was baffled as to why more people felt that motorways should be provided by the government than local roads: motorways are relatively easy to toll (just ask the French!) but local roads are much more difficult to make "pay per use" - local roads are something I believe would be more efficiently "provided" by government, even if they sub-contract out the actual work.
Perhaps I should have phrased my question differently or more clearly.
Some of the popular choices were fairly uncontroversial: defence, police, courts, embassies, border control (although a libertarian society would be much more relaxed about borders than we are) and prisons.
Oddly enough, external spying was seen as a popular choice and I suppose that you might make a case for it on the grounds of defence. However, if you can make a case for external spying, then I can't really see why you would believe that there is less of a case for internal spying.
The coastguard is another popular choice, although in its current form it's as much use as tits on a bull.
Regulators were an unpopular choice, possibly because they are so fucking useless in their current incarnation, but also because libertarians believe in an unregulated market. However, even in an unregulated market, you need to have some form of protection against predation or fraud. And that protection must have real bite.
I was baffled as to why more people felt that motorways should be provided by the government than local roads: motorways are relatively easy to toll (just ask the French!) but local roads are much more difficult to make "pay per use" - local roads are something I believe would be more efficiently "provided" by government, even if they sub-contract out the actual work.
Perhaps I should have phrased my question differently or more clearly.
Brilliant results, even on eco programs*
Bleary eyed, as usual, I staggered down to the kitchen to make myself my morning cup of coffee. While waiting for the coffee machine to do its thing, something tugged at my vision. It was the box of dishwasher soap tablets that I'd left out and on it was the catchy marketing slogan:
It's been bugging me for a while now. "Even on eco programs"? Does this imply that the manufacturers have done some research and discovered that actually, making obeisance at the altar of Gaia means that you may have to wash your plates twice? Are detergents becoming stronger to counteract the effects of people using colder water to "save the planet"? Does this mean even more (but different) pollution to worry about later on?
This is what aggravates me about the warmists. They're banging on about how we have to be more energy efficient, while ignoring the fact that their approach may not be the most pollution efficient and it's almost certainly not the most cost efficient.
Ignoring the fact that I think (especially this morning!) that an ice age is much more likely than a boiled planet (in the short term, anyway - in a couple of billion years, a boiled planet is inevitable) I am actually a firm believer in efficiency.
Any believer in the free market and especially anarchist-inclined libertarians is a believer in efficiency. I believe that the free market is far and away the most efficient way of delivering goods and services - but a free market, not a regulated market. And as an milquetoast anarchist, I also believe that there are a handful of services that can be more efficiently provided by the government than by the market. So I'm willing to compromise my loathing of giving money to a bunch of legalised thieves in exchange for those services. Although I accept that there are anarchist alternatives, I'm not sure that they are necessarily the most efficient alternative.
So, efficiency is key. And energy efficiency is just another kind of efficiency. So while I'm all for us being efficient, I want to be just as efficient as a can be, while still getting properly clean clothes and hygienic dishes out of the dishwasher. I don't think it helps anyone if I have to wash my dishes twice or three times because it just doesn't work as well on a colder temperature.
I certainly don't agree with sponsoring Big Eco companies with billions of dollars in the name of something that smells very suspect indeed. "Eco-energy" either the most efficient way of delivering energy, or they need to go back to the drawing board. Artificially inflating the price of traditional energy sources to make Eco-energy look efficient is nothing other than theft.
Homo sapiens has made a remarkable amount of progress in its short time on the planet. I can't see why we need to undo that and place ourselves under an even greater yoke than the one we already labour under.
*Bit of a rambling post, this one.
Brilliant results, even on eco programs
It's been bugging me for a while now. "Even on eco programs"? Does this imply that the manufacturers have done some research and discovered that actually, making obeisance at the altar of Gaia means that you may have to wash your plates twice? Are detergents becoming stronger to counteract the effects of people using colder water to "save the planet"? Does this mean even more (but different) pollution to worry about later on?
This is what aggravates me about the warmists. They're banging on about how we have to be more energy efficient, while ignoring the fact that their approach may not be the most pollution efficient and it's almost certainly not the most cost efficient.
Ignoring the fact that I think (especially this morning!) that an ice age is much more likely than a boiled planet (in the short term, anyway - in a couple of billion years, a boiled planet is inevitable) I am actually a firm believer in efficiency.
Any believer in the free market and especially anarchist-inclined libertarians is a believer in efficiency. I believe that the free market is far and away the most efficient way of delivering goods and services - but a free market, not a regulated market. And as an milquetoast anarchist, I also believe that there are a handful of services that can be more efficiently provided by the government than by the market. So I'm willing to compromise my loathing of giving money to a bunch of legalised thieves in exchange for those services. Although I accept that there are anarchist alternatives, I'm not sure that they are necessarily the most efficient alternative.
So, efficiency is key. And energy efficiency is just another kind of efficiency. So while I'm all for us being efficient, I want to be just as efficient as a can be, while still getting properly clean clothes and hygienic dishes out of the dishwasher. I don't think it helps anyone if I have to wash my dishes twice or three times because it just doesn't work as well on a colder temperature.
I certainly don't agree with sponsoring Big Eco companies with billions of dollars in the name of something that smells very suspect indeed. "Eco-energy" either the most efficient way of delivering energy, or they need to go back to the drawing board. Artificially inflating the price of traditional energy sources to make Eco-energy look efficient is nothing other than theft.
Homo sapiens has made a remarkable amount of progress in its short time on the planet. I can't see why we need to undo that and place ourselves under an even greater yoke than the one we already labour under.
*Bit of a rambling post, this one.
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Why is this so hard to understand?
Boaty is banging on again about how his free speech rights are more important than my property rights:
The only people who are against the right of self-determination, I'm afraid, have repeatedly proven to be Boateng and Demetriou, who have forcefully argued against property rights on two grounds: first, if it is foolish enough to interfere with the rights of Boateng and Demetriou to say whatever they want, whenever they want to say it; second, by insisting that it is perfectly libertarian to accept some legalised theft by the government in order to provide services which Boateng and Demetriou feel the government should provide.
You cannot begin to exercise your right to self-determination when you cannot exercise whatever rights over your own property that you wish to exercise. In other words, if I buy a car, but I'm not allowed to drive it because it offends Boateng & Demetriou and their say-so is what I need to be able to drive, then I cannot exercise my own rights over my own property. This is clearly a ludicrous infringement of my property rights.
Yet, somehow, if it's not a car but rather a shopping mall, then different rules apply. Somehow, if I deem it appropriate to allow people to enter my private property, it is no longer private property. Somehow, the fact that I permit you to walk across my private property removes all my property rights. This is an insane assertion: I not only allow the cleaning lady in, but I pay her to do so. Does that mean that I now confer upon her the right to "exercise her civil liberties" in my house? Does it, fuck!
You also cannot begin to exercise any kind of self-determination as long as there is any third party that has the legal right to help themselves to your property without you being able to stop them.
We continue:
Oh, this is piffle, Mr B. You and Mr D have repeatedly argued that there is no merit to complete economic freedom while espousing complete social freedom. You have repeatedly rebuffed my assertion that social and economic freedom cannot be separated. You claim this is a "pragmatic" approach, but in reality you are no different from the current idiom of an American liberal: you want all social liberties but are quite happy to have the government (and, by implication, the taxpayer) pick up the costs of all the things which you think a government should provide.
Along with any other "thing" that you acquire with your money.
We don't ignore it, we assume it. You and Demetriou are the only people arguing that property rights will turn people into monsters. I don't see any symptoms of this, apart from mewling lefties who seem to view property as theft. Unless it's their property, of course.
But the fact of the matter is, apart from Boateng and Demetriou, I don't know anybody professing to be a libertarian who frets about this. Libertarians don't, in general, believe that people are inherently megalomaniac. I mean, I'm not, and I don't know anybody who is. I've met a lot of rich people (who are a mixed bunch), I've met a lot of people in the "property game" and, if anything, they're even more agreeable than the average person. They're relaxed, friendly, gregarious and quite generous. I've never met anyone anywhere ever who is remotely like the property owner portrayed by B&D who is going to make you dress funny and goosestep around singing songs from the Wizard of Oz.
If you say so. What you may consider to be a "removal of liberty" may actually be no such thing.
And property rights. Rothbard (you probably haven't heard of him) says that all liberties derive from property rights.
Quite so. But requesting that you adhere to a dress code while on my property is not a removal of your free speech rights. Requesting that you do not hold a mass rally for a cause that is none of my business on my property does also not remove your free speech. Getting some goons to go round and threaten your family with violence if you have a mass rally in a public place or on someone else's property, well, that's definitely encroaching on your liberty.
It is remarkably simple. You are making it complicated by trying to find reasons why your free speech is more important than my property. You've already said that you wouldn't try to hold a rally in my back garden, presumably out of courtesy. Or do you accept that I have the right to deny you permission to hold a rally in my back garden?
But for some reason, because I let you enter my shopping centre from eight in the morning till six in the evening, you feel that this confers upon you all the rights that you have in your own home.
It is simple to grasp, but it's wrong. Me telling you not to do something on my property does not impact your liberties. Me telling not to do something on your property or on public land does impact your liberties.
Me causing you harm is a crime, irrespective of where it happened (subject to self-defence, yadda yadda.)
And you wonder why I call you a social democrat.
Libertarians do not strive to make the world a better place. Libertarians want to get on with their own lives and let others get on with their lives without interference.
The only reason I see for a state is a) to provide the very small set of things that cannot be provided effectively by private industry and b) to protect the individual from egregious predation (like B&D's putative megalomaniac - however, just because I believe that does not mean I endorse B&D's point of view that the majority of property owners are like that! I am more worried about criminals and general "unethical" behaviour.)
I don't believe that the state is necessary for the average, reasonable person not to attack another average, reasonable person. How many people have you beaten up today, Mr Boateng? You class yourself as very different from the average, and I class you as supremely unreasonable. Yet, I'd be surprised if you've beaten anybody up this whole year or even committed a (real) crime. (Speeding doesn't count!)
I'm curious what evidence you have for this bland assertion, Mr B. Perhaps it's a function of where you work, or who you're married to, but I find that in general, most people are quite happy to trust and participate. People who have a default position of mistrust are usually fairly psychotic or are politicians (possibly the same thing!)
That seems perfectly reasonable.
Well, as long as it doesn't involve killing people or stealing their money or whatever. I mean, Fritzl did everything on his own property and I don't know a single libertarian who doesn't think he shouldn't be impaled on a stake, burned and his ashes scattered over the four corners of the earth*.
You mean like Fritzl? You're fucking mad if you think I believe it's OK for a man to repeatedly rape his own daughter and imprison her in a cave under his house.
Where is it happening? Where has it happened? And most important, why has it happened? Has it ever happened because of property rights, or has it perchance occurred because of something else?
You keep on going on like there's some mad conspiracy by property owners to oppress you and you pull out all the Daily Mail stops by puffing up jobsworth bollocks as though it's an organised conspiracy.
What you see as the solution to this, I see as the problem. The planning laws make it so expensive to get your hands on some retail property that only rich, aggressive companies can own it. And your solution to this is that we should have even stricter planning permission laws. If you deregulated the planning laws, retail space would become much cheaper because you'd be able to get it anywhere. Similarly, existing retail space would become a lot less valuable, so the big property owners wouldn't have all the capital they currently have. In addition, anybody who wanted to open up a shop in their front room could do so, massively increasing competition and beating up the big corporates.
So which approach do you think is going to lead to more liberty and less power for the big corporate? The crazy libertarian way, or the pragmatic, middle-of-the-road way?
I don't understand: I want you to let me do whatever I want to, as long as it doesn't harm you. You want me to let you do whatever you want to do, as long as it doesn't harm me. What have I said, argued or suggested that does not allow and encourage this?
Because, as I explained above, by deregulating the planning process, you have a) "created" much more retail (or whatever) space and b) massively increased the opportunity for competition. If you maintain the planning laws as they stand, then those people will have disproportionate power.
See above.
No. It's all in your head.
I don't know whether I should be amused or offended that someone who thinks economic liberty is irrelevant thinks that I'm trying to curtail liberty by asking for more liberty than he is.
You are quite correct. However, your approach of not allowing certain liberties to increase liberty is a bit like fucking for virginity.
It's also about complete liberty. Free speech is important to you. Dope is important to my ex-wife. Smoking cigarettes is important to Leg-Iron. Not spending half my life working for that fucking nutter with the stutter and his 645 thieving cunts is important to me. I'm happy for all the of above to occur. You're happy that the first three should get their way, but adamant that the freedom that is important to me is wrong, muddle-headed and would lead to the downfall of Western civilisation.
Tell me, Mr Boateng, which of us is truly more interested in freedom?
*Or whatever the harshest punishment it that they think should be meted out.
It's been a long year, longer for some than others. As we draw to the end of it and hopefully in a goodwill spirit often so lacking when this question is raised, I will re-visit an article recently posted by John that received quite a lot of interest. By the end it was, frankly, wholly depressing and made me seriously question what the whole point of libertarianism is. Hence why I haven't been about.
Libertarianism is fundamentally about liberty, that is why it has those first five letters. It is about the liberty of the individual for self-determination in this big bad world and for the removal of state control from our lives. If you call yourself a libertarian and you disagree with this, please leave the room.
The only people who are against the right of self-determination, I'm afraid, have repeatedly proven to be Boateng and Demetriou, who have forcefully argued against property rights on two grounds: first, if it is foolish enough to interfere with the rights of Boateng and Demetriou to say whatever they want, whenever they want to say it; second, by insisting that it is perfectly libertarian to accept some legalised theft by the government in order to provide services which Boateng and Demetriou feel the government should provide.
You cannot begin to exercise your right to self-determination when you cannot exercise whatever rights over your own property that you wish to exercise. In other words, if I buy a car, but I'm not allowed to drive it because it offends Boateng & Demetriou and their say-so is what I need to be able to drive, then I cannot exercise my own rights over my own property. This is clearly a ludicrous infringement of my property rights.
Yet, somehow, if it's not a car but rather a shopping mall, then different rules apply. Somehow, if I deem it appropriate to allow people to enter my private property, it is no longer private property. Somehow, the fact that I permit you to walk across my private property removes all my property rights. This is an insane assertion: I not only allow the cleaning lady in, but I pay her to do so. Does that mean that I now confer upon her the right to "exercise her civil liberties" in my house? Does it, fuck!
You also cannot begin to exercise any kind of self-determination as long as there is any third party that has the legal right to help themselves to your property without you being able to stop them.
We continue:
Many people who are libertarians subsequently diverge over how this is to be achieved. This is both healthy and desired. There are those on the left that want a state to remain, but for the individual to be socially free, there are those on the right that want no state at all and for the individual to be totally socially and economically free. There are those in the middle, like us, that see the merits of both and take a pragmatic approach. As far as anyone on the let is concerned, the right are extremists. As far as the right is concerned, everyone else is a social-democrat.
Oh, this is piffle, Mr B. You and Mr D have repeatedly argued that there is no merit to complete economic freedom while espousing complete social freedom. You have repeatedly rebuffed my assertion that social and economic freedom cannot be separated. You claim this is a "pragmatic" approach, but in reality you are no different from the current idiom of an American liberal: you want all social liberties but are quite happy to have the government (and, by implication, the taxpayer) pick up the costs of all the things which you think a government should provide.
One of the central methods for creating this freedom are through the individuals right to property. Property is bricks and mortar, but it is also money and stocks and shares. Therefore, a liberty to do with as as you will within your built property as well as your money.
Along with any other "thing" that you acquire with your money.
A huge caveat is inserted within libertarianism that is totally ignored, especially by the right: non-aggression.
We don't ignore it, we assume it. You and Demetriou are the only people arguing that property rights will turn people into monsters. I don't see any symptoms of this, apart from mewling lefties who seem to view property as theft. Unless it's their property, of course.
But the fact of the matter is, apart from Boateng and Demetriou, I don't know anybody professing to be a libertarian who frets about this. Libertarians don't, in general, believe that people are inherently megalomaniac. I mean, I'm not, and I don't know anybody who is. I've met a lot of rich people (who are a mixed bunch), I've met a lot of people in the "property game" and, if anything, they're even more agreeable than the average person. They're relaxed, friendly, gregarious and quite generous. I've never met anyone anywhere ever who is remotely like the property owner portrayed by B&D who is going to make you dress funny and goosestep around singing songs from the Wizard of Oz.
Non-aggression. Usually this is used by libertarians in our views against war - the removal of a states liberty by force. However, it is also intended as the removal of liberty by any entity at any level.
If you say so. What you may consider to be a "removal of liberty" may actually be no such thing.
Libertarianism is about liberty.
And property rights. Rothbard (you probably haven't heard of him) says that all liberties derive from property rights.
The row here is simple. You have the right to your property, in this case land and bricks, and you have the right of self-determination with that space. Fine. And it is fine, it is central. What we have been arguing, however, is that this right does not give you the right for the removal of other's liberty.
Quite so. But requesting that you adhere to a dress code while on my property is not a removal of your free speech rights. Requesting that you do not hold a mass rally for a cause that is none of my business on my property does also not remove your free speech. Getting some goons to go round and threaten your family with violence if you have a mass rally in a public place or on someone else's property, well, that's definitely encroaching on your liberty.
I see this as being remarkably simple.
It is remarkably simple. You are making it complicated by trying to find reasons why your free speech is more important than my property. You've already said that you wouldn't try to hold a rally in my back garden, presumably out of courtesy. Or do you accept that I have the right to deny you permission to hold a rally in my back garden?
But for some reason, because I let you enter my shopping centre from eight in the morning till six in the evening, you feel that this confers upon you all the rights that you have in your own home.
Here the argument usually gets totally bogged down in the most depressing fashion with the definition of public space. This can literally go on for eternity, but to make this fairly clear, by public I am not talking about publicly owned, i.e. state owned.
Anyone has the right to life, liberty and property provided that it does not remove the life, liberty and property of anyone else. This too I see as being incredibly simple to grasp. Apparently not.
It is simple to grasp, but it's wrong. Me telling you not to do something on my property does not impact your liberties. Me telling not to do something on your property or on public land does impact your liberties.
Me causing you harm is a crime, irrespective of where it happened (subject to self-defence, yadda yadda.)
Libertarians, in my view, strive to create a better world. One where people are in control of their own destiny through their own lives and exist in peaceful harmony with others.
And you wonder why I call you a social democrat.
Libertarians do not strive to make the world a better place. Libertarians want to get on with their own lives and let others get on with their lives without interference.
That is the balance we are seeking in place of the state. Why do we have a state? We have it as a protector. I'm talking proper back in time why even created states here. The state is given certain powers by us in order that they protect us.
The only reason I see for a state is a) to provide the very small set of things that cannot be provided effectively by private industry and b) to protect the individual from egregious predation (like B&D's putative megalomaniac - however, just because I believe that does not mean I endorse B&D's point of view that the majority of property owners are like that! I am more worried about criminals and general "unethical" behaviour.)
We then have a contract between us that means we don't attack each other and the state, if you do we go to prison for instance, and the state doesn't attack us, we rebel etc. The whole raison d'etre of libertarianism is to re-balance that contract.
I don't believe that the state is necessary for the average, reasonable person not to attack another average, reasonable person. How many people have you beaten up today, Mr Boateng? You class yourself as very different from the average, and I class you as supremely unreasonable. Yet, I'd be surprised if you've beaten anybody up this whole year or even committed a (real) crime. (Speeding doesn't count!)
For those that want the state to be limited to a tiny role, the basic requirement therefore is to have that contract between the people themselves. It relies on people trusting and participating. History tells us that this doesn't happen and that is why I am not of this sphere of libertarianism.
I'm curious what evidence you have for this bland assertion, Mr B. Perhaps it's a function of where you work, or who you're married to, but I find that in general, most people are quite happy to trust and participate. People who have a default position of mistrust are usually fairly psychotic or are politicians (possibly the same thing!)
But that contract is required to various degrees based on your view. I won't remove your life, liberty or property and you will do the same.
That seems perfectly reasonable.
This is where we hit the problem. The hard right of libertarianism, who claim to be the mainstream, state that it is in fact property that is the central line here, not liberty. All that matters is that the individual has the right to do whatever they want within their property, no matter what that property is.
Well, as long as it doesn't involve killing people or stealing their money or whatever. I mean, Fritzl did everything on his own property and I don't know a single libertarian who doesn't think he shouldn't be impaled on a stake, burned and his ashes scattered over the four corners of the earth*.
In fact, it goes so far that it ends up with the owner of the property may totally and utterly remove all liberty from those that are within it. No matter the size of this property.
You mean like Fritzl? You're fucking mad if you think I believe it's OK for a man to repeatedly rape his own daughter and imprison her in a cave under his house.
This is terrifying. The natural result of this is that the owner of the property is now the state. The property can be your garden, or it can be the Duchy of Cornwall. It can be entire business developments, or housing estates. The owner has the right to remove all liberty within. The response is often that the market would come to the fore and it would never happen. It has happened, it is happening and history tells us that when it does people do what people have always done, they shrug and they get on with it.
Where is it happening? Where has it happened? And most important, why has it happened? Has it ever happened because of property rights, or has it perchance occurred because of something else?
You keep on going on like there's some mad conspiracy by property owners to oppress you and you pull out all the Daily Mail stops by puffing up jobsworth bollocks as though it's an organised conspiracy.
What you see as the solution to this, I see as the problem. The planning laws make it so expensive to get your hands on some retail property that only rich, aggressive companies can own it. And your solution to this is that we should have even stricter planning permission laws. If you deregulated the planning laws, retail space would become much cheaper because you'd be able to get it anywhere. Similarly, existing retail space would become a lot less valuable, so the big property owners wouldn't have all the capital they currently have. In addition, anybody who wanted to open up a shop in their front room could do so, massively increasing competition and beating up the big corporates.
So which approach do you think is going to lead to more liberty and less power for the big corporate? The crazy libertarian way, or the pragmatic, middle-of-the-road way?
The non-aggression caveat goes out the window, because it gets in the way of letting people do, basically, whatever they want to do.
I don't understand: I want you to let me do whatever I want to, as long as it doesn't harm you. You want me to let you do whatever you want to do, as long as it doesn't harm me. What have I said, argued or suggested that does not allow and encourage this?
So, as I ask in the title, what is the point? If this is a widely held view (mainly in American Libertarianism it should be noted), then all we have done is remove the power of the state over us, the individual, and handed it straight, not to the people, but to the property owning minority.
Because, as I explained above, by deregulating the planning process, you have a) "created" much more retail (or whatever) space and b) massively increased the opportunity for competition. If you maintain the planning laws as they stand, then those people will have disproportionate power.
It is that small percentage that actually own pretty much everything who are now in control. They have the right, it is argued, to remove your liberty because it is their property. In fact they have the right to remove your life as well if the comments once made about Tony Martin are anything to go by.
See above.
So, what's the point in libertarianism if the only liberty it is fighting for is the total liberty of the few? Is that really liberty? Is that really what we are arguing for?
No. It's all in your head.
What I have been arguing is that the non-aggression, non-removal of life, liberty and property caveat be observed. That we don't simply focus on the rights in our living room and look beyond that to the dangers some are embracing. Otherwise, we might as well just keep the system we already have, which would appear, on the face of it, to ensure more of us more liberty than that of the libertarian spectrum's anarchist element.
I don't know whether I should be amused or offended that someone who thinks economic liberty is irrelevant thinks that I'm trying to curtail liberty by asking for more liberty than he is.
I refuse to accept that this is what libertarianism is about and I refuse to accept that this is the world in which libertarians from across the spectrum want to see. Libertarianism is about liberty, a liberty secured by your right to determine your own destiny through your own dwelling, your own income, your own life. A liberty that does not at any point reach a stage where you remove that liberty from someone else.
You are quite correct. However, your approach of not allowing certain liberties to increase liberty is a bit like fucking for virginity.
Libertarianism is, fundamentally, about the liberty of you, me and everybody. Not the few.
It's also about complete liberty. Free speech is important to you. Dope is important to my ex-wife. Smoking cigarettes is important to Leg-Iron. Not spending half my life working for that fucking nutter with the stutter and his 645 thieving cunts is important to me. I'm happy for all the of above to occur. You're happy that the first three should get their way, but adamant that the freedom that is important to me is wrong, muddle-headed and would lead to the downfall of Western civilisation.
Tell me, Mr Boateng, which of us is truly more interested in freedom?
*Or whatever the harshest punishment it that they think should be meted out.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Comments from elsewhere
It's a bit naughty, I know, but it was so funny I had to nick it. I wonder if it's not the deft hand of Sperm Lewis ... or maybe his sisteraunt:
Ron Broxted, 20 December 2009 17:47
Ron Broxted, 20 December 2009 20:56
Bridget Broxted, 20 December 2009 21:09
Ron Broxted, 20 December 2009 17:47
You have to look at this in the perspective that it is Catholic Ireland and incest amongst family members within the Catholic community has always been more accceptable that outside Ireland. My own parents are brother and sister and had to move to England to get married and have children without showing out. I have two sisters and a brother and yes I suppose we are all somewhat deformed, stunted and shall we say not exactly the full ticket. My sister Bridget now lives with my brother Brendan as man and wife and they have six children of their own now.
I have always supported Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and the IRA, so I think this incest thing should be viewed in perspective, it is after all pretty much the norm in Ireland.
Ron Broxted, 20 December 2009 20:56
I didn't find out my ma and pa were brother and sister until one day I was going through an old box under their bed in our shity council flat whilst me ma was out visiting me filthy grandad in Brixton prison where he was on remand for raping my sister Bridget's baby son. Anyway I looked in this box which was full of dildo's and whips and chains and soiled underware. In amongst this I found me parents birth certificates which showed they were brother and sister.
Years later when I talked to my social worker about it she said being an inbreed would explain my mental illness and peculiar shapped and stunted body.
Bridget Broxted, 20 December 2009 21:09
I sorry but I cannot let what my brother Ron has just said about me grandad go unanswered. Sure me grandad raped my baby son, but what Ron has not said that it was me dads kid. Ron was no angel either he let Father Kelly shag him in return for sweets which he never shared. I think Ron was always destined to be an arse bandit. He only has one bollock and is a physical wreck and wanks himself off until he resemble a ghost some weeks.
Politicians, eh?
Via Anna Raccoon, we have this charming tale:
There are all sorts of bad things here, but really the most shameful is Adams's top-like spinning of the situation: only releasing a statement when his niece has gone public having not done anything about flagrant incestuous child abuse. He could have reported his brother to the police, he could have told his brother to stop, he could have had his brother knee-capped, he could have had his brother killed and made it look like an SAS operation. There are probably other options I could think up if I had slept properly last night.
But now the full story is coming out, he rushes out a press release to limit the damage and "spoil the story". He also shamefully tries to defend his brother by saying that his dead father was a child abuser -- although somehow he didn't know about that till he was 50.
In this shameful attempt at garnering some sympathy, he comes out with this gem:
Pity you didn't look after your niece, you utter cunt.
The story is a sadly familiar one. A young girl comes forward, supported by her Mother, to detail the sexual abuse which her Father has inflicted on her since the age of four years old. It is the detail of how this information was handled by the authorities which have taken this from the realms of ’sad but not unheard of’ to plumbing new depths of treachery, cynicism, and a desire for political power that surpasses all accepted boundaries of justice.
The young girl was Aine Tyrell, not a name that would make you sit up and pay attention, until you learn that she is Gerry Adams’ niece. The abuser was her Father, Gerry Adams’ brother, Liam. Gerry Adams has known of this abuse for many years, 20 in fact, and never doubted that it was true, but it was only last night, secure at his pinnacle of political power, that he felt able to speak out and support his niece.
There are all sorts of bad things here, but really the most shameful is Adams's top-like spinning of the situation: only releasing a statement when his niece has gone public having not done anything about flagrant incestuous child abuse. He could have reported his brother to the police, he could have told his brother to stop, he could have had his brother knee-capped, he could have had his brother killed and made it look like an SAS operation. There are probably other options I could think up if I had slept properly last night.
But now the full story is coming out, he rushes out a press release to limit the damage and "spoil the story". He also shamefully tries to defend his brother by saying that his dead father was a child abuser -- although somehow he didn't know about that till he was 50.
In this shameful attempt at garnering some sympathy, he comes out with this gem:
"So you have to look after the living as opposed to the dead," he said.
Pity you didn't look after your niece, you utter cunt.
Trying some new gubbins
I'm bored, so I'm fiddling with blogger. Probably a bad thing, but let me know what you think (if I can get it to work!)
Update: OK, I read the instructions properly. Apparently, I'm talking out my arse. Ignore this.
Update: OK, I read the instructions properly. Apparently, I'm talking out my arse. Ignore this.
I'm number 1, so why try harder?
Mea culpa, I read somewhere that Cowell owned the rights to RATM's music, turns out I was wrong.
However, I wasn't wrong that both Cowell and RATM deal through Sony and while checking up my facts, I came across this ludicrous blog in (of course) the Graun. While Ben Myers wibbles on in finest approved Graun style (including references to fucking OBAMA for fuck's sake!) and completely ignoring that this cynical hoo-hah has just made a sack of money for Cowell anyway (more than if there hadn't been a "competition") and ignoring that this has just made Sony twice as much money, the real joy is in the comments:
I wonder if she'd feel the same if Nick Griffin owned the rights.
Riiiight. So you're hoping that a cynical campaign to boost record sales in the run-up to Christmas will gabble gabble gabble something social psyche wibble. I hope you never pass your genes on.
There really is no end to the potential stupidity of the Guardian reader.
Utter, utter cunts.
However, I wasn't wrong that both Cowell and RATM deal through Sony and while checking up my facts, I came across this ludicrous blog in (of course) the Graun. While Ben Myers wibbles on in finest approved Graun style (including references to fucking OBAMA for fuck's sake!) and completely ignoring that this cynical hoo-hah has just made a sack of money for Cowell anyway (more than if there hadn't been a "competition") and ignoring that this has just made Sony twice as much money, the real joy is in the comments:
i really don't care who the money made from RATM sales go to - it's irrelevant, isn't it? this is about an IDEA, not capital
I wonder if she'd feel the same if Nick Griffin owned the rights.
It is also - I hope - a sign that the slumbering giant of of our social psyche, (comatose from years of a market induced methadone addictiction) - is coming to a new awarenes that those who seek to influence us, to commoditize and commercialize and profiteer from every fuckin minutae of our existence- may not have yout best interests at heart.
Riiiight. So you're hoping that a cynical campaign to boost record sales in the run-up to Christmas will gabble gabble gabble something social psyche wibble. I hope you never pass your genes on.
There really is no end to the potential stupidity of the Guardian reader.
Utter, utter cunts.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
The Graun
Dear God, what is it with these cunts? How can you cram so much cunting fail into a single subheading?
How can it be "rescued" and a fucking "disaster"?
And of course, how can it be a disaster when it failed to cunt up the world's economy for the next hundred years?
Go China!
Miliband 'helped rescue summit', but campaigners say accord 'a disaster'
How can it be "rescued" and a fucking "disaster"?
And of course, how can it be a disaster when it failed to cunt up the world's economy for the next hundred years?
Go China!
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Fuck, that is totally unspeakable
Let's face it, the government has a fucking lot to answer for. But thanks to The Lovely Trixy, we have a story which totally blew my cuntishness meter apart:
I suppose for the Islington set, it's alright to send the army into pointless wars to keep in America's good books, it's alright to cut their budget to fund plush new offices for bureaucrats, so I can't see why it wouldn't be alright to insult and exploit them one last time.
Endemol: beyond any fucking boundary of good taste and decency.
You utter cunts.
I'm not a fan of Big Brother; the only possible decent use of the house would be to keep the people who win the auditions in there, minus the cameras. So I was quite pleased to hear the news in the summer that Channel 4 would not be renewing Endemol's contract to produce the dross. Unfortunately this means that we do have one series left in 2010 to keep actual news out of the papers in an already watered down media.
But an e-mail which passed across my desk has moved them lower in my estimation: something I didn't think was possible. Casting directors have been e-mailing various organisations asking them to encouraging members to contact the production company along side the usual open auditions which, one can presume, aren't going that well. That wouldn't be so bad, I suppose, if they hadn't contacted a particular charity who assist vulnerable veterans suffering from homelessness, drink and drug abuse asking for 'case studies' to contact.
Men and women who have bravely served their country and fallen on hard times or dealt badly with the transition from the Armed Forces to civvy street are now ideal people to be under continual observation and media scrutiny, are they?
How fucking heartless do you have to be to think that putting a homeless person in a house where they face a weekly eviction vote is a good idea?
I suppose for the Islington set, it's alright to send the army into pointless wars to keep in America's good books, it's alright to cut their budget to fund plush new offices for bureaucrats, so I can't see why it wouldn't be alright to insult and exploit them one last time.
Endemol: beyond any fucking boundary of good taste and decency.
You utter cunts.
It's inevitable, really
Is it just me, or have we started getting snow slightly more regularly than we used to? Anyway, let's fucking face it, snow in the UK is not exactly fucking unheard of, is it?
So why the fucking fuck does the fucking cuntry collapse every time we get half an inch? Jesus fucking wept, the schools were all fucking closed, OBVIOUSLY. So there were fucking hordes of school kids running around having a fucking ball, all so the useless cuntish teachers could skive off a fucking day early.
Trains were all fucked (of course!) and the roads were full of people who clearly didn't fucking remember what happened last year when they drove in the snow.
Christ, I can't believe the monumental levels of incompetence and stupidity in this country.
CUNTS!
Friday, 18 December 2009
Farewell to the Togmeister
It is with a heavy heart that I add my voice to the chorus of people bidding the corpsing old duffer goodbye.
Truly unique and magnificent, with both the ultimate face and moleskin trousers for radio, with the filthiest listeners in the whole of Christendom. I wish you were able to go on for ever!
Truly unique and magnificent, with both the ultimate face and moleskin trousers for radio, with the filthiest listeners in the whole of Christendom. I wish you were able to go on for ever!
Vale*, Sir Terry!
*I don't speak it. Thanks for the correction.
Is it an ego thing?
The tedious old Godbotherer was wittering on about our politicians' Christmas cards. And while I am an atheist and couldn't really give a rat's fucking arse about the religiosity of the cards, I had to admit they are a rum old bunch of fucking cards:
The Prime Mentalist has this cheesy number:
Enjoy it, you snot-munching goat-felcher, it's the last fucking time you're going to be able to use that iconic image.
iDave has gone for some Tory brand-brandishing:
Classy, Dave. Just to remind everyone that you're a Tory.
That other bloke, you know the nonentity, what's his name?
A Mickey Mouse card from a Mickey Mouse politician, I suppose. But it's the start of the ego thing.
Then we've got the simpering buttmunch and his bike:
What the fuck is that about then? Who'd want to see this grinning cretin and his spawn on their fucking mantlepiece? It's enough to put you off your fucking sprouts.
And then the real stomach turner from Tony Bliar:
At least Bercow is happy, even though it's because the little fuck is troughing at our expense. Bliar just looks like he's got wind. Or he's remembered that he has to fuck slotgob that night.
But seriously, how big does your fucking ego have to be that you print a fucking photo of yourself for a Christmas card? How fucked in the head do you have to be? It's not like your fucking mates (if you have any) or your family have forgotten what you look like. And if they have, they can just look at the front page of the Sun or whatever.
Really, you fucking lunatics, get a fucking grip!
The Prime Mentalist has this cheesy number:
Enjoy it, you snot-munching goat-felcher, it's the last fucking time you're going to be able to use that iconic image.
iDave has gone for some Tory brand-brandishing:
Classy, Dave. Just to remind everyone that you're a Tory.
That other bloke, you know the nonentity, what's his name?
A Mickey Mouse card from a Mickey Mouse politician, I suppose. But it's the start of the ego thing.
Then we've got the simpering buttmunch and his bike:
What the fuck is that about then? Who'd want to see this grinning cretin and his spawn on their fucking mantlepiece? It's enough to put you off your fucking sprouts.
And then the real stomach turner from Tony Bliar:
At least Bercow is happy, even though it's because the little fuck is troughing at our expense. Bliar just looks like he's got wind. Or he's remembered that he has to fuck slotgob that night.
But seriously, how big does your fucking ego have to be that you print a fucking photo of yourself for a Christmas card? How fucked in the head do you have to be? It's not like your fucking mates (if you have any) or your family have forgotten what you look like. And if they have, they can just look at the front page of the Sun or whatever.
Really, you fucking lunatics, get a fucking grip!
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Science funding cut
I was watching the idiot lantern yesterday after PMQ's and immediately after the shit-shower there was a brief slot where some po-faced scientist fuckwit went hammering on about the cuts to science funding and how science funding had to be not just ringfenced, but boosted.
Just like education and defence and welfare and healthcare and ...
He went on to say that research led to get enormous and disproportionate benefits to business in the UK.
I was kind of bemused. Why do taxpayers fund scientific research if companies benefit? Is this the usual thing of the taxpayer sucking up the costs while big business makes a killing on successful research? Why don't businesses fund their own fucking research?
Well, obviously it's because the simple-minded government got soaked by business. Would you pay for your own research if you knew that for the cost of a few agreeable lunches you could convince some woolly-headed minister or, even better, some puffed-up, unaccountable civil servant that it was in the country's interest for them to pay your costs?
Only, it turns out that contrary to what Professor Fuckwit was implying, private companies do fund their own research:
So, why are we funding research at all? I guess because we fund all higher education, and that's where the research takes place.
Well, fuck that, I say. Let universities charge to accept students, seek donations and bursaries and corporate funding from those who benefit from their work. The taxpayer is funding other people's profits. Do you really think it's vital to suck up the costs of some giant pharma or corporate conglomerate? How is this different (except in scale) to the bank bail-out?
And my soul withered just a little when that jug-eared fuckwit called Charles (Clarke) said that the state should stop funding all science research and just focus on the winners. A decade in government plus all the rest of human history hasn't taught him that the government has an appalling track record in picking winners.
The claret-faced cunt.
Just like education and defence and welfare and healthcare and ...
He went on to say that research led to get enormous and disproportionate benefits to business in the UK.
I was kind of bemused. Why do taxpayers fund scientific research if companies benefit? Is this the usual thing of the taxpayer sucking up the costs while big business makes a killing on successful research? Why don't businesses fund their own fucking research?
Well, obviously it's because the simple-minded government got soaked by business. Would you pay for your own research if you knew that for the cost of a few agreeable lunches you could convince some woolly-headed minister or, even better, some puffed-up, unaccountable civil servant that it was in the country's interest for them to pay your costs?
Only, it turns out that contrary to what Professor Fuckwit was implying, private companies do fund their own research:
The genetic code of two of the most deadly cancers has been cracked by British scientists in a world first that opens up a whole new era in the treatment for the disease
So, why are we funding research at all? I guess because we fund all higher education, and that's where the research takes place.
Well, fuck that, I say. Let universities charge to accept students, seek donations and bursaries and corporate funding from those who benefit from their work. The taxpayer is funding other people's profits. Do you really think it's vital to suck up the costs of some giant pharma or corporate conglomerate? How is this different (except in scale) to the bank bail-out?
And my soul withered just a little when that jug-eared fuckwit called Charles (Clarke) said that the state should stop funding all science research and just focus on the winners. A decade in government plus all the rest of human history hasn't taught him that the government has an appalling track record in picking winners.
The claret-faced cunt.
Massive Adobe Acrobat security flaw and how to protect yourself
If you use Acrobat or Reader (and I'm pretty sure most people do!) you need to be aware of a nasty security flaw that can be used to deliver malware to your computer. There are more details here, but fortunately protecting yourself isn't too difficult and won't make your life any more difficult:
Just fucking do it, OK?
In the meantime, users should configure their programs to disable javascript. This can be done in Reader by opening up preferences, selecting the javascript tab and unchecking the box that says "Enable Acrobat javascript." Remember, there's no compelling reason for ever allowing javascript in Acrobat, and the computer you save may be your own.
Just fucking do it, OK?
#Climategate - From Russia with Love
It seems that the Russians have weighed in with a contribution to Climategate: they accuse the Met Office's Hadley Centre of cherry-picking data sets which support global warming, while ignoring huge swathes of the data because it would have cancelled out the warming shown in the data they did select.
The rather sound Delingpole has more.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
#PMQs
Christ almighty, that was a complete waste of fucking time. Flanneling, waffling questions; non-answers; load of old bollocks planted questions.
What utter cunt.
New poll - government activity
I skimmed an A-Z list of government departments and quangoes, pretty much everything here is provided by government monopoly. This isn't a complete list, either, it's only about a third or quarter of government activity. There isn't a lot there that I think needs to be provided by government at all, but I wondered how my reader felt about which services should be provided by the state and only the state.
Fuck the corporate whores, let's get some real music on the charts this Christmas
Fuck RATM and their sucking of Big Music's cock. Fuck X-Talent's got Come and their sucking of Simon Cowell's cock.
If you want to do something good for Christmas, buy Half Man, Half Biscuit's Christmas single, It's Clichéd To Be Cynical At Christmas. You can buy it from TuneTribe or iTunes.
And if you're not already a fan of HMHB, then try a few more tracks and be prepared to fall in love.
The loneliness of the long-distance blogger
I've been struggling to find my blogging mojo lately. Every time I read the news, instead of getting angry, I just get increasingly depressed. We are surrounded not just by immense stupidity, but by wilful immense stupidity.
The unquestioning slurping of Pachauri's cock (and Al Gore's) at Copenhagen makes me want to slit my throat. The fact that Iran (which is full of lovely people, but ruled by utter fucknuts) looks like it's got a Bomb makes me want to go lock myself in a dark room with the gas on. The government's financial plan to get out of recession has me reaching for my revolver.
It's bollock-grabbingly cold and foggy, so I can't even launch the penis extension to cheer myself up.
And did I mention I haven't done my Christmas shopping yet?
Fuck.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Oh, go on then ... #trafigura
Some people just don't know when to quit, do they?
Update: Censored report here.
#Climategate - follow the money
A monumentally hypocritical, venal cunt, earlier
EU Referendum has a very, very important post here about the Climategate scandal:
Our friendly part-time chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, is quite a remarkable man. As well as his onerous post with the UN's IPCC, it seems he has a considerable number of other interests.
Dr Pachauri's main day job is, of course, Director-General of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) - which he has held since April 2001, having become its Director and head in 1981 when it was the Tata Energy Research Institute.
Intriguingly, for such an upstanding public servant though, he is also a strategic advisor to the private equity investment firm Pegasus Capital Advisors LP, which he became in February of this year. However, this is by no means Dr Pachauri's only foray into the world of finance. In December 2007, be became a member of the Senior Advisory Board of Siderian ventures based in San Francisco.
The post then goes on and on (and on) detailing all the roles that this selfless UN bureaucrat fills, with some highlights being:
- member of the Board of the Nordic bank Glitnir, which launched the The Sustainable Future Fund, Iceland, a new savings account "designed to help the environment."
- Chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund
- Board of the Credit Suisse Research Institute, Zurich
- member of the Advisory Group for the Rockefeller Foundation, USA
- member of the Board of the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva
- Chairman and Member of the Advisory Group at Asian Development Bank
- member of the Policy Advisory Panel for the French national railway system, SNCF
- President of the Asian Energy Institute
- previous directorship with and current post as "scientific advisor" to GloriOil Limited
Investing in oil exploration, it was observed at the time, makes it possible to drill oil more efficiently, and produce greenhouse emissions in even greater amounts, and stands in contradiction to the firm's stated public mission. No one mentioned Dr Pachauri's founding role in the company – or that he was currently chairman of the IPCC.
We continue:
- Director of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan.
- Member of the External Advisory Board of Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. This exchange is North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide, brokering carbon credits worldwide
- member of FEOP (Far East Oil Price) Advisory Board, managed by the Oil Trade Associates, Singapore
- Member of the International Advisory Board of Toyota Motors
- Member of the Climate Change Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank AG
- Chairman of the International Association for Energy Economics from 1989 to 1990
- Independent Director of NTPC Ltd (National Thermal Power Corp), from 30 January 2006 to January 2009
- non-official Part-time Director of NTPC Ltd, from August 2002 to August 2005
- Director of the Indian Oil Corporation until 28 August 2003
- Director of Gail India Ltd, India's largest natural gas transportation company, from August 2003 to 26 October 2004
- Member of National Environmental Council, Government of India under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister of India
- member of the lobbying organisations: the International Solar Energy Society, the World Resources Institute and the World Energy Council
- member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India since July 2001 and also serves as Member of the Oil Industry Restructuring Group, for the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India
So, the next time the chairman of the the IPCC stands up and defends the science, just bear in mind how much he personally stands to lose if the science doesn't actually stack up. And when someone says that all the deniers are in the pocket of big oil, well, it's pretty clear to me that all the warmists are in the pocket of "big alternative energy".
Cunts.
PS Did I mention that this fucker has a Nobel Prize as well? Looks like having an igNobel Prize is a higher award.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Quote of the picosecond
Most importantly, what about all the petrol you use up driving around in the dead of night looking for Forestry Commission land that doesn’t have a particularly robust fence or patrolling guard dogs?
-- Tom Harris MP, showing signs of wanting to reduce his expenses.
CoE loses plot ... again? ... still?
An idiot, earlierDude? What the fuck?
The Taliban could be admired for their religious conviction and their sense of loyalty to each other, the new bishop for the Armed Forces said.
Right, so let's start off with a new bishop, keen to make his mark and earn the respect of his flock and he starts off, not by praising his flock, but by praising the enemy who is killing his flock. Then we go on to praise their conviction to a demented, sick pervesion of faith that encourages the murder of the members of the bishop's flock. Then we get him praising their loyalty, when actually, the bulk of them are only loyal to the £7 they get paid every day for killing the kuffaar.
Way to go, bish! Wrong in every possible way and you just know your flock are already going to be angling for you to wind up in a Helmand body bag, long before you even warm your new chair up with that stupid arse of yours.
Stupid fucking cunt.
Update: The idiot apologises:
The Right Reverend Dr Stephen Venner said his words had been taken out of context by the Daily Telegraph.
Of course.
Cunt.
Tickled pink
I'm hugely amused by the fact that the petulant halfwit MP for Mogadishu East has blocked Iain Dale on twatter. Apparently, she said some uncharitable things about Iain and his sidekick Shane Greer and when he took her to task, the Labour government's Twitter Tsar responded in the only way she knew: she blocked his annoying arse from her timeline.
To escalate the debate to even greater heights, she went on to say (and I'm not making this up!): "Happy to debate with Tory MPs. @IainDale is not my political equivalent. He's unelected and unaccountable."
Aside from the ludicrous pomposity of this drivel, she also claimed that Iain Dale, the world's second biggest media whore after Paul Staines, only got into this spat to make himself famous, completely ignoring the fact that Dale has arguably spent more time on camera and on microphone than said MP for Mogadishu East.
It's quite remarkable that a sitting MP thinks that it's a good idea to badmouth influential political writers. It's quite remarkable that a government thinks it needs a Twitter Tsar. It's quite remarkable that the government's Twitter Tsar blocks anybody she has a hissy fit with.
And it's quite remarkable that a sitting MP has so much time to spend on Twitter - don't they keep telling us how fucking busy they are?
Kerry McCarthy: living proof that tribal voters will vote for a dog turd wearing the correct rosette.
Obo exclusive: Afghanistan shocker
In a world exclusive, I can reveal the next soldier who will die in Afghanistan. I don't know his name, but he's the unfortunate soul on the other end of the Handshake of Doom:
How sad!
This miserable old harridan who is telling us all we need to live back in the stone ages used to be a fucking babe.
This is what happens to anti-libertarians. Good.
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Must-read blogging
Leg-Iron has a fantastic post about how smokers are bypassing the smoking ban. He's right, non-smoking people who didn't go to pubs were never going to suddenly start going just because they were smoke free.
I reckon pubs are utterly fucked now. Well done all those self-righteous prigs who cunted up one of Britain's greatest traditions.
Unrepentant Bliar gives Iraqis the bird
He reckons he was right to invade Iraq and would have done it anyway.
There's a fucking surprise, eh?
But if he's really that confident, why not ship him back to Iraq ... without a fucking military escort.
I fucking HATE winter
Not the cold, the misery, the incompetence of the government who can't grit for shit, not the endless drizzle or the short days and long, gloomy nights.
I do, however, fucking hate what what my car looks like after a day on the road. I washed it this morning and after 20 miles it looked like I'd smeared it with diarrhoea.
FUCK.
Saturday, 12 December 2009
If there's a nuclear explosion over the UK ...
... you'll know where Mark Wadsworth lives. I expect the explosion within nanoseconds of him reading this:
God knows, it's all I can do to keep my own head from going pop ... but I still want to see what the UK looks like when its sovereign debt is regarded as a junk bond.
The Prime Minister, backed strongly by Ed Balls, his closest ally, argued that a VAT rise would risk hampering the recovery and that a rise in National Insurance, which would affect wealthy people more, would be a fairer way of convincing the markets that the Government has a plan to cut the record £178 billion budget deficit within four years.
God knows, it's all I can do to keep my own head from going pop ... but I still want to see what the UK looks like when its sovereign debt is regarded as a junk bond.
Fuck me!
Labour have finally got something right!
Me? Odd? Eccentric? Never!
Wow! Is there no beginning to this man's insight?
Dr Williams told The Daily Telegraph: “The trouble with a lot of Government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem, it’s an eccentricity, it’s practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities.
Me? Odd? Eccentric? Never!“The effect is to de-normalise faith, to intensify the perception that faith is not part of our bloodstream. And, you know, in great swaths of the country that’s how it is.”
Wow! Is there no beginning to this man's insight?
Friday, 11 December 2009
#Expensaquiddick
How dare you question my entitlement?
I suspect I'm in a minority here, but the inevitable "expensegate" sounds rather dull, so I've gone for a different variation.
However, the story is the same: thieving, greedy fucks are pissing our money away and wondering why we're all so upset:
Unhappy days are here again. In the fun factory we MPs are under extraordinary rendition and subject to regular doses of waterboarding. The latest began today with the publication of our allowance claims for the year up to April to add to the four years of greedy guzzle chronicled by the Daily Telegraph. This will then be followed by the All Knight Torture party of Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Christopher Kelly, Gordon's Presbyterian inquisition. They resume their efforts with the publication of Legg's shakedown list of fiddlers on 20 December, the prelude to a month of appeals to a high court judge who will ritually reject them so the victims can be thrown to an outraged public as a preface to Kelly reforms designed to make their job undoable.
Really, you fat, egregious fuckmonkey? Really?
Firstly, no-one objects to reasonable expenses. It's the insane unreasonableness of arrogant MPs that gets people so entirely fucked off with you scumbags. Why exactly do you need a £75 kettle when a £10 kettle will do exactly the same job?
Secondly, do you really think that actually accounting for your expenses to the fuckers that pay them renders your job "undoable"? You fucking mental fucking basket case: every fucker outside of Parliament has to properly account for fucking every penny they claim. And they don't have the luxury of tolerant and unaccountable mates taking your word for everything by default.
But how is this for truly astonishing?
I blame Gordon Brown for allowing both to take their mandarin's revenge on MPs. He appointed mandarins with no knowledge of the real world and a grudge against troublesome MPs.
Wow. Imagine how fucking "out there" you have to be for an MP to claim that you have no knowledge of the real world.
Listen, you fucking fuck: you are the one living in fucking la-la land, you overpaid fucking buffooon. Even those fucking mandarins have a tighter expense policy than you do, you trough-snuffling sack of fucking shit.
They duly took their revenge for years of being excluded from the sofas of power and bullied by brutish parliamentarians. Legg's shakedown has now reached me with a whacking claim for repayment of an overpaid mortgage. It's largely my fault, but it's also due to the incompetence of the fees office.
It wasn't me. The big, nasty boys from the fees office did it and ran away.
Listen, you fucking cunt: how difficult is it to understand the following words?
The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.
It's just within the bounds of reason that a kettle might be justified. But a £75 kettle? FUCK. OFF.
Yet no excuses can save me from the wrath of Grimsby. The mood produced by the Daily Telegraph is so ugly and so immune to reason.
Immune to reason? IMMUNE TO REASON? You arrogant FUCK!
It's not that we are immune to reason, it's that you motherfucking thieving whores are immune to fucking contrition!
How fucking DARE YOU get caught fucking thieving money from the public, not change your ways and then try to say that WE are immune to reason?
And then just to fucking rub some salt into the wounds, you drag the old fucking trout you married into this:
Note from Austin Mitchell's wife, Linda McDougall: I'm fed up of being blamed for everything that goes wrong. For the past 30 years or so we had a Russell Hobbs "Forgettle". It lasted so long it was a family legend. When it finally gave up the ghost I decided to replace it with another Russell Hobbs.
I chose the model at £75.99 because it looked attractive and durable and I thought it would probably "see me out". A proper consideration for the bus pass generation. Since Austin hardly ever uses it he should shut up.
Linda, you old fuck: the considerations of the "bus pass generation" are entirely fucking irrelevant and it's not the job of the taxpayer to fund your fucking kettle for the rest of you egregiously overpaid, money-grubbing fucking life. It's our job to fund the bare necessities your husband needs to do his fucking job, while he's doing his fucking job.
What happens to you after that is between your fat fucking thieving husband and the cuntishly gold-plated pension he will be stealing from us after he fucks off.
As far as I'm concerned, the thieving pair of you can't fucking die soon enough. I just hope it's painful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)