Manic Street Preachers - The Holy Bible

In spite of my right of centre political leanings I have always loved Manic Street Preachers - they remain one of the best bands I have ever seen live and, if I ever manage to pull by finger out of my arse (metaphorically speaking), then I will see them again on their next tour. But listening to their new song, well, it is difficult to get too excited about it. It is catchy, and will probably spend at least a couple of months on my MP-3 player, but it is no classic. Which is disappointing. Not least because the graphic design of their new single, Your Love Alone Is Not Enough, reminds me of their best era as a band - that of The Holy Bible.

Regardless of whether I am happy or depressed, calm or angry, The Holy Bible is one album that always appeals to me. An album made by four angry, bookish outsiders from South Wales is, both lyrically and musically, one of the best records I have ever heard. Regardless of whether you are interested in the spiky punk rock of the music or the caustic, clinical, screaming lyrics, it is a classic.

The lyrics are perhaps the most striking part of the album. It would be tempting to describe some of them as unhappy and sad, and with phrases like "Someone, somewhere will take care of you/I repent, I'm sorry, everything is falling apart", are very moving, at least on first listening. But the lyrics to the likes of This Is Yesterday are very much the work of Nicky Wire - and the truly memorable lyrics of the album belong to Richey Edwards. Because whilst he remains in the depths of despair for the entire album (and pretty much all of his time in the Manics) Richey is articulate and angry about the world. Whereas Ian Curtis slipped into obtuse, impersonal expressions of despair (like "This pleasure's a wayward distraction/This is my one little prize") and Kurt Cobain embraced the navel gazing, self-indulgent and self pity of the junkie ("I think I'm dumb" or "I tried hard to have a father but instead I have a dad") spring to mind) Richey retains some sort of intellectual disassociation from his mental condition. He describes what he is feeling, but does so in a cold, hard way. From Yes, you have "I can't shout, I can't scream/I hurt myself to get pain out". From Faster you have "I've been too honest with myself/I should have lied like everybody else." And from Mausoleum you have "And life can be as important as death/But it is so mediocre when there's no way, no light and no hope." The words aren't happy, but they are refreshingly free of self pity and are brutally honest.

But, given the lyrics, the album could be very depressing. But somehow the music of James Dean Bradfield (and Sean Moore) manages to be urgent and interesting. It is a fast paced, energetic record when it could so easily have been morbid and gloomy. The influences - Wire, Magazine, Joy Division - can all be heard but are not overwhelming. Even when Bradfield does stray towards plagarism he does at least have the decency to steal from the best - note how 4st 7lb is a virtual rewrite of The Jam's The Eton Rifles.

However, given the dark intensity of the record, it was never destined to be a massive seller. It was also overshadowed by the tragic disappearance of Richey Edwards the year after the album's release. The Manics eventually returned with Everything Must Go - a strong record it its own right but nowhere near as striking or original as The Holy Bible. Since then they have released the bloated This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours, the sprawling and inconsistent Know Your Enemy and the disappointing pop pap of Lifeblood. However the fact that they have not produced anything as great as The Holy Bible since is not to slate the Manics. They deserve credit - praise even - for producing a classic record, and for producing something that still seems as urgent and relevant today as it did when it was first released over a decade ago. They have managed to reduce a classic record - which is far more than the absolute shite that makes up the charts will ever achieve.

Local Elections - Cameron vs Conservatism

Over at A Very British Dude there is a very passionate call for all those who are right of centre to vote Tory at the upcoming local elections. I’d imagine that it will get quite a bit of equally passionate response…

Jackart writes:

“The local government elections are an opportunity to thrust a knife into Blair, Brown and all the other bastards who have comprehensively ruined this countrys once elegant constitution and once powerful economy.”

That’s the one of the two problems I have with Jackart’s post. I can see how local elections are a tempting way to give our leaders a sound kicking. But these elections aren’t about the national parties – even given the massive amount of coverage that the Main Stream Media gives the impact of these elections on the national parties. Local councils still have some impact on the way your community is governed, and therefore you should vote for whichever party is going to manage your local council – or your regional assembly – the best. I cannot see any point, for example, in voting SNP to piss off Blair, Brown and the rest of the Nu Labour troglodytes if you don’t believe in Scotland leaving the Union. It is the very epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Equally, I would argue that even if you are a Tory, if you think your Labour Council (or indeed Lib Dem Council) is doing a good job, you should vote to re-elect them*. The Councils will make a massive contribution to deciding how much Council Tax you pay, so vote for the party who you think will reduce council tax the most/spend your money most officially. Not to give Blair a final kicking and to embarrass the drab Scottish oaf most likely to succeed Teflon Tony.

But my second problem with Jackart’s post is far more fundamental that the first. What his argument boils down is the direction Cameron is taking the Tory party in. Jackart is very much taken with politics being the art of the possible and that the sensible approach is to compromise to be part of the governing party:

“I am bored of commentators and bloggers lazily trotting out the line that "the boy Dave is just another Tony Blair and we might as well go and vote UKIP", just because he refuses to promise Tax-cuts, and has worked out that making people like you makes them more likely to vote for you… There is more to policy than tax-cuts and Europe, and no-one can get everything they want out of a Party, if they're prepared make the compromises nessesary to be part of a Governing movement. If you're prepared to look like ridiculous lefties… each with their own religious belief in their solution to societies ills, then go ahead. Stick to your principles to the letter. Or you can grow up.”

Ignoring the irate and goading language used in the above**, there are a couple of things in there that I would strongly disagree with. First of all, it is not just the question of tax cuts and Cameron’s adoption of a lot of the spin and prevarication that Blair showed prior to clawing his way into Number 10. I would like to hear about Tory commitments to tax cuts, but not if they are going to come at the expense of a strong economy and future economic growth. Equally, I don’t like the way Cameron presents himself, but if he needs to appear like a Tory version of the young Blair to win power, then I can at least understand why he is doing it, even if I don’t agree with him.

However my problems with Cameron are more deep seated than simply objecting to his stance on tax cuts and his presentational skills. Cameron has failed to say what he stands for, for the most part. The only real way we know he is a Tory is because he won the Tory leadership election. But hiding beneath a blue rosette is not enough to win me over – I need to see why he is a Tory and what he will do when/if he gets into power. Muttering about freeing up society to deal with its own problems is not enough, particularly when he is increasingly banging on in favour of nonsense that you would normally associate with the left wing, like environmental taxes and poverty being relative rather than absolute. Perhaps Cameron does have to move towards the middle ground to beat Brown in the next General Election, but he needs to stand by some traditional Tory policies and he needs to avoid lurching so far into the middle ground that he actually becomes left wing.

I have no issue with compromising, and back in the days when I was a Tory activist I did have to make some ideological compromises as the Howard led Conservative party did not match my exact beliefs. But there is a difference between compromising some of your beliefs and compromising your beliefs so much that you end up compromised. There are some things that I struggle to compromise on – equality of opportunity besting equality of outcome being one key area. When Cameron started talking about Toynbee being an icon for the modern Tory party, I realised I’d had enough. So I left the party. At the risk of repeating myself, I cannot see the point in winning political power if you have forgotten why you wanted to win power in the first place. Compromise is all well and good, but if a party compromises too much, then it loses its’ fundamental identity.

Those who have moved away from the Tory party since Cameron took from Howard are not necessarily on a power trip, or seeking attention, or need to “grow up”. A lot have serious ideological objections to the direction Cameron has taken the party in, and may end up voting for other parties – like UKIP – who speak more for the right wing in this country. The question facing those on the right in or of the Tory party at the main election may yet prove to be whether you vote for a husk party who bear the Tory label but stand a chance of forming a compromised government, or whether they vote for a party who can’t win power but far better represent their core beliefs.

*I appreciate that this would be a very difficult think for a die-hard Tory (or, indeed, die-hard supporter of any one party) to do, but in the past I have voted for different parties nationally and locally in the same election.

**Not least because I use irate and goading language myself on occasion…

Crass Idiots Of The Day

For fuck’s sake. Just when you think our government has cornered the market of shit policy ideas, a charity goes and betters them. Today’s crass idiots are the *good* people at Alcohol Concern. They want the government to prosecute anybody who lets children drink alcohol – in their own homes. That’s right – Alcohol Concern want to increase the power this control freak government have over us.

"Our report shows that we are simply not doing enough to protect our children from alcohol.”

Yep, the crucial word in that sentence is “our”. Christ on a trike, it is hardly shocking that a charity called Alcohol Concern would be concerned about alcohol. But any report from Alcohol Concern is bound to be biased against alcohol. Just as any report from me is bound to be biased for alcohol.

“Alcohol Concern also wants a 16% rise in alcohol taxes, a ban on brewers selling to retailers at a loss, and a crackdown on under-age alcohol sales.”

As someone who used to work in the retail trade and had kids coming in on the instructions of the police to try to buy booze, I don’t think a further crackdown is needed. But a 16% rise in alcohol taxes is insulting - it wouldn't stop me from drinking, but rather make me whine more at the innocent bar staff about the price of my booze. And a charity should have no right to demand changes to the way the market works. If a company wants to sell alcohol at a loss to retailers, they should be allowed to. It is called the “free market”. Besides, wouldn't a 16% increase in the taxes on booze make companies more likely to sell it at a reduced prive to retailers to shift their product?

“Public health minister Caroline Flint told the BBC she did not think the proposals would be enforceable.”

That is how stupid this proposal is – a Nu Labour minister, a member of the party that has brought us such fucktarded ideas such as the Millenium Dome, ID cards and ASBOs, is saying this policy is not enforceable. And she is absolutely right – the only way this could be enforced is by putting a police officer in each room of each house in the country. The only way this idea could work is by implementing an Orwellian dystopia.

Christ, this sort of idiocy makes me want to go out and binge drink.

Speaking Ill Of The Dead - Boris Yeltsin

Via Tim Worstall I come across this rather wonderful deconstruction of Boris Yeltsin - the latest ex-World leader to become deified simply by dint of dying. It portrays Boris as a corrupt drunken liar - basically, a malicious version of Charles Kennedy. And when you sit down and think about the legacy left by Yeltsin, it becomes very difficult to argue with that portrayal.

The "Head In The Sand" Approach

32 years ago today Labour – then (as now) the party of government – voted to leave the EEC. I can’t help but notice that we are still part of it, and arguably deeper entrenched in it than ever.

But that (blindingly obvious) point is not the one I want to make. What really struck me about that article is that 32 years ago the Labour party was actively debating what approach this country should take to European Unity. And in the mid-eighties, it was the question of Europe that helped tear the Labour party apart. Just as it did to the Tories in the mid-nineties. And in 2001 William Hague campaigned (somewhat disastrously) on the issue of keeping the pound. So why now, when nothing has changed, has the political world fallen silent on this crucial issue?

I’m not going to use this post to bang on about my views on Europe (although you can probably guess that they are sceptical to say the least) but rather to marvel at the silence that surrounds this fundamental area. Why is no-one willing to have a debate, or even a good old fashioned row, about Europe anymore?

I’ll concede (not least to avoid the wrath of the likes of DK and Trixy) that UKIP is trying to keep this issue in the public eye. But they are fighting a losing battle, what with the consensus that seems to exist between the three main parties that Europe should not be discussed under any circumstances and the oblique backing of this consensus by the media. The political parties running (or vying to run) this country and the media won’t stop banging on about climate change - and agreeing to combat something that is scientifically dubious at best* - but they won’t mention the issue of who is actually in control of this country and who will be in the future.

I have been thinking about exactly why – why would our political leaders and our media dodge this issue? And the reason is simple – they are scared of it. Regardless of whether you are arguing for or against the EU, it is a deeply divisive issue. It is about spending billions of pounds of the tax payer’s money. It is about who makes law for this country, and how accountable those law makers are. And it is fundamentally about the future of this country. The EU cannot help but be a controversial area of policy for the UK. And given the current crop of people in power in this country, controversy is the last thing they want to stir up.

This may yet prove to be Blair’s real legacy – a fear of debate and a fear of adopting strong positions. Blair has failed to take strong stands for fear of being unpopular and the only time he did – over the Iraq Invasion – he turned out to be wrong. The Tory leader is proving himself to be Blair lite – a spineless little shit who is afraid of offending anyone under any circumstances. And, at the risk of contravening the age discrimination legislation, the Lib Dem leader is a doddering old fool. Politics today is not about debating the future – it is about jumping on the latest bandwagon, especially if that bandwagon will allow you to advocate a tax hike.

The media could force politicians to debate the EU – if it wanted to. But the media no longer wants to inform and educate their users. It is far easier to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and go for the mind numbing bit of crap as a news story – preferably with a lurid edge. Hence we here endless amounts about Jade vs Shilpa, but nothing about the EU. Even if you move away from the tabloid press then there is still radio silence about the EU.

I don’t know how this glaring and alarming problem can be solved. We can hope that someone with political convictions actually gets into a leadership position in one of the main political parties, but that doesn’t seem likely for the foreseeable future. We can hope that UKIP gets some success (regardless of whether you are pro or against the EU) and therefore forces the parties to discuss the EU, but I am not sure that is going to happen just yet. And we can hope that the media rediscovers that the EU exists and is worth commenting on, but with a new series of Big Brother in the summer, that doesn’t seem very likely.

It should be the aspiration of any society to keep in moving forward, to grow and to develop. But that is the opposite of what is happening with the political class in the UK. Whereas 32 years ago the politicians were willing to take positions on fundamental issues like the EU, today they would rather stick their heads in the sand. And hope you don’t notice.

*I am trying to be even handed here, but climate change is simply another excuse to tax us. I have yet to see any proof whatsoever that there is a human cause for the marginal climate change we are experiencing. It is simply an excuse to make us feel guilty and therefore pay more tax for living a normal life.

A B C

It appears I have been tagged by A Very British Dude. Who is very British, but doesn’t look a lot like *the dude*. So, here we go:

A- Available or Single? Very limiting choice. I’ll go with neither.

B- Best Friend: The whole world is my friend. *laughs derisively*.

C- Cake or Pie: I’d probably go with a pork pie. Cake is over-rated.

D- Drink of Choice: Normally a pint of the cheapest lager at the bar. But not Carlsberg. Oh no, even I won’t sink that low.

E- Essential Items: Well, my phone is essential for keeping in contact with people. Money is essential for buying stuff and clothes are essential for not being arrested for indecent exposure.

F- Favorite Color: Since I object to the spelling of both words in this category, I refuse to answer this question.

G- Gummi Bears or Worms? Jesus, I’m not eight!

H- Hometown: I’m a nomad. Although London is probably the most at home I have ever felt.

I- Indulgence: You can’t beat a bit of fried food.

J- January or February: February. Shorter (although colder). And I am normally horrifically hungover for the first few days of January.

K- Kids: Not that I am aware of.

L- Life is incomplete without: Oxygen.

M- Marriage Date: Cannot even begin to answer that question.

N- Number of Siblings: One brother. He once left a comment on this blog saying I was as ignorant as Baroness Tonge. Man, that smarted.

O- Oranges or Apples? Apples. Although ideally neither.

P- Phobias/Fears: Flying and needles. Not that rational, but not completely irrational either. Oh, and I have a healthy fear of people with weapons. Which I maintain is completely rational.

Q- Favorite Quote: I can give you my favourite three –

“I could have been a politician or a piano player in a whore house. And to tell you the truth, there isn’t that much difference.” – Harry S. Truman

“I wanted to wipe the human race in its’ own vomit, and then force it to look in the mirror.” – J G Ballard.

“You cannot conceive, and nor can I, the appalling strangeness of the mercy of God." - Graham Greene

R- Reasons to smile: Really puerile and silly things make me grin. Oh, and slightly malicious stuff. Basically The League of Gentlemen.

S- Season: Autumn.

T- Tag Three: I’m not tagging anyone. Might catch something.

U- Unknown Fact About Me: I don't know. I know everything about me, but don’t know what you don’t know.

V – Vegetarian or Oppressor of Animals? I am a carnivore through and through. I try to avoid that freaky green stuff whenever possible.

W- Worst Habits: Depends who you ask. I’d go with glib procrastination.

X – X-rays or Ultrasounds? Again, neither. If possible.

Y- Your Favorite Foods: Steak and chips. I’m very committed to healthy eating.

Z- Zodiac: What, the serial killer? Weird.

Well, I think I have been nakedly honest with the above. Hopefully you have all found it enlightening, and now know a great deal more about The Nameless One.

Tory Leader Gay Sex Claim Dismissed

When I saw this headline for some reason I automatically thought of David Cameron. Although in fairness I probably should have thought of the perennially single Ted Heath.

Now I always thought Ted would be asexual - or celibate through lack of choice as this rather fetching photo of him would back up:

But even if he was gay (a claim that is contested in the headline of the article), so what?

I would describe Ted Heath as a miserable failure as Tory Leader, Prime Minister and Elder Statesman. As Tory leader he lost all bar one General Election that he led the party into. As Prime Minister, his greatest achievement was taking the country into Europe which will always be a controversial and deeply subjective definition of achievement*. Aside from that, he had to implement the three day week, did nothing to stop the mounting problems in Ireland, did nothing to halt the decline of Britain into the unenviable condition of being the "sick man of Europe" and ultimately had his ample butt kicked by the miners. In his career (if such a word can be used) after his time in Number 10, he proved himself to be a boring, bitter old fart who constantly carped and bitched at his successors as Tory leaders, undermining them often at times when they needed support rather than criticisms. He hung around in the Commons for far too long and, according to one rumour I heard back in my days in the Tory party, only stood down when his constituency threatened to de-select him. When you sit down and review his record, his only real triumph was beating Wilson in the 1970 General Election and thus giving the UK a brief respite from having a vacant, pseudo-socialist, spineless arsehole of a man with an affected Yorkshire accent as Prime Minister.

However, being gay (or asexual or just unable to get laid) should have no effect on Heath's tainted legacy. Sure, he was a failure - but his sexuality (or lack of it) has no impact on his capabilities in high office. It is a personal matter - and if he was gay, it is actually quite impressive that he managed to keep it a secret for so long when he was such a high profile figure.

*I remember a conversation I had with one Tory activist who stated Heath was a traitor, and should be hanged. I pointed out that Heath was already dead, and therefore hanging him would probably be a total waste of time. But no, this activist wanted Heath's corpse digging up and then hung, a little like Mussolini. I pointed out that this sounded all a little counter-productive and more than a tad distasteful, but he was having none of it. Just goes to show that Heath is hated by members of his own party for selling out. And, God willing, one day the same will happen to young "Hug A Husky" Cameron.

This story makes me scratch my head and wonder. Not philosophically. More about the mind-numbing toss that passes for news these days.

Apparently the newly discovered Jadarite has the same "unique chemistry" as Kryptonite. Well, bonza. Not the most exciting of stories - but could pass as mildly interesting. But then Dr Chris Stanley points out that the mineral, rather than glowing green and crippling superheroes, it is actually white and harmless. Making it not a lot like Kryptonite, I would have thought. Compounded by the fact that Kryptonite is not real - unlike Jadarite.

So the sum total of the story is Jadarite is not really like Kryptonite. Making it not much of a story, surely?

I must be missing something.

It is not a beauty contest...

...which is just as well for Sarkozy otherwise he would lose - badly:

Now French Politics is not of massive interest to me. There is enough going on in US and UK politics to keep me occupied. When I was studying politics at uni, French politics was one of my least favourite subjects (or "modules", as the fashionable term was back then). I always lose track of which republic they are on (I think it is fifth but it could be sixth). But from the research I have been doing and the conversations I have had, it does seem like France is at a critical turning point. It stretches credibility slightly, but there are links between France today and Britain in 1979.

And, just as they did with Merkel in Germany, people are looking for the Thatcherite figure to come to power and turn the country around. And they seem to have found that figure in Royal. But when you actually cut through all the bullshit, the honest truth is the only way you could call Royal Thatcherite is because of her sex. But Thatcher was successful because of her policies and determination to see those policies through, not because of her gender. And whilst Royal has paid lip service to some radical reform in France (such as attacking the 35 hour working week) she remains, fundamentally, a socialist. And that is proper, old school socialist - no the Nu Labour socilaist lite model we have in this country. All a socialist President will do is further increase the problems of France, and further cripple an already stagnant country.

Which is why Sarkozy - for all his flaws and headline grabbing comments - is the best option for France. If he acts on his electoral rhetoric (always difficult for our elected politicians but you never know) then he could do a great deal of good for France. France needs to move away from the stagnant leadership of Chirac, but not into the arms of an utterly discredited political ideology. Sarkozy will have a lot to prove if he makes it into office, but I think the chances of him making a difference are far greater than Royal make a positive difference.

"I think most people are outraged by that"

So says Michelle Elliott of the charity Kidscape, about the decision to give the mother, grandmother and aunts who forced young children to fight on video for their own amusement. And I would entirely agree with her. The BBC describes exactly what was on the video:

"The boy, aged two, is seen crying after being punched in the face by his three-year-old sister and is told by one of the four women in the room "not to be a wimp or a faggot" and to hit the girl back."

What sort of people are these? Those kids were their own family - their own flesh and blood. And they insulted and goaded a weeping two year old boy into punching his three year old sister. Again, what sort of poeple are these? The answer is total scum.

And for them to only get 12 month suspended sentences is pathetic. They are child abusers in the sense that they got children to abuse each other. A prison sentence is neccessary not just to send an example to others, but to actually punish these miserable excuses for human beings.

The explanation of the judge that these four scumbags do not present a danger to society and therefore shouldn't be imprisoned provokes a hollow laugh. No, they weren't a danger to others. Just their own family.

Free to be ignorant, free to hate

The Devil’s Kitchen has flagged to me another piece of EU tomfoolery – this time an(other) attack on freedom of speech through banning Holocaust denial. Now this issue has been addressed with more detail and clarity than I think I can muster here (not least at the Kitchen) but this is an important issue and I reckon the more publicity we can give it the better, not least because the Mainstream Media seems to be dodging this issue in a strikingly myopic way.

I have never understood the desire to ban Holocaust denial. Don’t get me wrong, I think the vast majority of Holocaust deniers are neo-Nazi Anti-Semites who should be strongly told fuck off and take their glaring ignorant opinions with them, but I maintain the best way to do that is to let them speak. If you listen to someone try to deny the Holocaust, then you have a myriad of ways to argue against them. Allowing Holocaust denial is not to condone the Holocaust – in fact it has the opposite effect – you allow the Holocaust Deniers to provide you with the evidence to show that they are utterly, utterly wrong. Let an ignoramus speak and you will prove they are an ignoramus. Deny them their right to speak and you have a martyr.

Of course, the EU don’t see it this way. But it is not just the banning of Holocaust denial proposed in this legislation – it is a far more wide ranging than that. The EU is trying to control the way people think. They want to stop people from hating and making other people hate. But they don’t want to do it in a positive way through eliminating ignorance through education. Oh no. It has to be done negatively – and it is not even a case of trying to restrict what the citizens of the EU do, but actually what they think. It really is that basic.

And this legislation, as deeply concerning as it is on detailed evaluation, it not the sum total of the problem. This is simply not being reported by the media. There is pretty much radio silence on this – and all other areas of the EU – from the press in this country. Much is made in Euro-sceptic and Euro-nihilistic circles of how unaccountable the EU are. But it is not just about the way they are elected and the numbers of people who vote in those elections. It is true that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But how can we be vigilant when we do not get to hear of fundamental decisions affecting crucial areas such as freedom of speech?

Issues like this have to be publicised and have to get to as wider an audience as possible. Otherwise we will wake up one morning and find that we have lost all of our autonomy to the growing EU superstate.

According to Sky News, that bastion of common sense George W Bush has said we should be on the lookout for odd people. To quote:

"When people see somebody or know somebody who is exhibiting abnormal behaviour, you do something about it, to suggest that somebody take a look."

What sort of abnormal behaviour would that be, George? Perhaps binge drinking so much that your wife threatens to leave you? What about hearing the voice of God in your head? And how about invading a sovereign nation based on spurious and deceitful intelligence, causing a civil war and awful carnage in the process? Is that abnormal behaviour, you fatheaded fuckface?

The Blame Game

Christ the media pisses me off sometimes. Numb-nutted sensationalists. Cho goes on the rampage, kills 32 people but lacks the common decency to stay alive and therefore give the media the juicy and salacious prospect of a long trial. And with no blame figure left alive, and with a need to milk this story for everything it is worth, the media starts flailing around looking for someone, or something, else to blame. Let’s have a look at some of the gems they have come up with over the past few days:

It is the fault of a movie. Yep, that old chestnut. A movie made Cho kill 32 people and himself. Damn, that must be one influential movie. Almost as influential as other movies that have made people kill. Like Child’s Play 3 inspiring the murder of Jamie Bulger. And Star Wars Episode Six: Return of the Jedi inspiring Jeffrey Dahmer. Oh, maybe not when you sit down and think. Real life may influence movies, and movies may influence real life. Eastenders could push someone over the edge; Christ alone knows that the very fact it is broadcast makes me angry. But there is no causal link between the movies and real life violence. Cho may have felt a link or an affinity with characters or events in Oldboy. But the movie did not make him kill. 3,132,000 watched Oldboy in South Korea. To my knowledge, those 3,132,000 have not gone out and committed mass murder. Judging by the lack of 10,022,400 killings, anyway.

The college authorities and the police are to blame for not locking down the campus. Hindsight is a really wonderful thing, isn’t it? I bet the authorities really wish they had locked down the campus. Now. But the fucking media can’t concede that it is only in retrospect, when the authorities realise that locking down the campus may have stopped Cho’s lethal progress, that is makes sense to have implemented draconian security procedures. At the time of the first two murders, it looked like the college and the police were dealing with a domestic dispute. And whilst double murders are comparatively rare, they are far more common than spree killings. And double murders seldom, if ever, result in mass killings.

The media needs to be blamed for showing Cho’s footage. Bollocks, frankly. Is it distasteful so show the ranting of a diseased mind so soon after his killing spree? Well, quite probably. But since when have we really expected taste and decency from our media? And why the fuck do you think they broadcast tasteless shit? Because there is a market for tasteless shit. And aside from everything else, there is still the awesome power of voting with your remote control. If you don’t want to see Cho ranting, then don’t watch him. And I struggle to find a news outlet that is reporting on the reaction against the broadcast of Cho’s video that doesn’t have the video available on their website. It is beyond hypocrisy, really.

I could go on and on, but I am sick of this subject and appalled by the media’s fucktarded presentation of these terrible murders. Why do they feel the need to lash out and blame everyone and everything else for these killings? The person responsible, and the person we should all be blaming, is Cho. And that cunt is dead. He’s lying in the morgue.

Which, frankly, is the best fucking place for him.

Freedom and the Mentally Ill

You can read the plays of Cho Sheung-Hui here and here, if you are so inclined. They are poorly written, unpleasant and immature. They are also focussed on rage against others, and have significantly violent overtones. You can believe the person who wrote them would be capable of this. But it is important to remember that writing these plays does not mean he is definitely going to commit mass murder. After all, if writing violent nonsense meant you were going to go postal, then James Herbert would have gone on the rampage a long time ago.

The most these plays could have been treated as were warning signs - which, it appears they were. But what precisly can be done when these warning signs are shown? Do you force someone to get help? Do you force them to take medication? Do any of these ideas have any place in a nominally free society?

The recent Mental Health Bill here in the UK has provoked debate around this issue. Some people may be showing signs of being a danger to themselves or others, but until they actually commit a violent act, then surely they are fundamentally innocent until proven guilty? There is a difference between displaying out and out psychosis and the alarming signs that Cho Seung-Hui showed. If you asked almost anyone today whether Cho Seung-Hui should have been detained for displaying the unpleasant behaviour now being reported by his peers and his professors, then the answer would almost certainly be "yes". But if you asked last week, when all there was against Cho Seung-Hui was erratic, insular behaviour and writing violent plays in a country that enshrines freedom of speech in their constitution, then the answer may well have been very different.

There has to be a balance between protecting society from those with violent mental disorders* and allowing freedom for those with such disorders. The brutal truth is that in a free society those who knew Cho Seung-Hui probably did all they could to help him and protect themselves by recommending counselling etc. It is worth revisting the basic truth that the key cause of the Virginia Tech massacre was not a failure to heed warning signs - it was Cho Seung-Hui deciding to go out and start shooting.

*And I cannot stress enough that there is a massive difference between the vast majority of mental illnesses and the behaviour of the likes of Cho Seung-Hui. The debate around the Virginia Tech shootings will always be over-wrought, but to directly link the mentally ill with this sort of atrocity is like claiming that all South Koreans are potential mass murderers - total fucking horse shit.

Sitcoms

This cannot be true.

By contrast, best sitcom ever is the The Thick Of It. We thoroughly recommend you get the DVD, out now, if only to compare the 'Sponge Avengers' of the first episode with this piss-poor idea, eviscerated from an interesting angle here.

Virginia Tech

It seems almost completely pointless to point it out, but the terrible, tragic events at Virginia Tech are going to be headline news for at least the next few days, and the subject of fierce, emotionally charged debate for quite some time. And I am not sure what will be gained by all the forthcoming debate. School shootings in the US are not unique, and the simple truth that other shootings have shown is that there is remarkably little that can be learned from these spree killings.

Let me explain - the first, knee jerk reaction for me, as someone who lives in a country mercifully free of public ownership of firearms is to claim that this wouldn't have happened if guns were banned in the US. But that is just so much bollocks. Guns are banned in this country - it does not stop mistfits going out and committing (and, mercifully, on occasion failing to commit) mass murder. The relative fragility of the human form means that there is no shortage of ways and means to kill and kill again, if someone is determined to do so.

If the killer turns out to have been socially ostracised or bullied, then there will be discussions out peer group relations in schools and universities. Is is right to try to stop (or at least minimise) bullying? Yes. Is it possible to stop bullying altogether? Probably not. And even if you could stop bullying, would it end mass murders? Judging by the likes of Charles Whitman and Thomas Hamilton, almost certainly not.

Could the alarm have been raised earlier at Virginia Tech? Two hours does seem to be a worringly long time to wait to alert people to the terrible danger there were in. But then again, at what point did the authorities realise that they were dealing with a gun rampage? It is not the automatic assumptions when faced with a shooting death. And what, precisely, could they do about it? As Martin rightly points out, there is no way to safely evacuate thousands of people when they are under fire from a maniac.

There will be many different examinations of events, and many different conclusions. Some of them will be ill-thought out, some of them will be politically motivated, and some of them will be lost in the terrible emotions surrounding these horrific events. But I would be deeply surprised if any great truth emerges from these nightmarish murders.

Because the simple truth is there is nothing that could stop this gunman, and his predecessors, if he was truly determined to kill his peers and other strangers. The only small comfort to take from these terrible events is that they are mercifully rare. Those who are evil enough to commit mass murder are few and far between but this is the only real reason for these sorts of crimes: people do this because they want to. And there is next to nothing that can be done to stop them. All this talk of reasons and all the attempts to blame those other than the murderers themselves hides the bleak truth that there is real darkness and lethal misanthropy in some people.

Talk about a bad day at work

"Yeah, got to work, checked the e-mails, had a coffee, helped with the fire alarm test, crocodile bit my arm off... yeah, to be honest with you, I have had better days."

Lethal Pot Noodles

The BBC is reporting on the high drama of the Pot Noodle recall. Apparently faulty packaging could mean that the hot contents could spill out and scald victims.

Frankly, if you are willing to eat Grot Noodles and are not a poverty stricken student you deserve scalding. And it is not the heat of the contents of the Grot Noodles that is the problem because, let's be honest, Pot Noodles are actually made from freeze dried tramp's vomit. If I were to make a really cheap horror movie (and, God willing, one day, I will do) then I will be using Pot Noodles as a cheap substitute for diseased alien entrails.

In summary - Pot Noodles - proof that God does not exist. And if He does, He hates His human creations.

Amazing

Apparently one of the 21/7 alleged would-be suicide bomber and mass murderers has claimed that he did not want his bomb to explode. BBC news reports:

"Mr Ibrahim has admitted making the homemade hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour devices, but insisted none of them were capable of causing injury."

A frankly rather startling claim, I am sure you will agree. Well, Hans Michels, Imperial College Safety Professor certainly does:

"If he tested something which had 2kg of explosives and he wanted to survive that, he must have been very, very sure that it wasn't going off."

And he goes on to describe Ibrahim's claim as "amazing".

Quite. I'd go a little bit further than that though. I would best define Mr Ibrahim's claim as "total toss". I would say, that if you don't want a bomb to go off and you don't want to hurt anyone, then your best strategy would be not to build the bloody bomb in the first place. I am fully committed to not blowing up other people, and can attest from personal experience that my success in this area has been based around my refusal to make explosive devices.

Fuck me, it is not rocket science, is it?

Well, he'd get my vote

The fact that he is a villianous, most probably alien and fictional character from a Saturday night TV show does not put me off. Not when you compare him to Cameron, Bliar/Brown and Campbell anyway.

It really fucking comes to something when a minister admitting responsibility for an error is headline news.

But do we think the fucker will resign? Do we bollocks. Not until Blair utters the words that all Labour ministers fear: "he has my complete support."

Fire Destroys Johnny Cash's Home

I guess he is not tremendously worried, though. What with being dead and all.

I read Cash's autobiography and found his faith in God strangely compelling but also extremely difficult to understand. The former hell-raising star studied the Bible, and seemed to feel that God was guiding his life. But in spite of my grudging respect for his Christanity I cannot agree with the comment from his friend Richard Sterban:

"Maybe it's the good Lord's way to make sure that it was only Johnny's house."

Errr, no, Richard, maybe it is because the building caught fire and, because it was coated in a flammable wood preservative, it burnt very very quickly. Hand of God? No, something much more credible - the Incompetence of Builders.

Drop Dead

And fuck off whilst you are doing it.

This is the sort of half-thought out bullshit that gives earnest knob jockeys everywhere a bad name. I will never put a warning on this blog about content - it may be rude, it may be sweary, it is often very dull. But you are under no obligation whatsoever to read what I write. If you like it, read on. Otherwise, no-one is making you read this blog. Freedom of expression works in many ways, and you can express any disdain you might have for this blog by buggering off and reading someone else's.

The Daily Mail Tendency has had one of its' occasional updates.

Aside from that, not got a great deal to say today. I was going to have a pop at Richard Dawkins' incredibly militant and shouty The God Delusion, but I should probably finish the book before I have a go at it. And I was also going to rave on about the post-punk band XTC, but then I remembered I struggle with the casual misogyny of some of their songs (“Sgt Rock is going to help me/Make the girl mine, keep her stood in line").

Always the problem with long weekends, isn’t it? All that sitting around doing bugger all makes you really quite knackered and apathetic.

So this is freedom?

So, they are free then. A gift from Iran to the British people. Very generous Ahmadinejad is too.

It took me a while to figure out what had happened, because the course of events seems quite surreal. Iran captures our sailors (most probably in Iraqi waters, judging by the Iranians changing the co-ordinates of the seizure to prove themselves right), takes them prisoner, mumbles about putting them on trial for spying, then puts them through various wince-making and unconvincing confessions on the tele, before Ahmadinejad announces their release in a hyper-active press conference. And then sending them on their way with gifts, apparently:

And whilst the sailors are imprisoned in one of the least friendly* regimes in the world, our government embarked on a mild propaganda war against Iran, and aside from that seemed to sit on their hands, hoping for the best. Sure, a lot of the diplomacy will have been in secret, but our government never really seemed to do anything more than make the right noises.

It is the end of a tense two weeks in British-Iranian relations, but as the dust settles and the 15 go off to enjoy their funky Iranian gifts in Devon, it is difficult to see who actually won this little confrontation. The commentators and pundits are in total disagreement, as the front page of The Independent nicely shows. And the reason is simple - no-one can really claim victory from this little crisis.

Last night I was convinced that Iran had won, but now I am not too sure. They don't seem to have gained anything other than a bit of publicity from this kidnapping. And the UK certainly didn't gain anything - they lost 15 sailors for a fortnight, and seemed incapable of doing anything other than waiting for their release.

But then again, what more could either side have got? Iran was always going to have to return the sailors at some point - had they kept them for much longer, or even have gone as far as putting them on trial, then the international outcry would have been tremendous and the sanctions deeply damaging for Ahmadinejad's increasingly unpopular (in Iran) regime. Equally, the UK could do nothing other than wait and hope. Blair et al could not apologise** without losing face in the West and further damaging the UK's already terrible reputation in the Middle East. Equally, they could not attempt to rescue the troops - the sub-Rambo talk of special forces grabbing the sailors back is deeply naive.

Which begs the question, what was the point in all this?

I reckon the answer is simple - nothing. There was no point. Someone, somewhere, fucked up. The UK sailors were not sent into Iranian waters as spies, and equally the Iranain government did not order the kidnapping of the sailors. Either the UK forces accidentally strayed into Iranian waters or (far more likely) Republican Guard units over stepped their boundaries and procedures and seized the British troops. Now the medals have been handed out for the cameras, I think someone in Iran will be getting a bit of a kicking. Or, as Jackart so eloquently puts it:

"I suspect Tehran was as surprised as the 15 Sailors about the capture and some Republican Guard commander might catch a sly bullet over this fiasco."

Quite right - I think Britain was staggered to lose 15 sailors, and I think Iran was staggered to gain the 15 sailors. And from that point on, there was no doubt the sailors would be returned, it was just a question of both countries trying to save as much face as possible.

Which is why I think that now the sailors are back home and now Ahmadinejad has had his moment of glory, this crisis will be swiftly brushed under the carpet. Neither side could ever have won from this crisis, but the sailors spent two weeks as prisoners in a hostile country
because neither side wanted to be seen to have lost.

*To the West, anyway
**Assuming the British sailors were in the wrong, which I deeply, deeply doubt

Pub conversation I had last night

My old mate Nick: 'We should nuke Iran.'

Me: 'Why?'

Nick: 'My taxes paid for those old Tridents and they're about to be decommissioned. I want to get my money's worth.'

Via the Chase Me Ladies blogspot I have come across the John Doe Manifesto. And very silly it is too. But the particular bit that stands out to me goes:

“I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

“I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.”

Oh really? If you are never going to forget them, then name them. Go on, name them. Hell, name just some of them. I’m not claiming I can name any of them myself, but then again, I am not devising a crappy mantra about being vigilant about terrorism.

I rather think that defeating the threat posed by global terrorism may be partly down to the security services and law enforcement organisations as well as individuals keeping their eyes open. And I also rather think that further ostracising members of the Muslim community with this sort of unmitigated bollocks may be a tad counter-productive, not least because - as the long campaign of the IRA shows for example - not all terrorists are Muslims...