Nanny, nanny, nanny ...

For the fucking sake of fucking fuck, here we fucking go again:

Listening to football while driving increases the risk of crashing, experts warn.

Fans who tuned into matches while in a driving simulator accelerated, overtook, tailgated and changed lanes at key points in the game.

Professor Michael J Pont, of the University of Leicester, said: 'It is widely accepted the distraction of talking on a mobile phone may lead to accidents, but other activities may have a similar impact.

'Football fans should ask someone else to drive during important games.'

So, expect car radios to become illegal in years to come. Because you can't trust a driver to do anything without legal guidance.

Cunts.

Tip of the clown wig to Donal.

The police: working for you?

Not a fuck, matey-boy:

An MP who was involved in last month's G20 protests in London is to call for an investigation into whether the police used agents provocateurs to incite the crowds.

Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards.

Brake, who along with hundreds of others was corralled behind police lines near Bank tube station in the City of London on the day of the protests, says he was informed by people in the crowd that the men had been seen to throw bottles at the police and had encouraged others to do the same shortly before they passed through the cordon.

Brake, a member of the influential home affairs select committee, will raise the allegations when he gives evidence before parliament's joint committee on human rights on Tuesday.

"When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, 'There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police,'" Brake said. But when the crowd became suspicious of the men and accused them of being police officers, the pair approached the police line and passed through after showing some form of identification.

Brake has produced a draft report of his experiences for the human rights committee, having received written statements from people in the crowd. These include Tony Amos, a photographer who was standing with protesters in the Royal Exchange between 5pm and 6pm. "He [one of the alleged officers] was egging protesters on. It was very noticeable," Amos said. "Then suddenly a protester seemed to identify him as a policeman and turned on him. He ­legged it towards the police line, flashed some ID and they just let him through, no questions asked."

Amos added: "He was pretty much inciting the crowd. He could not be called an observer. I don't believe in conspiracy theories but this really struck me. Hopefully, a review of video evidence will clear this up."

Were the police stirring up trouble just so that they could beat the crap out of people, or was there something even more sinister behind this?

I can't help but feel that the police in this country are getting way out of line. This kind of behaviour is going to be to the police what expenses were to politicians. Mind you would shutting down the ACPO and sacking all the senior porkers be such a bad thing?

So they CAN ignore EU rules

... when it suits them, of course:

The Government's proposals state that the DNA samples provided by innocent people will be quickly destroyed and their profiles will be removed from the database, but not immediately.

Anyone accused of serious violent and sexual offences, who are released without charge or later cleared of an offence, will still have their DNA profiles held for 12 years.

*sigh*

So, if you happen to get accused of the wrong kind of crime, EVEN IF you are entirely innocent or the accusation was baseless, frivolous and malicious, you will still be regarded as a criminal.

Niiiiiice.

Hm

As I recall, the police camera'ed up in a big way for the G20 riots, yet somehow all the evidence for claims of police brutality (I feel like Rik, just typing the words!) has come from other sources. Somehow, the police cameras managed to miss all of it.

And it doesn't look good for the officers involved, especially now another one has come to light:

A third incident connected to the G20 protests in London earlier this month has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Scotland Yard said today.

It's a good thing I'm not cynical, or I'd think the police's enthusiasm for clamping down on photography might have something to do with a concerted effort on their part to act like cunts.

Kuntish Keystone Kops

I suppose he was Austrian, so he could have been a far-right terrorist, but it does seem more likely that actually, the police once again just had their fucking heads up their own arseholes AGAIN:

Like most visitors to London, Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris took several photographs of some of the city's sights, including the famous red double-decker buses. More unusually perhaps, they also took pictures of the Vauxhall bus station, which Matzka regards as "modern sculpture".

But the tourists have said they had to return home to Vienna without their holiday pictures after two policemen forced them to delete the photographs from their cameras in the name of preventing terrorism.

Matkza, a 69-year-old retired television cameraman with a taste for modern architecture, was told that photographing anything to do with transport was "strictly forbidden". The policemen also recorded the pair's details, including passport numbers and hotel addresses.

Why? What the cunting fuck do the police fucking think is suspicious about taking fucking photos, then?

A spokeswoman for Metropolitan police said: "It is not the police's intention to prevent tourists from taking photographs and we are looking to the allegations made." The force said it had no knowledge of any ban on photographing public transport in the capital.

Maybe you need to fucking tell the cocksucking little Führers that work for you that.

Why go to all the trouble of thinking it up

... when other people can do it for you?

You can suck my sweaty ballsack, you fucking haggard transvestite-looking bitch, if you think I'll happily accept these authoritarian bullshit measures.

The new head of the police state

He beat British Transport Police chief constable Ian Johnston and Cambridgeshire Police Chief Julie Spence in a ballot of senior officers across Britain.

Which is, I'm sure you'll agree, an interesting way of choosing the new chief executive of a commercial enterprise.

Sir Hugh said: "I believe that UK policing is strongest when it is professional, operationally independent, and based on trust and accountability.

"Above all, our decisions should be tested against the reason for which we all joined policing: the protection of the public."

Oh, look: a flying pig.

As it were.

Fear is trust. Up is down.

Have your say.

I am not making this up!

The police do seem to be a little bit out of control:

Still think that if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear from surveillance and control laws? Have a look at this news-video about Stephen Clarke, a man who was accused to taking pictures of sewer-gratings in Manchester and arrested. Though the police couldn't find any photos of sewer-gratings on his phone (and even though "what a sewer grating looks like" isn't a piece of specialized terrorist intelligence), he was held on suspicion of planning an act of terror, imprisoned for two days while the police searched his home, his phone and his computer. When they couldn't find anything suspicious, they released him, but kept his DNA on file, as the biometric of someone who had been accused of plotting a terrorist act.

Tip of the clown wig to the twattering Chicken Yoghurt.

Brooker in fine form

He sums up very pithily where we fit into the view of politicians:

We're the ants in their garden. The bacteria in their stools. Politicians have nothing but contempt for us.

Serious point:

Straw and co blocked the release of the minutes, claiming that to actually let us know what was going on would set a dangerous precedent that would harm good government. Ministers wouldn't speak frankly at cabinet meetings if they felt their discussions would be subjected to the sort of scrutiny that, say, our every waking move is. In other words, they'd be more worried about the press coverage they'd get than the strength of their arguments.

Well, boo hoo. Surely craven pussies like that shouldn't be governing anyway?

If you are doing something in private that will not stand up to public scrutiny, then why are you doing it?

And I did like this turn of phrase:

Having pissed in the public's face, Straw went on to shake the final drips down its nose, writing a defence of the government's civil liberties record in this paper in which he claimed "talk of Britain sliding into a police state is daft scaremongering, but even were it true there is a mechanism to prevent it - democratic elections . . .

Jack "The Hat" is a nasty piece of work, and make no mistake.

Even when they're right, they're wrong

Everyone's favourite ginger sex addict is at it again:

Although warning that people should not set out to "deliberately offend people" or make racist jokes, she believes that there should be more scope for people to express themselves.

Wrong already, you jumped-up little cuntweasel. Go fuck yourself.

"What I don't want to see happen is because people are frightened of an over-reaction they don't raise the issue," she said. "What I don't want people to say is that Muslims will be offended by Christmas, because they are not. There is this presumption that we don't do things because people will be offended."

She also called for more common sense to stop accusations of "political correctness gone mad".

Miss Blears drew attention to an alleged case of a school which left lights on at night in case potential burglars injured themselves in the dark.

So far, so Daily Mail. But the kicker is this:

Ministers should be ready to draw a clear "dividing line" between groups which they will and will not talk to, excluding those whose views and practices sit outside the "core values" of mainstream Britain, the Communities Secretary will say.

Because, of course, ONLY government ministers of the Labour persuasion know who is is inside and outside the "core values" of mainstream Britain, don't they?

Even when the little chipmunk is apparently saying something commonsensical, she still manages to turn it into more totalitarian cock sniffing.

Hazel, babe, this right-wing corrosive rates your speech as: "epic fail." Go fuck yourself with a rusty spade.

Remember the Great Firewall of China?

Imagine, those nasty Chinese human rights abusers are cutting off their poor citizens from seeing things that the Chinese government deems inappropriate. Even Google have chucked their "do no evil" principle into the bin. Luckily, nothing like that could never, ever happen here, eh?

Oh ...

The government had asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007.

But firms providing 5% of broadband connections have still failed to act.

Right ... so the government is protecting us. From what, you may ask?

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "In 2006 the government stated that they wished to see 100% of consumer broadband connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse, by the end of 2007.

"Includes" ... well, isn't that just a handy word, then? Is there anything else they are protecting us from? Unfortunately, no-one knows:

So not only do we not know how many mistakes are on the IWF's blacklist, it may be hard even to agree on an objective definition of a "mistake."

These unelected and entirely unaccountable cock-suckers are acting as censors, protecting us from "harm" and even when they make mistakes, they are unlikely to be found out.

And by choosing child porn as the moral justification for this, no-one in their right mind [ipse dixit] is going to argue against it. But given the shroud of secrecy that already surrounds these cunts at the IWF, what happens when something happens that the government wants to keep out of the news? What happens if swearbloggers get up the Prime Mentalist's nose, or Guido discovers something they want to keep quiet? Quick call to the IWF and job's a good 'un.

Still, it's lucky our government is honest and true, and not at all a bunch of totalitarian cunts, like those horrible Chinese!

PS: I hope the entire staff of the NSPCC die lingering deaths from face cancer for supporting this absolute shit.

Fuck tha Police!

What the fucking fucking fuck?

The Met Police got a short sharp rap over the knuckles yesterday, as the Office of the Information Commissioner questioned what looks very much like a blanket policy to force CCTV onto public houses in certain parts of London.

The story begins with a letter to the Guardian last week, from Nick Gibson. He is currently renovating Islington pub The Drapers Arms, after its previous owners allowed it to go insolvent and then disappeared.

In his letter, he argues that if he had merely taken over an existing licence, the police could not have imposed any additional conditions. However, because this was now a new licence, the police were able to make specific requests, including one particular request in respect of installing CCTV.

Mr Gibson wrote: "I was stunned to find the police were prepared to approve, ie not fight, our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them upon request. There was no way that they could have imposed this on the previous licence holder."

We spoke to the Police and to Islington Council. The Council were clear that this was not their policy: they would look at individual licence applications in the light of representations made to the Licensing Committee and decide on a case by case basis.

It was left to the Met to confirm the existence of a blanket policy for some parts of London. A spokeswoman for the Met said: "The MPS overall does not have a policy of insisting CCTV is installed within licensed premises before supporting licence applications.

"However, individual boroughs may impose blanket rules in support of their objectives to prevent crime and disorder and to assist the investigation of offences when they do occur.

"Islington is one of the most densely populated districts for licensed premises in London and the borough's licensing authority is committed to providing a safe environment in which to socialise.

"To this end, Islington police recommend all premises are required to install CCTV and make those images available to police upon request before a licence is granted."

This is in stark contrast to existing guidelines (pdf) put together by the Office of the Information Commissioner, which requires any body seeking to install CCTV to do so on a case by case basis and only after carrying out a full impact assessment. Clearly, a blanket policy covering a whole borough would fail to meet these guidelines.

When we put this to the Met, they clarified further, explaining that they did not "impose" CCTV, but merely put it forward as a "recommendation" to the relevant Licensing body. We also asked why they had mentioned a requirement for all licenseholders to make images available "on request" – which would be a serious extension of police powers. The Met responded that there was no intention to trawl footage for purposes of crime prevention – and this was merely a re-statement of existing law.

However, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Information Commissioner said: "Hardwiring surveillance into the UK’s pubs raises serious privacy concerns. We recognise that CCTV plays an important role in the prevention and detection of crime, and can help to reduce crime in areas of high population density, such as city boroughs.

"However, we are concerned at the prospect of landlords being forced into installing CCTV in pubs as a matter of routine in order to meet the terms of a licence. The use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in its deployment.

"Installing surveillance in pubs to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but hardwiring in blanket measures where there is no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements. We will be contacting the police and others involved to establish the facts and discuss the situation in Islington.”

Who are these fuckers and what the fuck makes them think they have the right to even consider foisting this sort of shit on us? And what's this shit about proportionate? We're already the most heavily surveilled society outside of fiction.

These fuckers are just running roughshod over everyone with their lazy-arse policing by CCTV.

It's time to shitcan the police COMPLETELY and fucking start again.

Cunts.

This sentiment was echoed by Chris Huhne, Lib Dems Home Affairs spokeman, who added: "The impression is that CCTV is a panacea for preventing crime but the evidence for this is far from conclusive.

And you can fuck right off too, you hypocritical, flip-flopping, sound-bite-driven cock sniffer.

Building the Brand

My regular reader might well know how I would feel about a private company, suckling at the public teat and at the same time imposing the will of the ruling elite on us. In this case, it's the ACPO:

Body in charge of UK policing policy is now an £18m-a-year brand charging the public £70 for a 60p criminal records check

So, the government decrees that ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR people in Britain will need a CRB check because of various draconian, hectoring laws and the police cunts clean up with a nice little 11,567% profit margin. It can do this because they have a monopoly on the service. This has some interesting consequences, whereby a private company run by 21 greedy coppers can afford offices in a swanky building like this:



So, just to reiterate then: the Chief Cuntstubbles who tell us to how we have to live our lives are taking our money for this, doing some serious dodgy dealing, setting up over paid jobs for the boys, building a commercial brand using taxpayer money, and behaving like politicians.

Read the article. If it doesn't make you want to string Chief Cuntstubbles up from the nearest lamp post, you're already dead.

Update: The LPUK is also peeved.

It's not often I agree with Johann Hari ...

... the jumped-up, overwrought and tubby little poof. But today:

Here's how it happened. My column reported on a startling development at the United Nations. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has always had the job of investigating governments who forcibly take the fundamental human right to free speech from their citizens with violence. But in the past year, a coalition of religious fundamentalist states has successfully fought to change her job description. Now, she has to report on "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets." Instead of defending free speech, she must now oppose it.

So he wrote an article about it.

An Indian newspaper called The Statesman – one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country – thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested – or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."

Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged – in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech – with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings". I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.

What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize.

No, I don't think you should. Fuck them and the high horse they rode in on.

Cunts.

Nuremberg show trials?

Fuck's sake, what is this?

The bankers who led Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS to the brink of collapse will offer a public apology today.

But amid the furore over bankers’ bonuses, they will also seek to point out that they have personally been “punished for failure”, losing millions of pounds because of the meltdown in their banks’ share prices.

Sir Fred Goodwin and Sir Tom McKillop, respectively the former chief executive and chairman of RBS, will express their regrets at a meeting of the Treasury Select Committee. Their expressions of remorse will be echoed by Andy Hornby, the former chief executive of HBOS. and Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, its former chairman.

Jesus wept, what the fuck is that all about then? Since when did fucking any private business have to publicly apologise to politicians for shit? Or is this just a bit of face saving for the government so that we can all turn a blind eye to huge bonus payouts in the near future?

I am even more incoherent than usual with rage. And why oh why oh fucking tittywank why do we have to fuck go through the actual apologies when they've already been leaked for the fucking sake of fucking fuck. It now no longer matters what the cunts actually say to the MPs because the leak has been made and the headlines gathered.

I see the scaly claw of Mandelsnake all over this shit.

The simple shopper strikes again

I have no idea why I was worried, to be honest.

Tip of the clown wig to obsidian.

Jonathan Porritt: Cunt du jour

Via Trixy, Old Holborn and Timmy, this:

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

Timmy attacks the fatuous reasoning with complete dispassion, so I guess he doesn't have kids. Old Holborn rightly points out that Porritt is just another interefering, bullying cunt who needs to be strung up by the testicles.

Both of them (rather surprisingly) miss the point that it matters not what we do in the UK when we cannot oppose a massive influx of EU foreigners anyway, or that the people who have the most kids are actively supported from doing so by the government. If Mr Porritt had backed his hectoring with a call to the government to stop funding feral scrotes from spawning as an excuse to steal more of my money I would have been more positive, something The Lovely One agrees with.

But this is just a call for another fake charity / quango to nanny, bully, hector and interfere with us some more.

So fuck him and the 4x4 he rode in on.

Cunt.

Update: Counting Cats weighs in.

Remember, remember, ...

... the 15th of June:

The government has unveiled plans for a private company to run a "superdatabase" that will track all our emails, calls, texts, internet use and so on. This is an immense infringement of civil liberties, not to mention a major risk to our private data - but it won't make us any safer. The sheer amount of information that the Government intends to collect will be impossible to analyse properly and will undoubtedly turn up false positives while missing potential security threats amongst the morass of spam emails and private chat.

So, for one day (15 June 2009), we should send a message to the Home Office - "you want to see our emails? Ok then, here they are then!".

We do this by simply cc'ing or bcc'ing every email we send (and if you like, forwarding every email you receive), regardless of importance or content, to public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.

I hope they like emails about Viagra ...

Pity they didn't knife her ...

Useless cunts:

Our Jacqui visited pupils at a school in Wythenshawe, and: "Together they discussed how identity cards will help young people strike out on their own by opening their first bank account, renting their first flat, or perhaps travelling to Europe for the first time." The lovely Home Secretary and the shell-suited scrotes of southern Manchester - a heartwarming image for a Friday morning.

Jesus fucking Christ, I did ALL those fucking things and I didn't need an ID card for any of it, you mendacious fucking whore.