A mass debate with twitterati (for @hangbitch AKblackandred and @Danny777James )

It all starts with something like this:

A bunch of speculating cocks throw the world into recession and govt takes it out on ppl who've been doing the right thing.

To which I replied:

@hangbitch Yeah, living the high life on money borrowed from those speculating cocks

Somehow, the daft Australian cunt and some fellow travellers took this to mean that I was having a go a dole scroungers. I wasn't, because as far as I know (not being a dole scrounger myself) banks won't lend money to people on the dole because they don't have enough income to pay back any such loans.

My point is that everyone was happy to ride the wave of easy money created by these speculating cocks, everyone got suckered in by the false confidence generated by the monocular mentalist and his promise of ending boom and bust. In a sweeping generalisation, I'd say that nobody actually did the right thing, which is why it's so fucking painful for us all and why we're all so fucking keen for the buck to stop somewhere else.

Nobody wants the party to end, especially those who were doing OK out of the mentalist's boom.

Nobody wants to look in the mirror and say to that fuckwit in there: "You made bad decisions, too. You need to man up and take the consequences of your part in this."

My point is not that any particular group of people don't want the fake boom to end, my point is that nobody wants it to end. They're dressing it up as concern for the needy, concern for the disabled, concern for the cheeeeeeeldren.

But the truth is, what they really don't want to do is take the medicine they know they actually deserve themselves. If people hadn't ridden the wave of easy money created by those speculating cocks, riding out the consequent recession would actually be pretty easy.

Now, for the sake of completeness and for the avoidance of doubt, I will also say that I am quite happy with my track record of saying that we should not have bailed out the banks. We should have let Northern Rock go to the wall, even if we'd had to pick up every penny of deposits as a protection of customers (and we wouldn't have, because the Rock had a shitload of assets) letting some other bank pick up the Rock's assets would have cost the tiniest fraction of the mass bailout and making a better business out of it is exactly what capitalism does best.

The decision to secure the banks' liabilities was nothing other than a massive nationalisation in all but name for the Labour Party agreeing with a massive grab of public funds by corporate interests who decided that rent-seeking was a better way forward that actually facing the market the hard way.

The thing that fucks me off more than anything is that the same people calling for more "regulation" of the banks (which will only protect the same thieving incumbents from the competition that would really keep them honest) are the very same people who fail to see that the regulatory state is at least 50% responsible for the fact that vast quantities of our money were handed over to reckless business, completely absolving said reckless businesses from the responsibility for their recklessness, not just now, but in the future as well.

Look at it this way, if a child asks its parent for sweets before dinner and the parent actually gives the child the sweets, who is actually at fault?

Barbara Hitler (or something)

Oh dear. The clitterati are up in arms because some charity bint is trying to get druggies to get sterilised to stop having kids that they can't take care of.

I had several nearly identical discussions on twitter with people who were all clearly of the opinion that drug addicts were worthless imbeciles who couldn't be trusted to find their own arseholes with both hands because they were so drug-addled. But at some point, they might turn round and become solid, upstanding fellow-statists who would raise more unquestioning cattle to feed the state, so their balls and ovaries deserved protection.

Now, I think that Barbara Harris's Project Prevention is a pretty disgusting thing. It's judgemental and has some very nasty undertones. But the fact of the matter is that this is all an entirely voluntary transaction. The addict gets some money in exchange for submitting to a (probably reversible) surgical procedure. At no point is anyone threatening the druggie with jail time.

I think it sounds like a patronising, demeaning, almost nasty deal. I wouldn't want to undergo it it. But crucially, I don't think it's my place to tell druggies how to live their lives, nor do I think it's any of my business to tell Barbara Harris how to spend her privately-raised charity money that other people have given freely knowing what the charity's objectives were, nor do I think I have all the answers for other people.

It is, in a sense, like defending neo-nazis' right to talk loads of bullshit. I don't agree with it, but it's their right to say things other people don't like, just like it's my right to call people cunts.

It's people's right to enter into voluntary transactions that they believe are mutually beneficial. And it's nobody else's business but those of the people transacting.

Won't somebody think of the children?

All this talk about cuts really makes me laugh. Last week it was all about the children and the fact that Osborne's plan for means-testing appears to have been drafted by an innumerate, illiterate, demented fuckwit with the common sense of a rabid vole.

This week, it's been all about the spazzers, flids, spackers, crips and mongtards. Apparently, they're going to be savaged and people are up in arms.

But as usual, the discussions with the clitterati have been an exercise in futility. "The state should provide more!" "Tax the bankers more!" "Why should the disabled suffer while the bankers get bailed out?"

And everyone's talking about the "savagery" of the cuts. And who knows, they may actually be savage -- as far as the ostensible beneficiaries are concerned.

But the reality of it is that the state's spending on non-jobs, on quangos, on other absolute cuntery grows apace. The nett effect of these "cuts" will not actually be to reduce the state in any way, shape or form, all that will happen is that the rate of growth of the state will not be quite as much under the Tories, it will still be growing all the time.

Quite often I get chastised as "uncaring" by asking for the state to be starved. "Think of the children / crips / flids / whatever! They'll all be left to die on the street without tax! British people are proud to be a caring society."

The last statement really did make me laugh. If British people are so caring, why do you believe that they need to have the threat of prison levelled against them before they'll actually fund all this care? If I am so uncaring, why do I believe that people will not need to be threatened with prison to take care of the needy?

Anyway: the government may be cutting what it gives us back in exchange for the money it extorts with menaces, but it's not actually cutting back on the money it spends. So it's taking more and giving less back, which can only mean that either the state is growing despite delivering less or that it's pissing away money with even less care than usual.

And yet, the very same people who are bitching about the cuts to "front line services" are the exact same fucking people who want everyone else to give more money to the government so that "front line services" can be "protected".

I have a better idea: fuck the state, fuck the government. Let people spend their own money on what they want. I bet that nobody will fucking starve.

DHL Cuntstains

So, you ringmeat fucktards, why did I bother to fill in your alternative delivery fucking instructions if you weren't actually going to read them?

Mongoloid fucking arsebiscuits!

What utter fucking cunt

Utter shite:

Boys are seen as "funny", "cheeky", "playful" and "loving" whereas girls are viewed as "stroppy", "argumentative", "eager to please" and "serious".

Or perhaps it's just that girls are much more stroppy because they have an even worse hormonal issue than boy?

Despite 48 per cent deeming it wrong to do so, almost nine mums in ten admitted treating girls and boys differently, according to the survey conducted by the parenting website Netmums.

Oh for Christ's sake. Really? Boys are treated differently to girls? Perhaps they're treated differently because they're different fucking people with different fucking behaviours.

More than one in five questioned let their sons get away with more and turned a blind eye to behaviour in boys for which they would reprimand their girls.

Well, just to consider one example which is weighing heavily on my mind at the moment: if my son fucks around, he's not going to get pregnant, is he? I can chastise him for his irresponsibility, but ultimately I'm not going to be left carrying the can of all the emotional crap if he does get some bird preggers. Her parents are going to have to deal with that, whatever the financial consequences might be. So there is one immediate reason why I would be harder on my daughter than on my son.

But Jesus, imagine parents having the utter temerity to treat their kids differently? Do they not know of Harriet Harman's equality legislation?

Fuckers.

Fuck you and fuck your four-week-old baby, right in the fucking eye

You utter little CUNT:

As you may have heard, last week, 10:10 made a mistake by releasing a short film about cutting carbon which was supposed to be humourous but in the event upset a lot of people. We quickly realised that we had made a serious mistake and took it down from our website within hours.

We also issued a statement apologising but there has subsequently been quite a lot of negative comment, particularly on blogs, and understandable concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change.

We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release

I am very sorry for our mistake and want to reassure you that we will do everything in our power to ensure it does not happen again.

10:10 is a young and creative team but we will learn lessons from this. We are going to investigate what happened, review our processes and procedures, and share the results with our partners. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board of directors.

This media coverage for this film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for the cause of saving the climate, nor for 10:10, and we certainly didn’t mean to do anything to distract from all the efforts of those in other organisations who are working so hard to secure effective action on climate change.

If you have been in touch with us personally about the film, we will be replying to individual emails over the next few days. I’m sorry not to have emailed you about this more quickly - although I have followed developments closely, I’ve been working from home with a four-week-old baby. I thank you for your patience and your support for the 10:10 campaign.

Eugenie Harvey

Director 10:10 UK

hello@1010uk.org

Well, hello, Eugenie.

You fucking little shit-stained cooze. How fucking DARE you fucking imply that it's perfectly fine to kill kids who don't believe in climate change and then have the cock-sucking whore's temerity to fucking schlep your own little bundle of cunt joy into this as a desperate attempt to fucking get the fucking sympathy vote?

You fucking little cock-jockey.

I hope Social Services take your child away for your being unfit to be a human being.

You utter, utter CUNT.

In which Sainsbury's prove me wrong

I really, really wasn't going to blog again. But today I went to Sainsburys and it didn't go well.

The shopping was OK, I guess, but when I got to check out, there was exactly one fucking till open. One.

The queue of people trying to get their shopping out of the way early reached right across the fucking shitty store. Frantic announcements for "till-trained staff" or "shift leaders" were met with ... well, nothing.

Of course, the little knob jockeys were dead keen for us all to use their cock-sucking, anally fistulated, rancid cunt pus-filled, camel felching self-checkouts. Which were, of course, entirely fucking unused, precisely because they are so cock-suckingly, anally fistulatedly, rancid cunt pus-filledly, camel felchingly cunting useless.

So the little cunt bag assured me that she'd be right there to help me if there were any problems. I stopped counting after the twentieth fucking pointless cunting whorebagging fuckspaz arsebiscuit required her to log in and fix the useless gobshite piece of shit.

But that really wasn't what fucked me off. What really, really fucked me off was the little jobsworth whore CUNT telling me that it was MY FUCKING FAULT FOR NOT USING THE CUNTING TILL CORRECTLY!!!!

FUCK YOU, YOU LITTLE BAG OF RANCID PENSIONER'S PISS!!

Sainsbury do not fucking pay me to do your fucking work for you. And Sainsbury (and Tesco), get to fuck with these shitty fucking self-checkouts. They fuck your customers off and pretty soon no fucker is going to want to subject himself to this shit. YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE CUSTOMERS!

And of course, the final fucking kick in the teeth is reclaiming the 2 hours' free parking from them. Which meant I had to go and stand in another queue while the dumbfuck cunt behind that till had a nice chat with one of her colleagues.

Sainsbury, it's increasingly clear to me that your shops are staffed ignorant, arrogant, cockbag jobsworths who are even worse than the simpletons in Tesco.

Tonight, I'm going to get smashed as fuck and eat loads of vegetable curry and tarka dal. Tomorrow, I'm going to drive to Sainsburys, shit into one of their fucking useless orange bags, set fire to it and lob it at the store window.

Hateful, arrogant, awful, loathsome camel-cock-sucking, rat-corpse-raping fucktarded CUNTS!