Gordon Brown, Drugs and the Absence of Reality

Nothing like taking the advice of experts now, is there? Unless, of course, you happen to be the incumbent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In which case scientifcally backed advice is only welcome if it agree with your own desperate attempts to please tabloids by being tough on drugs. Witness the Professor Nutt debacle. Sacked because his scientifically backed opinions do not match with those of the PM. In Nutt's own words:

"Until Gordon Brown took office there has never been a recommendation about drug classification from the council that has been rejected by government," he said.

"Gordon Brown comes into office and soon after that he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal... it has to be a Class B drug. He has made his mind up.

"We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, 'No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it's still a Class C drug.'

"He said, 'Tough, it's going to be Class B.'"

Terrific stuff. Against scientific advice and common sense, the witless Gordon Brown decides Cannibas is lethal. What a moronic think to say. If Cannabis was lethal, then this country would have a substantially smaller population and universities would have next to no students in them. Besides, Brown as worked with Cabinet Ministers (and indeed, employed them to work in his Cabinet) who have taken Cannabis and lived to tell the tale. Surely he has noticed that, well, his colleagues aren't dead, despite having had the occasional toke? Cannabis lethal? Just what the fuck is the Prime Minister on?

Of course, this is all about political expediency, and it is the sort of thing that happens all the time in politics. The Tories won't be immune to a bit of posturing on drugs when they take over, and cracking down on drugs is always a sure fire way of getting the tabloids on side. I guess this is what Gordon meant when he said that he was a conviction politician - he follows his convictions just so long as they appeal to the readership of the Daily Mail and even if they aren't, in any way, backed up in reality. Which means another way of defining Brown's idea of a"conviction politician" would be "media driven, delusional wankstain."

What films to watch this Halloween

Halloween is about a lot of things - for the students for Nottingham, for example, it seems to be about energetic yet faintly unconvincing costumes and the consumption of scarily large quantities of booze. For kids, it seems to increasingly be about demanding treats or offering tricks - even in this country. For me, though, it is about watching horror on the TV.

Now, let me clarify - I'm not talking about the visceral, gut wrenching horror that you might see in the Saw film series or torture porn flicks like Hostel. There's arguably a place for those sort of films - certainly, the money studios make on those films show that there is both a market and a fan-base for those types of movies. But for me they are horrific movies, but seldom actually manage to be scary. It is a different type of film that is genuinely unsettling.

My own favourite - possibly of all time - is Ghostwatch. It created a massive response when it was first broadcast, and is a key point in the ongoing popular genre of the mockumentary. It manages, through astute use of its framing device and through careful, almost clinical use of a ghostly figure, to drag the viewer into the fictional world and leave them deeply unsettled at the very least. It takes the simple word "Pipes" and turns it into a powerful entity whose potential reach is both awesome and terrifying. It is like the very best of Nigel Kneale combined with creatively astute people who understood that unconventional means can make a ghost story more effective than ever. There's a generation of children who were shocked by Ghostwatch when it was first broadcast, and remember it to this day. And often their memories end with "and we turned it off before it reached the end."

A more traditional, yet still very creepy, ghost story is The Woman in Black. Whilst I'd recommend the book, there is also a very effective film adaptation - if you can get hold of it. Unfortunately, the novelist hates the film adaptation, and it took me a lot of searching to get hold of a copy of the video. However, it was worth the effort since it manages to produce some very creepy moments and some genuinely terrifying moments. Through the locations used for filming, the music, the restrained acting and the occasionally glimpsed but always striking apparition of the woman in black, it convinces you that there is a malign force in a remote house. A malign force that is determined to damage those it comes into contact with. The most memorable scene is probably the one when Arthur Kidd awakes to the sound of a ghostly child, only to be menaced by a looming vision of the woman in black. Yet for me the creepiest scene - and the one most evocative of what the tone of the film is like - is the scene where Arthur Kidd, alone at Eel Marsh House, encounters the woman. He sees her staring at him, and as she slowly starts to move towards him, he turns and flees into the house, locking the door behind him, panicking.

As I said, you'll be lucky to get hold of a copy of The Woman In Black, so instead The Innocents does a very similar job, but with added ambiguity. Again, there are menacing figures seen from a distance and then - very suddenly - up close. But unlike in both The Woman In Black and Ghostwatch, The Innocents (a film adaptation of The Turn of the Screw) refuses to categorically state that ghosts exist. Either we have a very powerful haunting that is trying to harm two children, or we have a couple of children in the care of an unstable and increasingly delusional woman. The horror comes from the fact that the ending is inevitable - even if it cannot be conclusively explained.

So those would be my suggestions for a bit of spooky Halloween viewing - and if you are in the US, it may also be worth seeing Paranormal Activity. Not having seen it myself, I have no idea whether it is any good, but it looks like a good choice for anyone who wants more from their horror films than a bit of blood and guts.

Doctor Who: The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith

Since the broadcast of Voyage of the Damned, I've been sticking a review of every Doctor Who story after the broadcast on this blog. The past couple of days have seen the broadcast of another adventure involving the Doctor - albeit his first ever appearance in a spin-off rather than his own series. In this case, The Sarah Jane Adventures. But whilst the Doctor wasn't the headlining act in this story, I think most people will remember it for the Doctor's appearance.

And there was a definite joy in this Doctor-lite year of seeing David Tennant doing his now very familiar but still ever watchable Doctor routine. He instantly commands attention and dominates any scene he is in - you could probably dump him in the middle of Coronation Street and he would still be able to make his Doctor at the heart of the show within moments of his arrival. He made this into a Doctor Who story even though his Doctor was not at the centre of the action for about 50% of the story and the resolution of the story had little to do with the behaviour of the Doctor. Tennant's performance as the Doctor is effortlessly charismatic - which means that this is the perfect time for him to move on, before that performance becomes cliched and tired through over use.

The final scenes in the TARDIS were also affecting, particularly as the doors closed on the Doctor. Given this was probably the last filming he did as the Doctor, the final scenes really bring home that this is the end of the Tennant era and whilst there may be three episodes to come before the Doctor regenerates, production schedules mean that we probably see Tennant's last actual performance as the Doctor in this story. The end of an era feeling was not a dominate factor in the production, but it is there to see if the viewer is so inclined.

Yet the real emotional heart of this story had very little to do with the Doctor. At its core, this was a story about Sarah Jane Smith falling in love. And the person she loved did not turn out to be the villain (unlike Donna Noble's suitor in The Runaway Bride) - whilst he was manipulated by the villain in the background, all he wanted to do was to be with his love. Of course, it was impossible, but in order to save herself and the world, Sarah Jane not only had to turn her back on her love, but consign him to the death the Trickster saved him from. Her sacrifice was brought into sharp relief by the scene showing her standing by herself in front of the desk in the registry office; alone, and humiliated - with only her teenage pals knowing what had actually happened.

Of course, as with most things, the story was far from perfect. In fact, it wasn't as strong as some of the other installments of the same series. It felt heavily padded - the first episode in particular. And the decision to have the Doctor arriving at the end of the first episode made sense for the purposes of the cliffhanger, but did leave geeks like me (and such geeks probably make up a substantial share of the potential audience for this sort of thing) just waiting for the entrance of the guest star. Furthermore, the resolution to the whole story was pretty obvious from the outset, especially for anyone with an awareness of the MO of the antagonist. As a result any events leading up to the denouement would have felt like an intentional distraction from the inevitable, but by focussing more on the relationship between Sarah Jane and her suitor, the eventual choice could have been made even more heartbreaking.

Flaws aside, this story was well-worth watching and it was great to see the Doctor in action again after quite a quiet year for him. It neatly whet the appetitie for the coming The Waters of Mars (November 15th, fact fans), as well as hopefully directing more viewers towards the Sarah Jane Adventures - which deserves a much higher profile than it currently has.

President Tony - Would He Be A Blow For Europhiles?

My own opinions on President Blair should be clear enough by now - I don't think the EU needs a President, and if it does, then it certainly should be someone other than that grinning, untrustworthy and utterly compromised cove Tony Blair. And it seems that others are coming round to this point of view. Well, the idea that Tony Blair isn't the best person for the job, anyway. Sadly they see to be pressing on with the whole President thing.

However, for Europhiles as well as Blair-haters (difficult to know which is the larger group in this day and age), the slow burying of Blair's presidential bid should be good news. After all, Blair is someone who has shown little else other than contempt for the European Union and for other European countries. If he becomes President, then the EU will become tainted for many potential supporters in this country and around Europe as a whole by association with that liar, war criminal and general, all round shit. It will also alienate the next government of the UK - who will be no fans of Blair, and possibly push that government into a more Euro-sceptic position. President Blair could end up doing a lot of damage to the EU.

In fact, a Blair Presidency suits no-one other than Tony Blair. And let's be honest, pleasing him should be the business of no-one other than Cherie Blair. But I'll stop there. Because in that direct lies images that could break the mind of anyone.

Quote of the Day - John Sergeant

Via Tory Bear, this comment from John Sergeant on Jacqui Smith and her inability to know where she actually lives has to be today's quote of the day - it is priceless:

"It is a puzzle to people, when you’re asked where your home was, and you were Home Secretary, and you didn’t seem to give the right answer", he said, provoking cheers from the audience.

He went on: "Was it a complicated question, that you therefore genuinely got wrong and took advice on? When someone says, ‘Where’s your home?’, I can answer that pretty quickly."

It reminds me of John McCain not knowing how many houses he has. Memo to politicians everywhere - most people only have one residence. The fact that you might have more than that isn't a problem, as long as you don't rub their faces in it by not knowing basic details. And really easy basic details to remember, like where you live and how many houses you actually have.

I'd just like to point out that any fans of Doctor Who should be watching the Sarah Jane Adventures today, since part two of the current adventure contains none other than the man himself. And you can catch Part One here if you have a job and therefore were unable to be in to watch children's TV...

Memo from Arnie

Proof positive that your humble author is still a giggling school boy when it comes to the use of profanity, this letter from the Governator (via Mr Eugenides) made me laugh out loud:Subtle and clever it most certainly isn't. But those two attributes have never really been amongst Gov. Schwarznegger's main skills. I wonder whether the California State Assembly got the message and understood it? Realistically they should have done, but let's be honest, politicians in this day and age are not exactly the sharpest tools in the box and turn a blind eye to any criticism. Even if - as it is here - it is literally spelt out to them.

Vince Cable's Memoirs

Vince Cable's memoirs are called Free Radical. I'm assuming the "radical" part of the title is some sort ironic comment. Because, unless the meaning of the word "radical" has radically changed to mean "deeply bland", then Cable is anything other than a radical. It is a bit like calling David Cameron an ideologue. Or Gordon Brown charismatic.

But it is the write-up attached to Cable's book that gets to me. Ok, ok, of course it is going to big him up a bit. Calling him a pedestrian politician in a pedestrian party isn't going to shift many copies. But seriously, the way he is presented bears no connection with reality:

Vince Cable, Deputy Leader of the LibDems and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been proved right again and again as the current economic crisis unfolds. Measured, analytical and wise, he is the hero of the crunch in Parliament - as well as its most popular member.

Being Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems is a little bit like being the Deputy Manager of a Butlins - it is important to you if you happen to hold that position, but means fuck all to anyone in the real world. And I hate to point it out, but George Osborne is the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. If anything, Cable is the Shadow of the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

And I really can't think of any way in which Cable has been shown to be right in the current economic crisis - let alone being right again and again. If memory serves, he was as surprised as anyone when some of the banks went tits up, and then he began calling for the nationalisation of Northern Rock. And the nationalisation of Northern Rock has been nothing other than a total fucking disaster that has rinsed the taxpayer of a boatload of cash. Cable hasn't been shown to be right again and again. He's been shown to be a massive, massive tool.

As far as I am aware, the crunch - or recession, if we want to use real terms - doesn't have a hero in Parliament. If it did, it would probably be someone with a little more wisdom and a little less lust for the limelight than Vince Cable. And I defy anyone to objectively prove that the Deputy Leader of the failing third party is actually the most popular member of Parliament. He quite simply isn't. He may have made a couple of people laugh with his quip about Brown moving from being Stalin to Mr Bean, but a genuinely level of popularity in the Commons comes from slightly more than just one good line.

In fairness, Cable has got one part of his memoirs correct - the first world in the title. Because in three months time, I'm pretty sure that his book will be selling for next to nothing in discount stores across the country.

Too late to Slap Nick Griffin!

Sadly, the pathetic yet strangely cathartic site called Slap Nick Griffin (did exactly what it said on the tin) has been taken down. Apparently after they reached 20 million slaps, they decided enough was enough and took it down.

20 million is a pretty impressive figure, but it would be wrong to state that it proves that 20 million people took the time to go to a website and slap the odious turd who leads the BNP in his jowly, blubbery cheeks. In fact, I know there weren't 20 million individual slappers (so to speak), as I contributed at least 50 of those slaps myself.

Royal Mail Wasters: Striking. Again.

Apparently, those crazy coves working for the Royal Mail are on strike again. Jesus. I hadn't noticed that the last strike had stopped. Mainly because there is no tangible difference in service between when the Royal Mail is working and when the workshy bastards are taking a day off.

Regular readers will know that I criticise the Royal Mail a lot, so maybe it is time to redress the balance. I have to say that their customer care line is very good. The people there listen to your problems, use both sympathy and empathy in the right way at the right time, and concede fault and apologise when appropriate. Compared to something like the BT Broadband helpline, which led to me be patronised by some sort of anal geek about the semantic difference between a landline phone and a hub phone before he refused to explain what had gone wrong in the first place, the Royal Mail helpline is frankly outstanding.

Unfortunately, one suspects, the reason why they are so good is because they get - owing to the actions of other workers within Royal Mail - a lot of practice in dealing with irate customers. It is one thing to offer good customer service in the event of something going wrong; it is a far more preferable situation to offer good customer service from the outset and not lead people to have to complain. Because that is the difference between BT Broadband and the Royal Mail - the former I have only had to call once in 6 months. Given the Royal Mail's inability to deliver a fucking parcel, calls to their helpline are a regular occurrence.

So strike away, people. Not for the first time I note that it makes bugger all difference to the levels of service you offer whether you actually turn up in the morning or not.

Brown Backs Blair.

I'm confused. Just what the hell is going on here? Presumably there is a swarm of flying pigs over London, since Brown appears to be doing the unthinkable and is backing Blair:

Downing Street had previously denied reports it was canvassing for the ex-prime minister to get the job, to be created under the new Lisbon Treaty.

But the BBC now understands Mr Brown will put the case to other EU leaders in Brussels later this week.

First up, that's a spectacular u-turn. Actually, it is doing an about turn and then moving in completely the opposite direction. It is almost as if the default Downing Street response to anything is to turn around and deny it. Yet in this case, on further investigation, it turned out that this was something they were actually doing. Nice communication there, guys. Really singing from the same hymn sheet.

Secondly, what is the case for Blair? He used the EU as a political tool to embarrass and weaken the opposition in his own country, ducked every difficult decision about the EU for fear that it would weaken him before joining with the cowboy in the States on an expedition into Iraq that shat on the opinions of almost everyone else in the EU. Tony Blair treated the EU like a smack head might treat his grandmother - he rinsed them for all they were worth, then ignored them, and then fucked off when a better option hoved into view. Forgive me if this seems cynical, but that isn't a smashing CV for someone vying to be EU President now, is it?

Finally, why is Gordon - who hates Blair with a terrifying passion - suddenly fighting for him? Did the two of them make up, and decide to join forces to inflict more Nu Labour shite on an even broader canvass? I doubt that - Brown doesn't strike me as the forgiving type. No, I suspect that this the final, evil revenge of Gordon Brown. He realises we are going to dump him at the next election, so he is going to take his revenge whilst he still can. He's going to leave us as he found us - with that grinning, untrustworthy jackanapes Tony Blair leering over not just the UK, but actually the whole of the EU. Then Brown can return to Mordor or wherever the fuck he's from in Scotland and chuckle to himself in his enforced, early retirement about how he got his own back just before the end. Brown is using the EU Presidency as a scorched earth policy.

Still, with advocates like Brown and Berlusconi, we can be hopeful that President Blair will never, ever happen.

Quote of the Day

A lot of the people who call themselves Left I would regard as proto-fascists.

Noam Chomsky

Time to end Peepshow?

I'm a big fan of the TV comedy Peepshow. Having recently watched all of the sixth series, I would say that it is still going strong and whilst not quite as ground-breaking or as excruciating as it used to be, it remains an often audacious and wonderfully awkward series. It is still on a high, and therefore it should stop. Series 6 should be the last series.

Fawlty Towers, Black Books, Spaced and The Office got it right. They stopped whilst they were still on top of their game. As opposed to something like Red Dwarf that went on for far too long. And in the process managed to become neither funny nor interesting. Peepshow could very easily suffer a similar drop in quality - Series 5 certainly wasn't as good as the preceding ones, although Series 6 is more of a return to form - and we'll be left with an unfunny series unsuccessfully trying to ape what went before. There will be lots of demand for another series of Peepshow; yet the producers should leave the fans wanting more.

Besides, the final scene of these season could be the perfect way to sum up the series. What better way to end this show than having the final moments (spoilers ahead) depicting a heavily pregnant Sophie, who is most probably in labour, having to drive herself to hospital because Jeremy is too drunk to drive and Mark isn't capable of doing so, yet is still offering things (tissues and directions) that he simply does not have and cannot do? To me, that is the essence of Peepshow, and they should leave it there.

Another day, another troughing MP in the news:

Mrs Laing faced widespread criticism for not paying £180,000 capital gains tax on the sale of two Westminster flats, on which she made a £1m profit.

And, of course, the oft-quoted mantra is there:

This practice is perfectly legal but has been heavily criticised.

Of course. Perfectly legal, but morally reprehensible. That's A-Ok then. Well, actually, it turns out that her constituency party think it is:

Conservative MP Eleanor Laing has survived a vote of confidence by her constituency party after criticism of her conduct over expenses.

Apparently 83% of those who voted wanted her to carry on. Fair enough. She'll now go forward to the verdict of the voters. Which I'm hopeful will lead to her being told to fuck right off.

But this is rather the point of the whole exposure of the MPs' expenses. It shows us just how much our MPs are costing us, and allows us - the electorate, the people these fuckers are meant to be representing - the chance to decide whether they offer us value for money. Before the revelations over expenses, we were not in a position to make those sort of choices. Now we can. And I'll be disappointed if this sort of candidate is returned to parliament after the next election, but at least the electorate will have been empowered to make a judgment call about whether there MP is actually worth the money they've fleeced taken from the public purse.

Onward Christian Soldiers! Etc, Etc, Ad Nauseam.

The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells Lichfield has a plan:

A bishop is calling on Christians to wear crosses in public to demonstrate they "aren't going to disappear quietly from the market place".

That is a curiously ambigious statement. Is the Bish worried that Christians or their fashion accessories are going to vanish from the market place? Or both? Anyhoo, I think he should unfurrow his troubled brow. I don't think that either are going to disappear from the marketplace anytime soon.

The Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill said Christians should wear them at work and not be intimidated into putting them away.

Hmm. This is more problematic. If Christians want to wear a cross at work, then - even as an atheist - I don't have a problem with it. As long as their employers don't either. However, if work restrictions don't allow them to wear a cross (which is not an obligation laid down by the Christian faith) then they shouldn't wear said crosses. Because they could end up not being intimidated all the way to the dole queue. And at that point, their posturing over Christian fashion statements is going to appear slightly less important than paying the bills somehow.

He also criticised councils which tried to "rebrand Christmas" for fear of offending other religions.

Such decisions were made out of "sheer ignorance," he said.

"Ethnic minorities are far more anxious about the rampant secularism and commercialism that erodes all Christian standards than they are about their host country properly celebrating its Christian foundations," he said.

I don't have much time for councils trying to rebrand Christmas - not least because Christmas has, in this country, largely been divested of any of its original Christian trappings. But I am staggered that this Bishop is able to set himself up as a spokesperson for ethnic minorities, and am even more surprised at what he claims are the causes for their anxiety. How does he know this? Is he unusually connected to ethnic minorities of Lichfield? Has he had some sort of divine intervention? Or is he just making shit up to prove himself right? You can probably guess which option I'd go for.

The Bish's comments are part of an ongoing campaign to create an image that Christanity is under attack in this country, and that Christians have to fight back by advertising what they believe in. The truth is this country remains very open to Christianity. The fact that less people are going to Church and defining themselves as Christians is down to the fact that Christianity has ceased to offer anything worth having to many people in modern Britain. And it is going to take more than wearing crosses and shrill whining about Christmas to change that fact.

Just What Is Malcolm Tucker?

There are some obvious answers to that question. He's very funny, for a start. In a scary way. And he's a mix of Alastair Campbell and Damian McBride, although arguably more monstrous yet competent than either of those. And he is a stunning indictment of British politics in that such an outrageously vile character can be seen not just as believable, but an accepted (and, for some, essential) part of the British political process.

Yet how would we classify Tucker? It would take a strong heart to call him a hero; he treats people with utter contempt, has a mouth like an open sewer sweating in the summer sun and is clearly propping up an absolutely undeserving Labour government. Yet he's not really a villain either - in his own, utterly self-serving and unpleasant way, he is trying to help people. Plus The Thick of It (and In The Loop for that matter) really lacks anyone who could be called a hero. I guess at the end of the day Tucker is your archetypal anti-hero - you end up routing for him without really wanting to. Because, at the end of the day, he is the only character in the show who is in any way competent and shows anything even approaching a backbone.

Which is what makes The Thick of It - which sometimes comes across as a documentary about modern British politics - so terrifying. The most competent member of this fictional yet very real government is the glowering, perpetually irate and creatively profane Malcolm Tucker. And he is, at best, an anti-hero...

BNP: Crunching Some Numbers

So, the BNP have claimed that 3,000 people joined their party after Griffin's appearance on Question Time. Which would be more worrying if the overall viewing figures for the show weren't over 8,000,000. Simple maths shows me that less than 1% of the audience were moved to join that terrible party after the leader's terrible appearance. In fact, to be precise, 0.0375% of the TV audience took the plunge and registered. Obviously it would be nicer if the figure was a big fat zero, but just under 0.04% doesn't seem tremendously troubling.

The idea that 22% of people would "seriously consider" voting for the BNP is more concerning. But it is worth noting that "seriously considering" voting for someone when an election is over half a year away is very different to what people will actually do when they get into the voting booths.

Maybe the BNP did get a popularity boost from Question Time; however, in the cold light of day, it is a limited boost at best. And they have grown steadily in popularity in some areas recently anyway. I remain confident that a continued engagement of all against the BNP on matters such as policy - in other words their crude socialism and unthinking, ignorant racism - should leave them wide open to being utterly discredited in the future. No matter what the hysteria might say, there is no chance of the BNP taking power in some sort of electoral racist revolution in the near future.

Quote of the Day - Challenging Evil

"Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil."

Amos Elon (1926-2009), in his introduction to Hannah Arendt's Eichmann In Jerusalem

Bush et al: Proof Positive There Is No God

I think that, without too much effort, we can take certain Christian fundamentalists in the US - like George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin - and use them as proof that God doesn't exist. This will be controversial for some, but bear with me as I explain.

The first thing to note from God in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, is that God is quite an interventionist sort of a chap. He seems to be happiest when he is getting involved with his creation and - more often than not - getting his hands dirty. God sees a problem in the Old Testament, and he deals with it.

And the Old Testament God has no problem in dealing with problems in quite a harsh way. Make no mistake about this - the Old Testament God is a smiting God. One can imagine the Old Testament God getting out of bed in the morning and being asked by Mrs God "what are you up to today?" God's response would be simple - "I'm a-goin' a-smitin'!" This is the God who evicted Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden like an irate landlord. He's the God who made like a demolition expert on the Tower of Babel. He's the "good" Lord who treated the citizens of Swansea Sodom and Gomorrah to fire and brimstone, like some sort of puritanical terrorist. And he's the God who fucked up the whole life of Job because - and this is the bit that staggers me - Job believed in God. The Old Testament God has no issue with having a pop at those who disappoint him. He also sounds like a massive wanker as well, but that's a side issue.

The New Testament God is a little different. Some would argue that he ceases to be an interventionist, but I'd counter that by pointing out that having his son wandering around around the Middle East carrying out miracles is a little interventionist. Nonetheless, the God of the New Testament is a little more loving than his Old Testament incarnation. In fact, some of the teachings of Jesus are genuinely uplifting and revolutionary ideas that have never been properly tried in the real world. Love thy neighbour? Sounds pretty radical to me. And something people across the world and across history - including Christians - have never really tried to do. It is in the teachings of Jesus that we get the idea that "God is Love". In the Old Testament, you're left with the feeling "God is Angry. And Coming For You."

So to recap. We have a God whose son preaches love. A God who is willing to intervene in this world. And a God who is really ready and willing to have a go at those who don't do what God wants. So why the hell does this God allow the likes of George W Bush, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin to strut around dragging the concept of Christianity into the gutter? Those listed - and others like them - have nothing to do with messages of hope, tolerance, peace and love. They have nothing to do with faith. They prefer unthinking dogma and deep - sometimes violent - suspicion of those who don't share their faith. They take Christianity and use it as an excuse to dismiss other people and force their views on a world that God apparently gave free will to. They are an embarrassment to God and the religion based on his son's alleged teachings. And given God had no problem with intervening in the past, I do really wonder why he doesn't do something about these ersatz apostles right now. As the Editors sing, "If there really was a God here, he'd have raised a hand by now."

Of course, the above is a little tongue-in-cheek. It also requires quite a slanted reading of the Bible, and ignores the notion that God can't intervene in human matters without proving his own existence, and thus destroying the concept of faith. After all, it is very easy to have faith in something that is a proven fact. Yet what Christians could take from this is just how damaging it is to have leading lights such as Bush Junior and Palin representing their faith. Even if people were able to overcome the deeply unlikely central stories of the Christian faith, then they would still have to contend with the idea of joining a movement that was, for eight years, represented in a major way by one of the worst Presidents in the history of the USA. The problems many people have with Christianity in this day and age is not just having to buy into highly improbable stories of resurrection and miracles, but also having to buy into a faith increasingly dominated by ignorant dogmatists and those who appear to represent just about anything other than the more inspirational teachings of Jesus.

More on Moir

Jan Moir, apologising (sort of) for that article:

Yet as the torrent of abuse continued, most of it anonymous, I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers, many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine.

Their view, and mine, was that it was perfectly reasonable of me to comment upon the manner of Stephen Gately's death, even if there are those who think that his celebrity and sexuality make him untouchable.

Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.

There is something wonderfully Nixonian about talk of "the silent majority." It is a way of saying you have oodles of support, without having to prove that people support you. Maybe Moir did get thousands of supportive e-mails - the naked homophobia of her article would certainly provoke a certain type of Daily Mail reader to write in to praise her. But readers of that rag holding ignorant opinions is nothing new. What was quite life-affirming about the response to her rant was that so many people were prepared to protest about the ignorance of her claims.

And as for Gately's sexuality and celebrity being the reason why people protested about Moir's comments, well, that's a little misleading, isn't it? The reasons why people protested included the fact that Moir was pruriently speculating on a very recently deceased person, using rumour and innuendo to fill in for the absence of fact. Gately's sexual orientation only became an issue because the tone of Moir's article - including her opinions on civil partnerships - was blatantly homophobic.

We are not in a position where someone cannot question a person's behaviour if that person is (or was) gay. However, Moir spread rumour and sleazy innuendo about a man who had very recently died without any facts to back up her assertions. That, in itself, is deeply troubling. It says a lot about Moir and the paper she writes for. And if Moir truly wants to avoid being classed as a homophobe, then she should avoid making homophobic comments. It wasn't the fact that she commented on the behaviour of a gay man that was so problematic; it was rather the fact that she judged a dead man and his bereaved partner as sleazy based on no facts whatsoever, and extrapolated from her made up factoids towards a negative judgment on other homosexual couples and on the concept of civil partnerships.

And I find it very telling that Moir's defence of her actions is to try to rewrite history and change what she said in the first place.

Climate Change Insanity

It falls to another to accurately sum up my position on climate change as well as his own:

And I am not - I am, still, not - what they refer to, so offensively, as a "climate change denier". I believe that mankind can and does affect the planet, and I believe that effect is usually negative.

Will rising CO2 in the atmosphere cause warmer temperatures, changing weather patterns, and a few inches' rise in sea levels? Yeah, maybe - though the jury is still out. Even if the science were settled, though, does that justify dismantling the edifices of our civilisation, one by one? No, of course it doesn't. If it rains more, buy a fucking umbrella. If the seas rise, don't build your house on the beach.

I'd advise everyone to go and read the angry baby man's article in full - it neatly sums up just how insane the environmental industry lobby can be.

Ken Clarke and Expenses

Poor, poor Ken Clarke. He's been overcharged in the expenses payback scheme:

In a letter to the Tory frontbencher Sir Thomas suggested he should repay £4,733 of expenses claimed since 2004.

But on Wednesday he said it should have been £1,345.

This, lest we forget, ladies and gents, is the extremely wealthy former Chancellor of the Exchequer Ken Clarke who was initially expected to pay back nearly £5k. Instead, he has to pay back £1,345. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that this very rich man has to pay back anything at all is a pretty good indicator that he did something very wrong. The fact he has to pay back less than was originally thought doesn't mean he is absolved of his... well, let's be charitable and call it a mistake.

And besides, why has this very wealthy man claimed hundreds of thousands of pounds over the past few years in expenses? Now I know some (not least our elected *elite*) will argue that we need to pay exceptionally generous expenses in order to get the best into Parliament. Which would be fine, if we weren't talking about Ken Clarke and the like. Because Ken Clarke really is crap. He's someone who bumbles around pretending to be a man of the people whilst fleecing the people for every penny he can. He is also so politically incompetent and unpopular that he managed to lose not one, not two but three leadership contests - one to Iain Duncan Smith, for fuck's sake. If not paying generous expenses helps to keep people like Clarke out of the corridors of power, then it is yet another reason why we should restrict the amount MPs can take as payment and get people into Parliament who want to serve, rather than just earn.

Nick Griffin: Let The Moron Talk

Like many other people I'm sure, I heartily enjoyed watching Nick Griffin get his ass sorely whupped on Question Time. What is even more startling is that it was a panel that largely consisted of second rate (political) personalities. Just imagine how broken Griffin would have ended up if it had been a panel of real heavyweights. Intellectual heavyweights, I mean. Rather than the likes of Griffin, who are just really heavy because they weigh far too much.

But this really does bring into sharp relief the crassness of the likes of Peter Hain and that baying mob outside of the BBC yesterday. Because all those who wanted Griffin banned from Question Time and unable to debate on a national platform would have denied us the wonderful images of Griffin smirking, squirming, dissembling and desperately trying yet failing to salvage even an ounce of credibility from what was effectively an hour of political suicide broadcast live on TV. They would have have denied us the chance for Griffin to air his moronic, ignorant, paranoid and repugnant views and thus show them up for what they are - odious, racist and pathetic.

This won't bury the BNP - unfortunately, there will always be an audience for the knuckle-dragging racism of that party. But the oxygen of publicity is not something to fear with the BNP. Griffin shows that the oxygen of publicity is lethal to the BNP; it simple shows that the ignorant would-be emperor really has no clothes on, and his policies are best classified as repugnant racism.

If we truly want to bury the BNP, then give them a half an hour on Prime Time TV each week to debate anyone with more than a IQ of 32. Let them talk: the more they talk, the more idiotic they become and the more support they will lose. Let them talk: give them the biggest microphone in the country so that we can see just how repulsive they are and how stupid it is for anyone with even an iota of intellect to follow them.

Palin Writes!

No, not Michael Palin. Sadly.

Forgive me, but I won't be rushing to buy either of these books:

I don't need to read to read about how Palin is a nightmare. She exudes a happy, moronic ignorance towards reality in every single one of her pronouncements and the bitter legacy of the two Bush Junior Administrations shows just how fuck awful having an idiotic Christian fundamentalist in the White House can be. And as for reading Palin's autobiography - well, I'm sure it wouldn't take long but the seven and a quarter minutes it would take to read it would be a massive waste of time. What the fuck does she have to say about anything? Other than she buried the already floundering McCain bid for the White House?

Of course, this is part of a bid for the Presidency. What is worrying is just how popular it seems to be:

Going Rogue, written in just four months for a reported $7m (£4.4m) advance, pushed Dan Brown's new novel The Lost Symbol off the top spot on Amazon.com's bestseller lists earlier this month, over six weeks before publication.

Fucking hell. People want to read the unreadable. But the success of her autobiography is irrelevant. It is her political future that worries me. So let me just make this point clear to any readers of this blog who care: if Sarah Palin were to win the Republican nomination for President, then she (hopefully) would bury that party in the 2012 election. And in the deeply unlikely scenario of her winning any presidential election, I have no doubt that she could and would bury America as well.

What to do with the railroad?

The Moai, responding to yesterday's Quote of the Day:

'State ownership, state monopolies, state regulation and state planning, through the centralisation of economic power, inevitably lead to economic failure'

- what about the rail system? A public good, and a public monopoly. Now privatised and run by private companies, and as a result, rinsing the passenger for every penny. I posit that the Tory thirst for privatisation should have know some bounds ie. monopolies.

Well, in all honesty, I don't know. I don't think a nationally owned rail service is the answer to the problem of monopoly, but equally I don't think that privatisation has been that smashing for the railroads either. It does beg the question what the hell we should do with, for example, the railways, though. In the public sector, the railways were a joke. In the private sector they are still shit and still take up a lot of public funding. What can be done to create an efficient rail service? Or should we just give up on the whole fucking thing?

Answers in the comments section, please. There is a prize for the best one. Well, a (virtual) pat on the back, anyway.

Spam of the Day

Spam is fun. When it is really amateurish. Like this e-mail. "From" UPS. Apparently:

Unfortunately we were not able to deliver postal package you sent on October the 18st in time because the recipient's address is not correct.

Please print out the invoice copy attached and collect the package at our office

Your UPS

Ignoring the fact that I have never, ever used UPS, there are another couple of problems with this half arsed scam. Like the date: October the 18st? Do we mean 18th? Or that October is 18 stone? And why would the e-mail me if the recipient's address is not correct and then expect me to pick up the parcel at their office (for which there is no address)? Surely it would make more sense if UPS - who probably have some experience in the field of deliveries - asked for a clarification of the address?

But that is all nitpicking next to the most glorious of mistakes. Like the fact that the body of the e-mail talks about UPS, whilst the title line talks about Fedex Tracking N5421062126. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but UPS and FedEx are two different companies...

And then we have the e-mail address: From: United Parcel Service crispnessrlm7@rotis.com. Now, for some reason I'm pretty sure that UPS and/or FedEx don't use that e-mail address... So you'll have to forgive me, *crispness*, if I don't rush to open the document attached to your e-mail.

Royal Mail Wasters and Junk Mail

Regular readers will know that I am not a fan of the Royal Mail or their fucking strike. But it turns out that a BBC Have Your Say waster finds the silver lining to that strike:

I won't have any junk mail.

So says Marion Monahan of Bristol. Probably worth pointing out, Marion, that you won't get any mail during the strike, although I suspect that you don't get that much mail - or, indeed, that much interaction with just about anyone - anyway. But you might still get some junk mail through your letter box. Like the stuff that is hand-delivered.

Quote of the Day

The path away from economic freedom is, as Hayek long ago demonstrated, the road to serfdom. The road may be a long one: the pace may be swift or slow: but the destination cannot be changed. State ownership, state monopolies, state regulation and state planning, through the centralisation of economic power, inevitably lead to economic failure. They inevitably increase both the temptation and the scope for abuses of political power until freedom itself is threatened. The planned economies, the controlled societies which socialism requires, pervert what are truly economic decisions for the market into political decisions for the politician or the bureaucrat. The fruits of centralised economics are corruption, poverty and servility—and in the socialist society the only medicine which may be prescribed is heavier doses of the same socialist poison.

Norman Tebbit in 1985

RIP Barry Letts

It is probably safe to say that not everyone will know who Barry Letts was. However, to anyone who knows their Doctor Who (no pun intended), Barry Letts is an immediately identifiable name. Although, in fairness, his career encompasses far more than the time he spent as the Doctor's producer.

Still, it is as producer of Doctor Who that I best know of him. And whilst his tenure as producer of the show was not a personal favourite - it was the Pertwee era, where the Doctor became a moralising, preening grandmother - he was instrumental in securing the Doctor's future outside of the 1960's and some crucial enemies had their debuts under Letts - including the Master and the Sontarans. And, perhaps most importantly, he was responsible for the casting of one Tom Baker in the show's lead role - clearly one of the most important decisions ever made in the history of the programme.

Letts will be remembered as one of the crucial figures in the history of Doctor Who; and everyone who watches and enjoys the show now owes a substantial vote of thanks to the late Barry Letts.

Only 50 Days To Save The World!

Ignoring the hysterical climate change nonsense inherent within the statement (as difficult as it might be to do so), take a look at Gordon Brown's latest pronouncement:

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".

Right. Riiiiggght. So, having been in one of the most important positions in the UK government since May 2nd, 1997, and having been in charge of that government since 27 June 2007, he now decides - with 50 days to go - to lead a charge towards "solving" climate change. I'm sorry, but what about the preceding 12 years? What was wrong with doing something in the decade and a bit that Brown has been at the very heart of our government? Talk about leaving everything to the last minute...

Now, there are two possible interpretations to this hasty hyperbole. On the one hand, he could really believe that we only have 50 days to save the world. In which case he is an incompetent moron who needs to learn to prioritise the saving of the world over such things as commenting on that hairy testicle who sang on Britain's Got Talent. On the other hand, he might not believe at all in this 50 day deadline - in which case he is a shallow, manipulative oik trying to create panic to distract people from his own failing political career.

So there we have it - either the Prime Minister is an incompetent moron or a shallow, manipulative oik. Neither is a particularly attractive category for a Prime Minister, and it gets worse when you consider that Gordon is probably both.

Banning v. Boycotting

John Demetriou - of Boateng and Demetriou fame - has created some consternation in the Libertarian community with this call:

Enough people have had it brought to their attention. The Mail is a sick, nasty, deranged fascist rag and ought to be shunned, ignored, boycotted and publicly reviled.

Personally, I couldn't agree more. I think the Mail should be ignored, boycotted etc. I can't stand the fucking hatefilled rag. However others don't seem to agree, leading to another post on the same site entitled There's nothing unlibertarian about boycotting. Which is, of course, absolutely true.

There is a difference between a ban and a boycott. The former wants to remove the ability of other people to make a decision about what they read/hear/view, whilst the latter offers advice on what someone might read/hear/view. A boycott on The Daily Mail would not restrict anybody's ability to read such a rag (although heaven knows why they would want to), merely show the outrage some feel about that crappy newspaper. A ban removes freedom of choice and closes down freedom of speech; a boycott allows for freedom of choice and is an exercise in freedom of speech.

And that is why I think that both the Jan Moir article and the various responses to it (including Demetriou's) are fine examples of the freedom of speech in action. Moir has the right to say what she wants in this country - even if her opinions are repugnant and odious. And then everyone else has a right to turn round and tell her what a complete fuckwit she truly is.

Royal Mail Wasters: You are either with them or are "stupid"

The Communication Workers Union has described Royal Mail's decision to hire up to 30,000 temporary workers as "a stupid move".

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? These are the people who are crippling their own organisation because it can't and therefore won't guarantee them jobs for life. Although it really is pot and kettle time when someone taking part in the Royal Mail strike starts calling someone else stupid.

"Technology is providing new ways of communicating," City minister Lord Myners told CWU general secretary Billy Hayes on the BBC's Andrew Marr show.

"People who can't use the mail next week, Billy, are going to find other ways of communicating.

"And you are placing your members' lives and jobs at risk if you don't get back to the negotiating table."

Not only that, but they are really going to fucking hate all those who have gone on strike. Those striking Royal Mail workers may yet strike themselves onto the dole queue.

Here's hopin'!

Crime of the Century!

The scripts for Harry Enfield's new comedy series have been stolen:

Ideas and material for a new series of Harry Enfield's comedy show with Paul Whitehouse have been stolen from a car.

The thoughts for his Harry & Paul show, to be shown on BBC Two next year, were contained on a laptop computer taken in Notting Hill, west London.

You never know what you might get when you lift a laptop - bank details, addresses and phone numbers, porn. Yet these stupid fucks ended up with the scripts for a Harry Enfield TV programme - something arguably worth less than soiled underwear. Not that it stopped them from having a go at making some money from this crime:

The thieves later phoned Enfield demanding £750 for the return of the computer, which he refused to pay, according to the Mail on Sunday.

£750? That much? My, that's mightily ambitious. They could probably get £50 for the laptop. But I struggle to see anyone - even the man himself - paying £700 for Harry Enfield's latest scripts. After all, he hasn't really said or done anything funny this millennium. They'd have been better off trying to steal the car radio.

A BBC spokeswoman said: "Filming doesn't start for another six months. There were only early thoughts on the laptop and not actual scripts, so it won't impact on filming for the series."

That's a shame. That's a real shame. Just goes to show no good will come from this particular crime. It can't even postpone the filming and broadcast of Enfield's latest *comedy* show...

Nick Clegg:

The Liberal Democrats could stop supporting the UK's military presence in Afghanistan unless strategy is changed, leader Nick Clegg said.

This could be a little bit more groundbreaking and interesting if it mattered in the slightest what the Lib Dems think about the war in Afghanistan. As it stands, it really doesn't. If Clegg had turned around and said "you know what, we don't have a policy in Afghanistan because, as the perennial third party, we don't need one" it would have made just as much difference as his comments that supporting the Afghan war is not unconditional for his party. In fact, had he said that he didn't need a policy that would arguably have been better, because at least it would have had a greater connection with reality.

Has anyone else noticed that Jenson Button - who apparently has won something - looks a lot like Chris Martin of Coldplay *fame*?

Quote of the Day

"The new right is a term that refers to both libertarians and neoconservatives. But there is a very important difference between these two advocates of economic liberalism: libertarians are consistent liberals, whereas neoconservatives are not. Libertarians are consistent liberals because they are advocates of a minimal state, not only where the economy is concerned, but where social life is concerned. In other words, they mean to keep government out of our pocketbooks as well as out of bedrooms... In contrast, neoconservatism combines capitalist economics with conservative social policies. It aims to keep the government out of the economy, but not out of the bedrooms, the schools, the arts, publishing, and broadcasting."

Shadia B. Drury

Royal Mail Wasters and an attempt at humour

At our local Royal Mail Delivery Office - where we have to go when the postman refuses to drop of parcels owing to his wearying mix of an angry demeanour and general workshy attitude - there is a home made sign up. It reads:

"Sarcasm is just another service we offer."

Presumably out back they have one of those signs saying "You don't have to be lazy crazy to work here, but it helps" and other jokes that would make David Brent proud.

Unfortunately, sarcasm seems to be the only service the Royal Mail now offers. The talk of service seems insane at a time when they cannot even offer the basic service of delivering the fucking mail. I can't say I'd ever be a particular fan of their ersatz, forced version of "humour", but it would taste a little less fucking bitter if they spent more time making sure the mail gets to where it should be going and less time on shitty signs.

A Spending Cut Proposal

Obviously it is the done thing in modern British politics - after years of unrealistic and unconvincing denials - to talk about spending cuts and to start ear-marking potential areas of government influence for the chop. Now, I'd like to propose a cut in spending that I genuinely think everyone can get behind. Yes, I think we should stop spending money on failing banks.

For Marxists, this sort of behaviour is simply propping up the "terrible" capitalist regime. For socialists and social democrats, this is rewarding failed rich people and taking resources away from those more "deserving" of government cash. For conservatives, bailing out failing businesses means people are absolved of responsibility for their failings by the government. And for free market capitalists, this represents yet another unwarranted and unwanted government intervention in the economy.

And for the man on the street, who has been indoctrinated with the idea that bankers are bad through a programme of government indoctrination and propaganda that truly would make Stalin proud, this is again a good thing because those bankers are pretty much evil.

I know we have already invested a lot in some of these banks, and that if we don't continue to prop them up then that investment is pretty much gone. Yet partial government ownership doesn't seem to be helping the likes of Lloyds pull themselves up out of the shit, and I can't help but think that all we are doing is increasing the amount we are inevitably going to lose when the government finds it can no longer bail these banks out.

There is such a thing of throwing good money after bad; and it increasingly looks as if funding Lloyds et al is doing precisely that.

The Tendency of the Daily Mail: Hate-filled Homophobia.

Some readers may be aware that my old mucker the Moai and I used to run a blog called The Daily Mail Tendency. It was dedicated to showing just how awful that rag is. Unfortunately, we simply could not keep up with all of their ignorance and hate-mongering. In fact, most days it was next to impossible to choose which article to focus on. Yet The Daily Mail has surpassed itself. It has published an article so filled with ignorance, hate and an utter lack of anything even approaching logic that I just have to comment on it - albeit here rather than on the Tendency. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the now famous Jan Moir article on Stephen Gately's death. You can tell just how awful it is going to be by the title: A strange, lonely and troubling death . . .

The news of Stephen Gately's death was deeply shocking. It was not just that another young star had died pointlessly.

It isn't often that a death really has a point. In fact, I struggle to think of any occasion when a death truly had a point. Except, you know, for suicide bombers. Who die to make their point.

Through the recent travails and sad ends of Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and many others, fans know to expect the unexpected of their heroes - particularly if those idols live a life that is shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice.

You'd be forgiven, on reading that paragraph, for thinking that Jackson and Ledger died in exactly the same way. Of course, they didn't. They didn't die in the same way or even at the same age. And it is a truly base mind that sees lives of talent - that Ledger and Jackson undeniably led - in terms of their tragic demises.

There are dozens of household names out there with secret and not-so-secret troubles, or damaging habits both past and present.

Robbie, Amy, Kate, Whitney, Britney; we all know who they are. And we are not being ghoulish to anticipate, or to be mentally braced for, their bad end: a long night, a mysterious stranger, an odd set of circumstances that herald a sudden death.

Actually, you really are being ghoulish if you are waiting for someone to die. Jan Moir, you aren't so much rubbernecking to watch the car crash, you are say on the side of the motorway willing the car crash to happen. You are like an ineffectual Carrie White, wanting disaster to happen to someone else to make you feel better. Their bad end is your prurient, odious spectator sport.

In the morning, a body has already turned cold before the first concerned hand reaches out to touch an icy celebrity shoulder. It is not exactly a new storyline, is it?

What, famous people dying in the night? Of course it isn't a new story. Gately isn't the first celebrity to die in the night! And it isn't a "storyline" either. It is a personal tragedy for Gately's family, for fuck's sake.

In fact, it is rather depressingly familiar. But somehow we never expected it of him. Never him. Not Stephen Gately.

No, of course not. No-one ever expected Gately to die. He was always going to be the immortal member of Boyzone.

In the cheerful environs of Boyzone, Gately was always charming, cute, polite and funny.

A founder member of Ireland's first boy band, he was the group's co-lead singer, even though he could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk.

I look forward to Jan Moir's debut single, where she proves that she is the greatest singer in the world, ever. Maybe she can release I Will Survive, in tribute to her now hopefully moribund career. I mean, even if you thought Gately was the worst singer ever (he wasn't) then this isn't really the time to have a pop at him as a vocalist, is it?

He was the Posh Spice of Boyzone, a popular but largely decorous addition.

I hope Posh Spice sues. I would.

Gately came out as gay in 1999 after discovering that someone was planning to sell a story revealing his sexuality to a newspaper.

Although he was effectively smoked out of the closet, he has been hailed as a champion of gay rights, albeit a reluctant one.

Right, so, Gately was smoked out of the closet by someone trying to sell his story to a newspaper. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Moir works for a newspaper that would have no issue with buying a story about a star's private life. Besides, the clue is in the word "private". That is what Gately's private life - and death - should have been. Fucking private.

At the time, Gately worried that the revelations might end his ultra-mainstream career as a pin-up, but he received an overwhelmingly positive response from fans. In fact, it only made them love him more.

Good on the fans.

And given Jan Moir's odious, homophobic response - sadly typical of the piss awful rag she writes for - to Gately's death, I can entirely understand why Gately wanted to keep his private life private.

In 2006, Gately entered into a civil union with internet businessman Andrew Cowles, who had been introduced to him by mutual friends Elton John and David Furnish.

Last week, the couple were enjoying a holiday together in their apartment in Mallorca before their world was capsized.

To summarise - Gately was part of a couple who met through friends, and sadly he died on holiday with his love.

All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances. The Gately family are - perhaps understandably - keen to register their boy's demise on the national consciousness as nothing more than a tragic accident.

Given there is no evidence - unless Moir has some sort of unlikely form of divine omniscience - that this was anything other than a natural death, of course Gately's family are keen to register it as a tragic accident. What the fuck else would they do? Why in their moment of terrible, jarring grief would they want to add further, false drama to this sad death?

Even before the post-mortem and toxicology reports were released by the Spanish authorities, the Gatelys' lawyer reiterated that they believed his sudden death was due to natural causes.

Whereas Jan Moir - who seems to know fuck all about this incident beyond her own pathetic yet glaring prejuidices - seems to think that her opinion counts for more that Gately's lawyer before the post-mortem and toxicology reports are released. Fucking hell, she must have some awesome sources. Or else she is just making this up as she goes along.

But, hang on a minute. Something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun into nothing more than an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend, like a broken teacup in the rented cottage.

Oh. My. God. Could the deeply held homophobia been any clearer? A rented cottage? A rented cottage? I actually feel a bit sick at the levels of ignorance, malice and spite spat out by Moir in that sentence. It is utterly, utterly odious. Something is terribly wrong. With Jan Moir.

Consider the way it has been largely reported, as if Gately had gently keeled over at the age of 90 in the grounds of the Bide-a-Wee rest home while hoeing the sweet pea patch.

The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

Yeah, of course, because no person in their thirty-third year has ever died before. In fact, people only ever die when they are old. The sad fact is, for people who live in the real fucking world (somewhere Moir only seems to have the most limited connection with), people do fall asleep in their thirties and never wake up again.

Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this. All that has been established so far is that Stephen Gately was not murdered.

How does Moir know the death was not a natural one? Really, how does she know? Because logically, she knows no more than the next person. The only reason why she might think this death wasn't natural is because - as this article shows - she thinks Gately's life was not natural. Because she is a nasty little homophobe.

And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.

After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards.

If we were going to be honest, we'd - Moir included - have to confess we all know fuck all about this death. But that would rather ruin Moir's article, wouldn't it?

And it is disrespectful to assume. I could assume that Moir is disappointed that Gately was gay because she fancied him and wanted him all for her own. But I won't assume that. Because it is disrespectful.

Cowles and Dochev went to the bedroom together while Stephen remained alone in the living room.

What happened before they parted is known only to the two men still alive. What happened afterwards is anyone's guess.

In other words, Moir is forced to confirm that she has no idea what happened before or after Gately died. But that is not going to stop this fucking pathetic creature painting those events in the worst way possible, filled with pregnant innuendo.

A post-mortem revealed Stephen died from acute pulmonary oedema, a build-up of fluid on his lungs.

Gately's family have always maintained that drugs were not involved in the singer's death, but it has just been revealed that he at least smoked cannabis on the night he died.

Nevertheless, his mother is still insisting that her son died from a previously undetected heart condition that has plagued the family.

Right, so Gately died on a build up of fluid in his lungs that may have been a genetic complaint - according to his mother, who probably knows about such things. Yet Moir knows better than his mother, and throws the word cannabis in there for to terrify The Daily Mail readership who equate cannabis with something lethal like smallpox. For those of us who are a little more rational, let me posit a relevant question - what the fuck does cannabis have to do with Gately's death?

Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.

Really? How? I mean, no-one ever died in a heterosexual marriage, did they? And every heterosexual marriage is beyond reproach. What a load of fucking crap. This death shows nothing other than a man died who was married to another man.

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

It is true. Not everyone is like George Michael. I think we should all be grateful for Moir pointing out this beyond obvious comment. Where would we be without morons like Moir to point out the fucking obvious?

And same-sex relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. Except bigots like Moir hate the former, and mindlessly venerate the latter.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

What the hell does the tragic suicide of McGee had to do with the natural death of Gately? Oh, they were both gay. Not that Moir is focussed on their sexual orientation, of course.

It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death.

And Moir's article does one hell of a lot to cloud whatever truth will emerge about Gately's death, with it's mix of unfounded innuendo and crass, ignorant assumptions.

As a gay rights champion, I am sure he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine.

As a gay rights champion (if he was actually one), I'm fairly sure Gately would want to scream obscenities in Moir's face for being such a maladjusted, hate-filled wankstain. And what would people emulate from Gately's "glamorous routine"? Going on holiday? Dying? Because most people are going to do both at some point. Including Moir.

For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.

Or to put it another way, the "ooze" of the homosexual life.

Can anyone really see Moir writing this heinous article or The Daily Mail printing what is a vicious attack on a recently deceased man if that man wasn't gay? This is slandering a dead man. It is utterly, compellingly, and nauseously wrong against every available parameter. This article sums up entirely why The Daily Mail Tendency existed, and just how fucking awful that paper is.

When is an endorsement not in any way useful?

When it is from Silvio Berlusconi, as this wonderfully acidic piece of writing from The Guardian:

Tony Blair's bid for the presidency of Europe may have been struggling to make headway, but today it hit a rock when he won the endorsement he must secretly have been dreading.

In a letter published in an Italian newspaper, Silvio Berlusconi threw his less than colossal moral authority behind his old friend's candidacy. The man who promised to put Britain "at the heart of Europe", but chose to stay out of the euro and maintain border controls, had "all his papers in order to become the first president of the European council [of ministers] under the terms of the Lisbon treaty", the Italian prime minister declared.

It is this sort of endorsement that could really sink Blair's bid to become EU President. So I'm hoping that Berlusconi's backing damages Blair's bid badly, and I also am desperately hoping for another, even more damaging endorsement for Blair. Wouldn't it be just wonderful if George W Bush stepped forward, and said that he too wanted Blair to become EU President...

Royal Mail Wasters: The Plan

From the BBC:

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) has announced two nationwide strikes.

It said earlier on Thursday that the 24-hour strikes will begin on 22 October. On the first day, mail centre staff and drivers will strike. The next day it will be delivery and collection staff.

Is it wrong to say that I can't wait until these fuckers bankrupt the Royal Mail and are all on the dole queue? Is it really wrong to say that? Because that is what I am thinking. And that is what I'm thinking they deserve. But I'll stop short of calling them work-shy, money hungry wankers. Again, they might deserve such a comment, but I wouldn't dignify them with that level of burning rage.

The Last Freedom Fighter

One man is taking a stand. He is letting it be known that he cannot and will not stand by as this government drowns this country in petty, meaningless, pointless laws. He takes direct action when others meekly comply. And, amazingly, that man is Noel Edmonds.

I can't help but think that this campaign of petty regulation breaking would be more inspirational if it wasn't in the hands of a deeply irritating millionaire. Because whilst the government is responsible for a lot of shit, at least they never inflicted Mr Blobby on the nation. I mean, John Prescott maybe grossly fat, but he isn't spotty like Blobby. And Blobby is much more coherent than Prescott.

Still, I look forward to seeing how Edmonds' campaign evolves. Although I reckon that if it ends up in court, there'll be no deal for Noel...

Jacqui Smith, Meet Political Oblivion. Political Oblivion, Meet Jacqui

It would take a heart of stone not to be moved into some sort of emotion by the misfortunes of one Jacqui Smith. And by emotion I mean floods of hysterical, joyous tears of wonderous happiness:

Jacqui Smith faces political ruin as a result of the damning verdict that a Commons watchdog passed on her expenses claims and because police support officers contradicted her account of her movements.

Oh, my, yes, that's wonderful, wonderful news. A career that was already on the skids now faces absolute political ruin. Oh yes, that's just what the doctor ordered. Near perfect stuff.

Not that Jacqui Smith would agree:

Ms Smith said that the report vindicated her claim that she spent substantial amounts of time in a house in London owned by her sister, which she designated as her main home.

Of course she says she was vindicated by the report. She is a Nu Labour politician. Any report vindicates her. Even if the report was called "Jacqui Smith Is A Corrupt Fucktard And Deserves Summary Execution In The Format Of Shooting In The Back Of The Head For Her Crimes", it would vindicate her in her eyes. She's probably been briefed by Mandelson himself, who is an expert at making the most damning of condemnation look like a pat on the back.

Unfortunately, the facts do not agree with Ms Smith's "take" on the "truth":

But John Lyon revealed that police guarding the property questioned the veracity of the former Home Secretary’s evidence, with their records showing that the number of nights she had spent in London was at odds with Ms Smith’s account. He says that last year the police figures suggested that Ms Smith spent 37 more nights in Redditch than she had in London; her estimates based on her diary suggested that the difference was nine nights. Figures for the previous year suggest that she had spent 12 more nights in Redditch than in London.

Right, so on the one hand we can believe the self-serving estimates of an incompetent, corrupt politician, or on the other we can believe the police. I'm not a fan of either; however, in these circumstances, I'm in favour of the police account of events. Which means the evidence shows that Smith is not only not fit to hold high office, but she isn't fit to be an MP.

However, that doesn't mean I think she should step down. Oh no, Smith should fight on. She should try to retain her seat. Because - even though her constituency is in Redditch - I don't think any set of voters would be willing to return the odious Jacqui Smith to the Commons. She has been forced from her job in the Cabinet, forced from her position as a possible Labour leadership contender, and forced back on to the backbenchers. Her fall from grace has been startling. And what better way to cap that off than to see her booted out of the Commons at the next election by a sizable majority?

Since we're probably not going to see Smith imprisoned for her corruption, ritual public humiliation will have to do.

Quote of the Day

The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.

Aldous Huxley, 1894-1963

The Editors: In This Light and On This Evening

I'm a big fan of the Editors. Now, they don't particularly offer anything original in their music - you can trace their lineage back to early Echo and the Bunnymen, Joy Division and Wire without using any imagination at all. Yet their lack or originality doesn't change the fact that in this day and age, when indie music is the trite warblings of Coldplay or Keane, that they sound different. They have an edgy passion to their music that is seldom seen in this, the age of the anodyne. And their music is far more immediate and urgent than the endless chin-stroking of, say, Radiohead.

Their new album is something of a departure. It loses a lot of the spiky guitar and edgy post-punk sound that defined so much of their first two efforts. Instead we have a prevalence of synths and mechanised drumbeats. It isn't the first time that a indie guitar band has gone in a more synthetic direction this year - witness the Franz Ferdinand album - but it is clear to me at least that the Editors succeed where Franz Ferdinand failed.

The reason is simple. Franz Ferdinand are no more original that the Editors, and both fell back on other influences to help them craft their third albums. Yet the Editors fell back on far more interesting influences than Franz Ferdinand. You can here the impact of "Closer" era Joy Division, and decent Depeche Mode, and Kraftwerk on the Editors' album. Whereas, Franz Ferdinand's work comes across as a cross between Girls Aloud and an unusually lusty version of the Bay City Rollers.

Ultimately, the Editors are a very derivative band. But what they continually show is that if you are going to be derivative, it is best to be derivative of the most interesting bands.

Royal Mail Wasters: Facebook 'em!

I was going to go on Facebook and create a group called "Royal Mail Are A Useless Bunch of Fucking Lazy Wankstains." Then I was hit by my usual indolence, and by a realisation that some other people have already created such groups. Albeit with slightly more temperate language in their group names.

Here are a couple of them for you to join. Oh, and spread the word and let me know of any other Facebook groups dedicated to the loathing of a postal service that doesn't like to deliver the mail. One of the groups I've linked to is called "Royal Mail Are..." - I'd complete that sentence by saying "Royal Mail Are In Desperate Need Of Immediate Privatisation." If I was feeling polite.

Self-Pitying Shits

Yes, I know I am a zealous ranter when it comes to the issues of MPs' expenses fraud, but they did rinse the public purse for all it was worth under the guise of being public servants. Frankly, they deserve as much abuse as we can throw at them. The thieving fucks. Particularly when they are quick to get out the world's smallest violin and start manically playing it for a bit of completely undeserved sympathy:

One unnamed MP told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "An accountant will always find errors in the expenses claims especially on claims of such magnitude over a long period but the only ones publicised are the over-claims, no-one ever mentioned the under-claims."

No. No-one does mention the under-claims. Because the point of expenses isn't that you have to spend them - rather, there is an allowance there if you need it. And given MPs work directly for the public purse, and are supposed to represent the British people, you might have thought they'd be less keen to spend, spend, spend. When your expenses are paid by an already grossly over-stretched taxpayer, frugality becomes a virtue.

"The need to please the press and get back in their good books has produced a total over-reaction and it has been very badly handled. We were treated despicably today when we were waiting for our letters, we felt as though the sword of Damocles was hanging over us."

I don't give the first fuck whether MPs get back in the good books of the press - they should want to get back into the good books of the people they have so badly betrayed. And expecting MPs to pay money back to the public purse isn't an over-reaction; it is actually quite a moderate response. I'd like to see everyone of them who abused the system sacked and facing prosecution, and the worst offenders locked up. And that isn't an over-reaction either; it is what would happen to anyone who got involved in this sort of swindle but didn't have the good fortune to be employed as an MP.

MPs weren't treated despicably when they were waiting for their letters* - they have actually been treated throughout this debacle with a reverence that is completely unjustifiable and would not be extended to the "man in the street" who found himself in a similar position. The only reason why they might feel the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads is if they are guilty. And in that situation, I think the only fair thing to do is to hope that the sword came crashing down and cleaved the greedy fuckers in two.

Finally, I love the fact the MP is "unnamed". Wonder why that might be? Possibly because that MP knows their spurious sympathy bid is likely to upset people rather than convert them to the cause of supporting our beleaguered political class. But I'd love to know who the unnamed MP is**; I'd be tempted to head to their constituency at the next election and campaign as heartily as possible for everyone in that area to vote the fuck awful incumbent out of Parliament for good.

*Which I am surprised arrived on time if they went through the Royal Mail.

**I have a couple of MPs in mind who might be capable of coming up with this sort of shite.

Post-Conference Analysis

Now the party conference season is (mercifully) behind us, I thought I would offer some thoughts on where the main parties now stand:

• The Liberal Democrats are positioning themselves to replace Labour as the progressive party in this country. Frankly, fat fucking chance. Their best bet is to hope they become the junior partner in a coalition. Yet the "savage cuts" rhetoric of Lib Dem leader Clegg jars with the "tax the rich" rhetoric of the barely concealed socialism of the most popular Lib Dem Cable. I suspect they need to work out a functioning coalition within the confines of their own party before they should start worrying about a coalition with another party.
• The Labour Party are fucked; their conference - with Mandelson's assertion that he would work for the Tories, the defection of The Sun and the feeble reminders to the party faithful that they still need to fight the next election even though they will lose - all brought this into sharp relief. Replace Gordon? Why would they bother? They are resigned to defeat - even if it is to be a deep and humiliating one.
• The Conservative Party are starting to act like the next government without taking on too much arrogant swagger. Yet for me the most striking part of the conference was the use of the song "I'm a Believer". For me, it was at jarring reminder that the Tories are still offering very little to actively believe in.

Which is the point. Three parties held their conferences just months before the next General Election needs to be held. And there was nothing in any of the conferences to inspire me in any way. The most hope I can muster is a vague desire that Labour does not win the next election. The three main parties all failed to make a case as to why they should win the next election, and reminded me that whilst those parties aren't identical, there is precious little in the rhetoric to genuinely separate them and inspire faith in any one of them.

How do we get politicians to carry out their promises of reducing the size of the state?

Bob's Head Revisited on Compromise Cameron:

I also liked what he said about small government. But many believers in small government have said this over the years - Reagan and Thatcher spring to mind. In both cases, the state grew much bigger under them. It’s an extremely hard thing to do. The more areas a government tries to change or improve the more they got involved. The pressure is on them to ‘do something’, and unfortunately they invariably do. And as they do, they feed the monster.

This is spot on, as far as I am concerned. The Moai and I have often mused on the fact that it is the general trend of governments once in power to bring further control towards themselves and therefore expand the reach of the state. Even if parties are elected on a platform of reducing the size of the state - and even if they start by doing precisely that - they reach a critical point in any administration and start going towards increased state control. And as soon as they do that, they can't stop.

Which does beg the question of exactly what can be done to stop this terrible trend. And to be honest with you, I am at a loss to provide any sort of a meaningful answer. It is part of the psychological make-up of those who seek power to want increase that power, that influence, that control when they win the right to govern. And the pressure, as BHR points out, is always on governments to "do something" - and doing something normally involves a new law or a new initiative - or anything that erodes the autonomy of individuals in this country.

The best I can come up with is to elect a party whose explicit manifesto is to reduce the scope of the state. We need a party who not only believes in small government, but who also explicitly wants to create a smaller state and who doesn't perceive change in society having to come from an increase in the size and/or the reach of the state. Regular readers will know which party I believe is most likely to be able to achieve this end. Yet I still don't know what can be done to stop a government from flexing its muscles and "problem solving" through intrusive legislation when the paedophile strikes, or the terrorist attacks, or when something terrible happens. At the end of the day trusting a politician to voluntarily cede their hard fought for power and limit their sphere of influence requires a massive leap of faith - a leap of faith that can't be justified by the behaviour of governments in the past.