One year more cynical

Today is my birthday.
As such I'm not writing about anything depressing, which would include just about everything.
I recommend today's offerings over at countingcats if you're looking for reality, however.

Here though, you will find only wasted wallabies.
Those mini-marsupials are high as shit. This pleases me.
Also:



Now if you don't mind, I intend to eat cake and be blisteringly unproductive before knocking off at four.

Thought we'd seen the full spectrum of troughing...

"The mists are clearing...it looks like....yes, it looks like I'm a credulous throbber"

...Apparently not. via Alix Mortimer at Liberal Democrat Voice we hear about Bosworth MP David Tredinnick, who managed to rack up over 6 grand on phone calls.
£6000? £1,125 in February alone, it appears. Is his secretary in Tuvalu?
That's not the best bit though:

Between February and March 2006 he claimed £210 for software from a new age astrology company and £300 on tuition sessions from the firm, Crucial Astro Tools, to learn to use it.That's right, using taxpayers money to pay the local Juju man.

Troughing on Woo. Urgh.

This offends me on every possible level.

Update: Homeopathic borax for foot and mouth disease?!? Someone fetch me my ducking stool, pronto.
The stupidity burns my fucking eyes.

H/T The good Prof. Colquhoun

Geek Humour

Be sure to watch the chat box:

A Helpful Tutorial on The Most Difficult Video Game Ever -- powered by Cracked.com

Nightjack Archive

I've found a load of Nightjack's posts stored on my rss reader, and so have decided to archive them all here:

http://nightjack2.wordpress.com

If anyone has any of the other posts saved somehow, forward them on, or let me know and I'll make you an admin.

Ta.

Braindump 2

"I disapprove of your attire"

It's only half twelve this time, but as I have nothing substantive to say about any one thing, I shall once again ramble at length about nothing in particular.

It appears that our chums across the channel don't like the Muslim ladies wearing burkas. I happen to concur on this issue; this petty misogyny is a primitive and pointless hangover from the childhood of our species that some societies around the world have had no reason to advance themselves beyond. They have been able to indulge themselves in this state of 11th century societal stagnation chiefly because of an abundance of oil in their home nation, which provided wealth as the 'West' industrialised, and precluded any development of their own - industrial or otherwise.
They never had an enlightenment. They never had an industrial revolution. Beyond some fundamental scientific and mathematical innovations, they just stopped as a culture. Well, apart from arguing over specific religious dogma and practice, they had that in spades. But I digress....where the fuck was I? Ah yes, burkas.
So Sarko wishes to ban the wearing of burkas, because:

The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.

Well quite, and I agree; dressing your wife up like a Millet's Tent for Two is more than a bit stupid, but the problem is the Froggies are essentially saying
"You are being forced against your will to wear this type of clothing; therefore we will force you -regardless of your will- to not wear it"
These are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. It is a typical and tiresome response of the Righteous: If you don't like it, ban it. Presumably they intend to continue in this fashion until we prohibit ourselves into a blissful and offence-free utopia, achieving world peace and universal happiness, whistling zippedy-fucking-doo-dah out of our collective arseholes. Needless to say, I am sceptical.

But this takes me onto a different point, and it's about libertarianism, or more specifically liberty/freedom/freewill in general. It is this: Everyone has their sacred cow. Even among avowed libertarians, there is always something we would like to enforce on others, some issue upon which we feel strongly and cannot trust other people to do for themselves.

As an example, check me out on the comments on this post on MMR over at DK's place. I try to put my point across rationally, I believe I have the facts on my side, and what starts off sane ends with me screaming:
"Listen you fucking lumpenproles, pump that shit into your kids' arms or I'll have someone take the bastards off you and keep them in a padded room until you know your place. Jesus."
Figuratively speaking of course.

This is also the reason why we want the state as small as possible, so that fucknuts like me can't do any harm - well intentioned or otherwise. (Oh, and I'm right, by the way). But I'm preaching to the choir, so moving on....

If you followed the link to the DK post, you may have seen the last comment was banging on about the 'involuntary medication' of society via the fluoridation of our water supplies, and as it happens, Ben Goldacre flagged up this article. (Side question: Does every movement need to have a psychotic militant wing? CAMRA's one would be ace). So lets talk Fluoridation. Contrary to 'Umbongo's assumption, I don't have a problem with it and here's why:

Most people understand that fluoridation of water means that fluoride is added to the local water supply, right? What most people don't know is that often fluoridation means removing excess fluoride that is already there. Fluoride is a natural component of groundwater, and it occurs naturally everywhere in the world, in varying amounts. The process of fluoridation is just fiddling the fluoride content of the water to an 'optimal' level, with either less or more. It's only 'medicalisation' because it happens to have a beneficial effect on dental heath. And there is fuck all evidence to suggest any health hazards, regardless of what those fringe groups of tools say. And it's not like anyone has a beef with the levels of chlorine in the water (apart from the taste) is it?
So once again: Do as you're told, proles, and drink those chemicals. And jab your kids, I'm watching you.

I want to say something about Bercow right now, but I don't think detailing the sheer bloodyminded twattishness of Labour in voting for that Lilliputian donkey's winnet would make me feel any better. He'll do his job or Dave will kick him to the kerb next year. Let's not dwell on it; lets dwell on Kerry attempting to sound half as smug when she's wanking tramps for pennies by Christmas '10.

And finally, to make this bollock of a post a big Sarko Sandwich:

(In a 'John Belushi in the Blues Brothers' restaurant scene' voice)
" I want your women. How much for your Women?"
"What about the little one?"

Thank you and goodnight. Try the veal.

Urgh. 2:20am this time.

3am frivolous mind-dump

'Tis stupid o'clock and I feel the creative drive, but I'm struggling to summon up anything to write about(And my MPs expenses are quite boring reading), so I'm just going to go on a bit of a stream-of-consciousness ramble, if that's OK with you lot.

Apparently they're expecting a record turnout at Stonehenge this year for the summer solstice, which I'm told is when the day is longest in the northern hemisphere. Question: what do these people do when they're there? Is it like a giant hippy jamboree? If so, why would there be an official -and Plod enforced- 'zero tolerance policy' (4 can of beer limit per person) on drink and drugs? Surely that's the only way to make this giant overcrowded, hessian-smelling, goat-rope even halfway bearable? When was the burden on the police shifted from detecting and punishing crime (and therefore deterring it), to outright prevention of it?

In other news, a few guys have snuffed it after scoring some bad skag; I'm guessing right now someone in Yorkshire is drawing up a new campaign against drugs, rather than learning the historical lessons against prohibition. Which leads me to a conversation I had with my mate Dave (Newtons fourth law: everyone has a mate called Dave):

Me: Drug laws, they're all bollocks aren't they?
Dave: Yep, waste of time and energy
Me: You know that the difference between the therapeutic dose and an overdose of paracetamol is like ten-times smaller than that of heroin?
Dave: That right?
Me: So I read. Oh and the only major side effect of heroin, in it's uncontaminated form, is constipation.
Dave: Like he says in Trainspotting.
Me: Right. Would be odd if they were all made legal overnight though, wouldn't it? I mean they would probably have some sense of moderation on the continent, but the UK would be like the last days of Rome. So to speak.
Dave: I would be high as shit.
Me: Right. And imagine buying smack at Tesco's.
Dave: They wouldn't sell it though, would they?
Me: Well I'm guessing they initially would licence the vendors, and the obvious choice would be pharmacies, and Tesco's normally have one.
Dave: They wouldn't miss a trick would they?
Me: Not normally. But if they didn't want to sell drugs because of some residual stigma....
Dave: Understandable.
Me: Quite. But if they didn't, well I'd be all over that action.
Dave: Fucking right, my front room would be a crack lounge before sun-up.
Me: I'd be beating down my bank manager's door with my business plan for Sluggy's Smack Shack written up in triplicate.
Dave: We'd clean up.
Me: Free markets in action.
Dave: Won't happen though, will it?
Me: Nah, they'll have banned harsh language before tomorrow.
etc.

Elsewhere, in an attempt to write the Daily Mail's headlines for them:
Baby P doctor sues over dismissal
Best of luck with that, Doc.
I did ask a doctor friend if maybe, you know -being objective, like- it might be relatively hard to notice a broken back on a toddler; I was told to not be so fucking stupid. So there you go.
And speaking of the Mail: God-botherer sacked for not doing her fucking job - Good. Believe in whatever sky fairy you want to in your own time; bring that shit to work and you're fair game. And, since I'm not being PC: Kraut reckons Wimmin tennis players are just there to look at and that their grunting whilst serving is unsexy.
I disagree, those noises do it for me.

The best story is Broon playing at home in the Grauniad. Apparently, he could just walk out right now, and it would make no difference to him. Don't, by all means, let us stop you. Also, he believes doing so might actually be better for his kids. What? Seeing more of you? That's all they need; if the poor bastards go the way most else you get involved with does, they'll have regressed back to single cells by the following week. I'm flagging now, so for rational commentary on the article, see leg_iron.

Ah, and now it's 4:38am and I'm seeing weird shit. You've been a great audience, tip your waitress.

Buggering about with blog templates

I haven't interfered with the blog layout for a while, so I'm sticking in a third column for the hell of it.
Let me know if it all looks a bit too 'busy'.

The girl got ink

From the Mail via Tuscan Tony, we hear the tale of a girl who had a bit of a mishap down at the tattoo parlour.
Apparently she went to get a couple of stars tattooed next to her left eye, fell asleep(!), and woke up like this:

Well I don't know about you, but if I was this girl's father I would be outraged. I would march down that tattoo parlour and tell him....



..... sweet holy Jesus. That's really...um...wow. Um....what was I here for again?

Jules Clocher, a Belgian psychologist, said: 'The trauma this girl must be feeling is indescribable. She feels like a circus freak - and no wonder, because she looks like one.'

That's some good work there, Doc.

But seriously, that guy up there looks like a bucket of smashed crabs.

Judging the Judges

On the back of Judge Eady's decision to allow the Times to 'out' the blogger formally known as Nightjack; I caught this beauty from the Grauniad:

Names of judges found guilty of misconduct to stay secret

The government and the judiciary can continue to conceal the names of more than 170 misbehaving judges, a freedom of information tribunal has ruled.

Oh peachy, it's not like there is any public interest there, is it?

The judge heading the tribunal decided that some members of the judiciary who have been sacked or reprimanded for misconduct would suffer "great distress" if details of their misdemeanours were made public.

Umm, good?
How the hell do they differ from any other profession in that regard?

The judges' authority in the courtroom would be undermined, and their privacy unjustifiably invaded, if the public were allowed to know how they had been disciplined, according to the tribunal.

If they've done something bad enough to undermine their authority, perhaps they shouldn't have that authority.

The ruling came out in favour of justice secretary, Jack Straw, and the judiciary as they have fought a four-year battle to hide the identities of miscreants.

Well worth the effort, I'm sure. Thanks for looking after the interests of the voting public, Jack.

Seriously, If Eady could contend that Nightjack had no intrinsic right to privacy after writing anonymously and causing literally no harm to anyone, how can anyone argue that a judge being found guilty of some professional misdemeanour in public high office has conversely more right to privacy?
Because it would UPSET them? Jesus.

Reclaimed from the ether

Like everyone else is doing , I've put up Nightjacks most useful post:

A Survival Guide for Decent Folk

Paul has posted a number of lengthy replies on the “Modest Proposal" thread. In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

Complain First Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops right away and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.

Make a counter allegation
Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis, allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis. This is particularly good where there are no independent witnesses. When it boils down to one word against another and nobody is ‘fessing up, CPS run a mile and you, my friend, are definitely on a walk out.

Never explain to the Police
If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves, they think that they can talk their way out. Wrong.

Admit Nothing
To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing. No confession and CPS are on the back foot already. They forsee a trial. They fear a trial. They are looking for any excuse to send you home free.

Keep your mouth shut
Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest of the time, say nothing.

Claim Suicidal Thoughts
A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.

Always always always have a solicitor
Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They certainly do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops or CPS laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a big gold Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you. I wouldn’t do it and I interview people for a living.

Actively complain about every officer and everything they do
Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers. Nothing like a complaint to muddy the waters and suggest that you are only in court because the vindictive Cops have a grudge against you. Far fetched? Wait until your solicitor spins it in court and you come over as Ghandi.

Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it
You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and staightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys, its what they do for a living.

Digest and proliferate

Nightjack

For those of you who haven't heard of him before, Nightjack is a police blogger who had an incredibly insightful and well-read blog spanning the last couple of years, and recently he won the Orwell prize for political blogging. He felt it was all getting bit close to his real passion - his job- so he stopped, to considerable, understanding dismay.

Now today we hear that Justice Eady (he of every illiberal decision on every god awful libel tourism case you care to think of; the cunt) has decided that it can be in the public interest that anonymous bloggers be named by whichever dustbin-raiding hack finds them out. And so it came to pass that Nightjack was outed by Patrick Foster of the Times (no link, bollocks to them) -What a fucking hero.

What public service was met by this, is -to me- not at all clear. He had already given up blogging on the back of all the heat he knew was coming his way due to the Orwell prize, but these cretinous talent-vacuums dragged him into the spotlight anyway, probably ruining his career in the process. There are dropped jaws all over the 'sphere.

Reading the news of this earlier in the day, I actually felt ill. More then that, I felt betrayed somehow. If there was a blogger who was more comprehensively liked -or at least respected- and therefore less deserving of 'outing', it was Nightjack.
His was a universally appealing blog, more so than the more vocation-focused of the top police-blogs(no offence to them), and his obvious passion for his job and the resultant frustration with the establishment coupled with his talent for writing, was illuminating, inspiring and fascinating. He was an uplifting voice when so much of what we hear of the modern police force is that of a politicised soulless arm of the state. Reading Nightjack, you go the impression that maybe everything might not be that bad after all.

And then some reprehensible pond dweller goes and does this to him. For what? Because they could. Because they envy his talent and his audience; they resent what he produced for free, compared to the derivative and contentless slush they produce for money. They did it because he was better than them, and they hated him for it.

The Times must be made to suffer for this outrage. Boycott all of their products, both electronic and dead tree based. Further, I need Patrick Foster humiliated, broken, ridiculed, emasculated and destroyed; if anyone has any material pertinent to this end please toss it in the direction of OH here.

They will rue the fucking day.

*Update* - they 'allowed' NJ to retort- sounds like the lament of a broken man. I'm so fucking far from placated right now, it's stunning.

My blog is gone now, deleted, slowly melting away post by post as it drops off the edge of the Google cache. The Police Dependants’ Trust is a few thousand pounds better off which may be the only good thing to have come out of this. My family life has changed in ways that they did not want and that is down to me. I deeply and bitterly regret the damage that will be done to the reputation of Lancashire Constabulary, that is also down to me. Next to that, my own career prospects are trivial.


The utter bastards

Schiff On the Daily Show

This interview between Jon Stewart and Peter Schiff was highlighted by Johnathan Pearce over at Samizdata. Schiff is one of the chaps who have had a handle on the consequences of state interference in the markets from the beginning, and he was laughed at for voicing that prescient opinion before our present situation unfolded. Check him out:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Peter Schiff
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Newt Gingrich Unedited Interview

More of this please.

For the love of God; just teach them to spell and count

Teenagers' learning 'too narrow'

Just about everything about this study and the subsequent Al-Beeb article annoys me. The most annoying element to me is this newly constructed educational vocabulary/system of grammar which insists on referring to teaching and education as 'learning' and the pupils/students as 'learners'. Maybe it's just me, but you'll see what I mean. Maybe.

Before we get anywhere, a summary of the study findings the article is referring to can be found here(.pdf)

I'm just going to dive into the overall conclusions of the study, brace yourselves: (My comments in red)

The Review applauds the considerable achievements in England and Wales. Really?

Both governments have faced the problems of expanding education and training opportunities to meet both the social and economic aspirations of our respective societies and the personal aspirations of their future citizens. No,
they have faced the consequences of increasingly worthless and irrelevant qualifications, due to their own meddling micro-management and subsequent grade inflation caused by a burning need to improve the tractor stats year-on-year.

Building Schools for the Future in England is renewing the resource base for 14-19 education; Building Schools for the future is a PFI crippled nightmare; part of The Iron Chancellors' off balance-sheet spending spree during the good years, which is now coming back to haunt the public coffers.

Learning Pathways in Wales is challenging traditional conceptions of learning opportunities; Yep, learning things used to be hard and require intelligence.

the English Diplomas are showing how the curriculum might incorporate practical and sector-related modes of learning; by keeping less academic able kids in school( and off the unemployed stats), wasting their time when they could be out working for a living. This is what apprenticeships are (were) for. Of course spending five years learning a trade is a lot more effort than signing on.

the Welsh Bac demonstrates a more holistic and flexible framework for learning; The Welsh Bac is a Mickey Mouse qualification which no decent university outside of Wales will touch with a large shitty stick. Why would they create a new qualification when an established, well-respected one (IB) already exists? Because the IB is hard, and exposing our cherubs to the same rigours as kids from the rest of the developed world would show just how poorly performing they are. FFS you can pass the Welsh Bac with no science element at all!

…both England and Wales are pursuing the laudable policy of collaborative partnerships between schools and colleges, health and social services, formal and informal learning systems, employers and independent training providers. So much that is praiseworthy is happening. Health and social services- WTF? Oh, and what is a learning system?
Do we mean teaching, perchance?

The Review, in looking to the future and in the light of accumulated evidence, makes five over-arching demands: Demands, no less. Hark at you lot

1. The re-assertion of a broader vision of education in which there is a profound respect for the whole person (not just the narrowly conceived 'intellectual excellence' or 'skills for economic prosperity'), irrespective of ability or cultural and social background, in which there is a broader vision of learning and in which the learning contributes to a more just and cohesive society.

Reading that paragraph caused me actual pain. Could you define social engineering more concisely? So we're doing away with those pointless ideas like intellectual excellence and skills for economic prosperity. I always thought they were overrated anyway.

2. System performance indicators 'fit for purpose' , in which the 'measures of success' reflect this range of educational aims, not simply those which are easy to measure or which please certain stakeholders only.

Bearing in mind the fact that we have just tossed away all conventional measures of education excellence in the previous 'demand', I'm a bit stumped as to how they intend to gauge the quality of anything. And who are the 'stakeholders'? Politicians? Teachers? Parents? Children? All of the above?

3. The re-distribution of power and decision-making such that there can be greater room for the voice of the learner, for the expertise of the teacher and for the concerns of other stakeholders in the response to the learning needs of all young people in their different economic and social settings.

Oooh, so close to something sensible, but they just can't get a sound grip on the rational. I'm sure what they meant to say was "we'll give schools total autonomy and allow parents to choose where to send their kids and how they are taught with a Swedish-style voucher system, and we won't interfere at all." Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

4. The creation of strongly collaborative local learning systems in which schools, colleges, higher education institutions, the youth service, independent training providers, employers and voluntary bodies can work together for the common good – in curriculum development, in provision of opportunities for all learners in a locality and in ensuring appropriate progression into further education, training and employment.

I've read that several times, and I'm still not sure what they're talking about. It sounds as though they are saying: "We want to get as many nosy, irrelevant people as possible involved to make the whole education process as wooly and pointless as possible." Oh and there's that "learners" thing I mentioned before. Is it just me?

5. The development of a more unified system of qualifications which meets the diverse talents of young people, the different levels and styles of learning, and the varied needs of the wider community, but which avoids the fragmentation, divisiveness and inequalities to which the present system is prone.

Ah bollocks to this.

Enough. There is only one purpose to education: Teaching you to be as useful as possible so that you can get the best job available when they kick you out into the real world. Employers in the real world care only for how much money you can make them, regardless of what other 'diverse talents' you have. If you aren't as bright as the next guy, it's up to you to make yourself as valuable as he is by working harder, not by 'society' lowering its standards to your level. And believe it or not, this is A Good Thing. This is how society has flourished in the developed world; this is how we overcome our obstacles and become greater than we are.

Schools are supposed to be employee producers, not citizen factories. They aren't there to instil some contrived moral code, designed by a committee of Righteous(©leg_iron) hand-wringers as part of the ceaseless quest to subjugate within their tedious dictatorship of inoffensiveness and mediocrity.

You can't insulate children from failure, although this crowd seem desperate to do so. Some kids will be bright, some will be dull. Some kids will be athletic, others won't. The best we can ever hope to do is build on their strengths and allow them to do the best they can with what they have. Ultimately, I'm sure that this is also what this group of academics is trying to achieve; but in trying so avidly to avoid elitism, and by being so rabidly inclusive - despite both concepts being fundamentally at odds with reality- all they are ever going to achieve is universal failure.

Shark Vs Plane

Teh awesome. This has it.

Watch Shark vs Plane on CollegeHumor

Those Nasty BNP types

Akela taking some Cub-Scouts to a jamboree, yesterday

Crivens, apparently just shy of a million people rocked up at the booths last week and voted in a couple of them there awful BNP people. This was heralded with plagues of locusts, the rivers running red with blood and the angel of death striking down the first born male child in every household; such were the very heavens offended by these monstrous events. Or some people were concerned with apparently uncontrolled immigration and voted for the only party who appeared to address that concern. One or the other, I forget which.

So we're sending a pair of noisy racists to the toy parliament, where they can join the amassed nutters of the rest of Europe in doing very little at all. In fact, I think if there were a place I would send people in order to render them mute and useless, it would be the European Parliament. A place where people turn up to claim their expenses and rant for three minutes at an empty chamber. Can't think where that reminds me of…..

Annoyingly, certain media mouthpieces continue to describe these tub-thumping morons as right-wing, because apparently racism is right-wing. Really? I've found that racism –where it is found- is universal among idiots of every political stripe. These particular idiots are most obviously left-wing, just check out their manifesto (which I'm not linking to): Protectionism, nationisation, collectivisation, it's all there. These characters aren't the extreme Right, they're the extreme Left. This is a point made ad nauseum amongst us righty-liberbloggers, but it is a point that needs to be made. The BNP are just Labour with overt white-friendly racism, rather than ZNL's covert everyone-else-friendly, 'equality'-based racism*. In both cases the colour of one's skin is considered before the content of his/her character (to mangle a quote of MLK's).

Now, some people have reacted rather strongly to democracy in action, and took it upon themselves to speak for the rest of the country in protesting the BNP's existence yesterday, egging their cockeyed Fuehrer** in the process. UAF were quoted as saying:

We do not believe in free speech for fascists

They apparently also do not believe in irony. Give me strength.

It is patently obvious to any rational observer, that in the cold, harsh light of reality, the BNP's policies are economically illiterate, playground name-calling nonsense. You just had to watch Griffin attempt to justify his parties' stance on race during an election night interview, to realise that if they were left unhindered to go about ranting in the street, and without the aid of sensationalist exposure like yesterday, they would wither and die on the vine of public opinion. By throwing so much attention and censure their way, the major parties and the MSM are only validating them as the real opponents to our existing political establishment. With Gordon's lot in charge, or for as long as Government refuses to acknowledge the concerns of the governed; being the alternative will always be a selling point.

*Interesting genetic aside: there is no such thing as race. By this I mean there is more genetic variation within the traditional racial groups then there is between them. So there you go.

**Further aside: if the BNP don't want to be compared to Nazis, they would do well to steer clear of Nationalist Socialist (Nationalsozialist) policies with racist overtones. Jus' sayin'.

Keep smiling, Gordon. They love you really.

Hmm, or perhaps not.

Can someone please put this cycloptic fucktard out of his (our) misery?

?Syntax error

10 Print"I am the right man for the job"
20 Goto 10
Run

See what I did there? I'm a fucking genius.
No? Well, bollocks to you.

Come on in number 10, your time is up

Whilst it is entertaining to watch the NuLab experiment during it's death throes, I really wish the Gobbler would call it a day and let us get on with the task of abusing our next identikit government. I mean there's only so many names you can call the same people before it starts to get a bit formulaic. It's always some variety of the following:

Hazel Blears = annoying flame-haired rodent;
Jacqui Smith = fat-titted fascist;
Harriet Harman = Swivel-eyed feminazi;
Alistair Darling = some insult or other involving eyebrows, badgers, glove puppets and not being able to count;
Ed Balls= normally writes itself;
The Boy Miliband = something to do with bananas and being twelve fucking years old;
Geoff Hoon = what an utter, utter cunt;
Peter Mandleson = Unbelievably corrupt, Machiavellian panto villain of some description;
Gordon Brown= Mad, one eyed, snot-gobbling servant of Cthulthu (alright that was just me, but I'm rolling with it).

etc. etc.

I mean it's all getting a bit old. Now that the Torygraph has done us all the favour of showing what utterly reprehensible thieving shits they all are, and since the scale of their incompetence and malevolence has been common knowledge for quite some time, it's all rapidly becoming a bit staid. What we need is new targets for our ire, and there's sure to be plenty of ammunition provided by the Tory crowd; if nothing else they're normally astonishingly perverted - which is always entertaining.

So come on Gordon, you've had your turn on the swing-set, let the boys from the posh school play. All your friends are going home anyway, and it looks like they may well be taking the ball with them.