No, no, no!

Meet the new cunts, indistinguishable from the old cunts (emphasis mine):

The Identity Card Scheme and other biometrics work has already cost the taxpayer £292 million. The Act has saved £835 million in planned future investment.

No, you fucking cunts. An investment is spending you make in the hope of future benefits. Here is the definition, for any cunting civil servant who may want to learn that English words already have meanings, so stop fucking destroying our language with bureaucratic bollocks-speak!

There are no fucking benefits to pissing our money away on ID cards. This is more fucking civil servant distortion of the English language to provide cover of useless, inept, wasteful government profligacy.

And it wasn't this government that "invested" the money. So it's perfectly ok to describe it as "spending" or even "pissing away taxpayers' hard-earned on corporatist crap".

Unless, of course, the people who rule us, who's reputation needs salving, are not the useless motherfuckers we elect.

A thought on charity

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Oh, how I laughed ... again

I see the NHS (which also has a militant "climate change" secretariat) is pleading for 4x4 owners to help them get medicines and staff around.

I wonder if the beardie scruffs will be campaigning against 4x4 owners in 2011 again?

Fucking cunts.

Are Cars Electric?

via @Fek_Purgatory

Thoughts on #Assange

I've been watching this with the detachment that's come from not actively blogging and I'm quite disturbed by what I've seen.

Assange got his hands on some documents that showed how "the world's policeman" (and what an apt description that is!) is behaving in the name of its citizens. The reaction from corporates and governments has been depressing but unsurprising. Amazon, PayPal and MasterCard have cut off any way for Wikileaks to get money. Even the supposedly incorruptible and impartial Swiss have frozen his assets. Assange has been targeted by ludicrous rape charges by the Swedish government, which were on, then off, then on again. Apparently, the Library of Congress is now blocking Wikileaks. Anybody who ever wrote for Wikileaks has had their journalistic credentials revoked.

Needless to say, the British government and police are eager to do their bit to get this annoying man behind bars.

All this from making publicly available information that was already open to access by 2.5 million people, allegedly. Information that was not even classified as particularly sensitive. All it did was shine a bit of a light on what governments do in our name, in the hypocrisy of publicly telling us wars can be won while privately believing they cannot among other, more trivial things.

Depressingly but equally predictably, statists from all sides of the political spectrum have been casting aspersions on Assange and his motivations. To them, the fact that governments have been lying to us about their beliefs in dragging us into wars, using our money on things even they consider fruitless, isn't as important or worrying as the fact that someone exposed them.

It's very, very clear to me that Assange is being vigorously and thoroughly hung out to dry pour encourager les autres, to make sure that anyone who is thinking about rocking the boat of the state is thoroughly discouraged. It's a very depressing state of affairs that the first man to seriously constructively and effectively challenge the state's ethics via the internet is being so thoroughly slapped down.

The problem for the state is that you can't recan these worms. A small corner has been lifted. Some people have seen what is being done in their name and now have their doubts. I'm sure that the comprehensive attack on Assange will also inspire some people to become martyrs in order to continue the fight. And finally, Wikileaks as it stands, is fighting back with hundreds of mirrors around the globe. I don't think that states are actually going to be able to shut it down completely and this heavy-handed action will eventually raise more questions than the leaks themselves.

The only way for the state to survive at all is going to be to realise that they have to accept the transparency they seem to feel they are entitled to demand of us. With a bit of luck, this whole fiasco will be the start of a rebalancing of the relationship between the state and the individual.

I think it's too much to hope that it will be the start of the end of the state, though.

A cunt of a day for British politics

I knew if I kept saying it, it would catch on. So, this morning we had this:



Then we had this.

Now I believe Nick Herbert has also dropped the C-bomb in the Commons. I'll update if I can lay my hands on it...

Update: Article, but no audio.

Dear road users...

Today I have seen the following:

A cunt shoving across three lanes in a roundabout and then hooting at me because I wouldn't give way to him in the slipway merge. a) I was at the merge point first and b) your lane merges into mine, not the other way around.

A cunt who wouldn't get out of my fucking way and when he eventually deigned to do so, insisted on brake testing me while he dawdled his way into the fucking MIDDLE lane, not even the nearside lane.

An infinite number of cunts who overtook me at speed and then slowed down for no fucking reason whatsoever, but also wouldn't get out of my way.

A further infinite number of cunts who simply wouldn't get out of my fucking way for no good reason, even though the nearside lane WAS COMPLETELY FUCKING EMPTY!!

So, would you clueless fuckers mind going off to read the cunting highway code BECAUSE YOU ALL CLEARLY HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA OF HOW TO DRIVE!!

Fuck me sideways

Nothing here that hasn't been said before, but maybe tribal Labour loyalists will take the message on board coming from one of their own.

And tribalists from other parties need to take note of the message too. Just because it's your tribe pumping out message X doesn't make it any more morally just than the views of other parties. And how refreshing to hear a Labour big wig saying:

Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people’s suffering. What we don’t think is that he wants to improve the lives of the poor but just doesn’t think that the current incarnation of the welfare state is the best way to achieve this. And yet, much of his programme is familiar to the last (Labour) government. Presumably our motives were pure, though.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

And:

What about the heinous charge that they want to “ideologically shrink” the size of the state. We, of course, want to use the state to do good things for people. Their wanting to shrink it clearly indicates that they don’t want to do good things for people. Clearly, therefore, they are morally bankrupt. Well, perhaps not. Maybe they think that over-taxing people is wrong and that an over-reaching state is in itself bad for the same people that we want to help? I am not saying that I necessarily agree, but I am saying that it is a perfectly valid view and one that is not intrinsically immoral.

Is it the End of Days?