Profiling and the Impossible Dream of Absolute Security

One of the most startling things about the War on Terror is the number of supposed miracle cures for a phenomenon that dates back to biblical times. If we introduce full body scanners at airports or increase the amount of time that people can be held for without charge or if we invade another country then everyone will be safe. Of course, that is palpable nonsense, but it doesn’t stop people spouting this sort of crap.

Like in this Telegraph article, where we learn that everything will be ok if we allow profiling of air passengers. In fairness, the article stops just short of arguing for profiling based on an explicitly racial basis, although given the gushing praise heaped on stop and search procedures designed to halt knife crime you can sense that this is what is being alluded to throughout the article. No, what the author does explicitly call for is profiling and searching those who have behaved suspiciously. And what constitutes suspicious seems to be flying from Nigeria to Amsterdam, and then paying for a one-way ticket to the USA with cash.

Ignoring the fact that people might travel across the world paying in cash for any number of reasons, the big flaw in this logic is that it assumes that the terrorist threat is essentially static. It isn’t. Terrorists adopt different methods as the authorities learn how to fight them. If you’re going to stop and search those who pay for their tickets in cash, then the terrorist will pay for his tickets by credit card. If those with one-way tickets are profiled, and singled out for more rigorous searches, then the terrorist will buy a return ticket. After all, a return ticket offers two chances to down the aircraft.

And you can extrapolate from there. If you search young men who look like Muslims, then the next bomber will be a white man. Search all young men, then it will be a woman with a bomb. Skip the little old lady in the queue, then at some point she’ll be your bomber. Until you are in the position where a kid is turned into a living weapon, and you’ve got an aircraft downed by a child. Don’t believe me? Well, consider this. One of the reasons for the growth in female suicide bombers is because of the comparative ease of getting them through a checkpoint without the sort of searches their male counterparts are subjected to.

Guess what? Terrorists adapt.

As well as increasing the likelihood of catching the bomber who doesn’t fit “the profile”, random searches are fairer. And fairness is an important consideration. I resent it when I have to take my shoes off at an airport, but I understand it. Because either everyone does it or a random selection of people do it, it is ok. But I would be irate if I was selected to be searched based on the colour of my skin, or because of by beliefs. Profiling discriminates – by definition. And discrimination increases the likelihood of radicalisation. So profiling could increase the number of terrorists. A counter-productive move, if ever there was one.

The article talks about the “absence of reality” in those who oppose counter-terrorist methods like profiling. Let me talk about the “absence of reality” in those who believe that ideas like profiling will increase security. You could do what you like to try to stop the likes of the underpants bomber through any number of invasive security procedures, but guess what? That attack failed anyway. And even if you turn airports into a dystopian security nightmare, you’re still not going to stop four lads from the North getting onto a train, coming to London and killing 52 people. Your plans are fuck all use against the most devastating terrorist attack this country has faced.

So go away and try to create your hermetically sealed security bubble, and watch the terrorist find a way around it. Or instead you could invest time in trying to find ways to engage with those at risk of being radicalised. You won’t stop terrorism, but you might help to minimize its recurrence without devastating civil liberties in pursuit of the impossible dream of absolute security.

Precious

I must admit, I really didn’t know what to make of Precious before I sat down to watch it yesterday evening. It could have gone either way – it could have been a challenging and rewarding view or it could have been sentimental tripe. It was the former – very much so.

Detailing the grim life of an illiterate black teenager in New York in the 1980’s, it pulls no punches in showing just how unpleasant life can be. Precious is pregnant for the second time – her first baby, called Mongo (as a brutally descriptive term for the baby’s Down’s Syndrome) lives with the grandmother, except when the social worker comes around. The father of Precious’ children is her father – she was raped by her father from a young age. Her mother despises Precious for stealing her lover from her, and is horrifically abusive towards her daughter as a result.

In fact, the mother is one of the most memorable screen monsters I have seen in a long time. She lives off welfare, sitting in her chair, eating, occasionally retiring to bed to masturbate. She throws bottles at her daughter’s head, then throws water in her face to revive her. She despises her disabled granddaughter, and treats her mother with barely disguised disgust. She has no issue with dropping a baby to the floor, and indeed attempts to hurl a television set onto the heads of her daughter and her newly born grandson. She is a simmering bag of lard and barely contained hatred. When her lifetime of resentment and cruelty is exposed by a social worker, she does what all bullies do – she retreats into self-pity and desperate begging. As a character, she is simultaneously contemptible and terrifying.

The presentation of welfare in this film is also interesting. It is made clear that the family is dependent on welfare – indeed, the mother insists that Precious gets herself down to the welfare office to maximise their government funding of their empty lives. The mother makes it clear that she sees no point in education. All Precious needs to do is sign on, and the rest of her life is taken care of. Interestingly, when Precious finally does flee from her mother, she is saved by the charity of her teacher, who takes Precious and her baby into her home. Welfare doesn’t save Precious, the kindness of another person does. The film presents a rebuke to all those who venerate welfare mindlessly, and who believe it is always better than private charity.

Which is the triumph of Precious. It is difficult viewing, and at times truly tragic. Yet is it challenging and through-provoking. And given the amount of bland, candy-floss film-making that passes for entertainment today, that is something to be celebrated.

Quote of the Day

"Morality is personal. There is no such thing as a collective conscience, collective kindness, collective gentleness, collective freedom.

"To talk of social justice, social responsibility, a new world order, may be easy and make us feel good, but it does not absolve each of us from personal responsibility."

Margaret Thatcher, espousing the sort of views that

the Tory party of today would do well to heed, if only

because it might actually make them worth voting for.

I've added a "Donate" button to the sidebar.

I've never made a penny from this blog, and I doubt that will change in the near future. However, I'd like to, even if it is literally just a penny. Any funds I get from this button will go towards my PhD, which is going to be on how mainstream political discourse/debate in this country is pretty much dead in this country.

So feel free to donate, if you want. You can do so because you like this blog, or because you like giving money to strangers, or, to paraphrase Jackart, to buy the Nameless Libertarian a pint.

Ta.

Creationism is not scientific fact, people.

I despair sometimes, I really do. Particularly when the creationists are getting vocal:

A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.

Good. I'm glad. I'm really pleased. I'm really pleased that they are being fucking failed. They deserve to fail if they try to pass off religious works as scientific fact. It is a bit like quoting Animal Farm in a history essay. It isn't real.

Of course, it isn't just religious nutters getting failed in exams that's the problem. No, what is more worrying is the creationists who get through:

One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors.

See, I don't care what a doctor thinks as long as he can treat me. Yet I have to question whether someone who dismisses the teachings of Darwinism in favour of the teachings of a religious text is really capable of being an effective doctor. If I have a tumour that needs removing, then I want the doctor's first response to be surgery. Rather than prayer.

And it is the complete inability of some to see the stupidity of what they say that really gets to me:

A 21-year-old medical student and member of the Islamic Society, who did not want to be named, said that the Qur'an was clear that man had been created and had not evolved as Darwin suggests. "There is no scientific evidence for it [Darwin's Origin of Species]. It's only a theory. Man is the wonder of God's creation."

So, you are willing to dismiss Darwin yet assert that "Man is the wonder of God's creation" as if it is a fact. I can accept that Darwin's theory is, well, a theory, but surely to fuck you can see that God creating the world is a theory with a lot less evidence behind it that Darwinism. I mean, this is just plain ridiculous.

I have no issue with people holding whatever views they wish to hold. You want to believe in God, feel free. But your belief is not a scientific fact. If it was, then it would undermine the faith so essential to Christian teaching. I mean, I belief that the people who watch The X Factor and enjoy it are a little less human that those that don't, but the fact that I have this belief doesn't make it fact. And as a result it can never be used as factual evidence. Just as the fiction theory of creationism cannot be used factual evidence either.

Blair: Liar or Moron?

Tony Blair, on Iraq:

Mr Blair said British policy towards Saddam was transformed by the terror attacks on America in September 2001.

He said: "I would fairly describe our policy up to September 11 as doing our best, hoping for the best but with a different calculus of risk assessment."

He added: "The point about those acts in New York is that, had they been able to kill more people than the 3,000, they would have.

"My view was you can't take risks with this issue."

Which, when you think about it, is abject nonsense. Literally. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would the policy towards Saddam change after 9/11? He had nothing to do with that attack. In fact, Osama bin Laden (who probably did have a lot to do with 9/11) famously had very little time for Saddam, and even offered to use his resources to fight Saddam in the first Gulf War. So Saddam had fuck all to do with the terrorist attacks in America in 2001. To state that British policy changed towards Iraq changed because of 9/11 is just stupid; it's like saying British policy towards Northern Ireland changed because of 9/11.

And, bearing in mind there is no link whatsoever between Saddam and 9/11, the fact that the 9/11 attackers would have killed more people if they could is utterly irrelevant. Likewise, to talk of being unable to take risks with this "issue" is freeform nonsense, since there is not just one issue. Iraq is a separate issue to 9/11, in exactly the same way that the government's (cack-handed) response to the foot and mouth crisis was a separate issue to 9/11.

One wonders whether Blair actually believes the bullshit he spouts. If he does, then he is a deluded moron. If he doesn't, then he is a malignant little turd still happy to carry out self-serving deception on a massive scale. Neither alternative provides a particularly edifying picture of the man who used to run this country.

Sir John stressed that Mr Blair was not "on trial".

Shame.

The Ongoing Failure of Nick Clegg

This coming General Election is pretty important for all the parties involved – that is so obvious it is barely worth mentioning. But we shouldn’t underestimate just how important this election will be for the Liberal Democrats. They are fighting a General Election under a new leader and, unlike in 2001 and (to some extent) 2005, there is actually a functioning Tory party to oppose Labour. No longer can the Liberal Democrats claim that they are on the cusp of becoming the real party of the opposition. In fact, they’d be lucky if the manage to make a net gain in terms of seats. Put simply, they are in a position where they are fighting for the gains they made under the most effective Liberal Democrat leader to date.

It isn’t just the resurgent Tory party that is causing the problems for the Liberal Democrats. One of their biggest problems is the current leader of their party. Put simply, Nick Clegg is out of his depth. He cannot grab attention or the limelight like the ginger drunk, and the Liberal Democrats need the oxygen of publicity in order to survive. Clegg cannot provide that. You want proof? Well, how about his record thus far?

Compare Clegg with Nigel Farage. Farage was the leader of a much smaller party than Clegg, and with much fewer resources. Yet Farage manages to get into the news – even now, when he is an ex-leader. Whereas Nick Clegg struggles to get into the headlines even though he has his own spot in Prime Minister’s Questions each week. Farage is fighting Bercow for a safe seat in Buckingham, and I think he has a chance of winning. If it was Clegg against Bercow, would anyone really notice that Clegg was in the running?

Maybe the issue is charisma, maybe the issue is an ability to whore oneself out to the media (or be a media darling, to use less pejorative language). Either way, Farage is getting it right while Clegg is getting it wrong. Farage gets the headlines; Clegg is marching his party towards obscurity.

So what should the erstwhile sandal wearing geography teachers within the Liberal Democrats do? They need to change leaders after the next General Election. They have to accept that Clegg was yet another wrong choice as party leader. And if they want someone who can get their party into the headlines, then they should make the ever-hideous Chris Huhne their leader.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d never vote for a party that had Huhne as its leader. But at this rate, no-one will end up voting Lib Dem – if only because their current leader is a shrinking violet who seems incapable of making his own falsetto voice audible against the background noise of real party leaders preparing for a General Election.

The Recession *Ends*

So, the recession is over. Whoop-de-doo, as it turns out. As this graph at Guido's place points out, there is a long way to go before the economy truly recovers.

I've not got any interest in doing a detailed economic analysis - it has been done to death, and by far more impressive economists than me. No, it is the political aspect that fascinates me. Because there can be no doubt that the Labour party, and in particular Gordon "Saving the World" Brown, will claim credit for what is a perfectly natural tentative step in the direction of recovery within the global economy. This is nonsense, as Jackart points out:

This is good news, but whenever Mr James Gordon Brown of No. 10 Downing Street, London, SW1 refers to it, replace the words "because of" with the word "despite".

As in "despite the actions taken by this Government, the UK has now emerged from recession."

Well, quite. But what impact is this going to have on the General Election? Because if there is one thing that Nu Labour has shown, it is that large minorities of the British public are happy to be bought off by false claims from the Labour party. Yet I think the Labour party will have a tough job passing any recovery off as their achievement. For exactly the same reason as the Tories had trying the same thing in 1997. In 1997 the Tories could boast of an economic recovery. The only problem is they had caused the economic meltdown in 1992. Just as Gordon Brown now claiming a role in the recovery will be undermined by the fact that he was Chancellor and then Prime Minister as the economy disappeared down the toilet.

Of course, that will only work if the Tories consistently remind the British public that Labour were in command as the recession began, and have wasted billions chasing a recovery that was going to happen anyway. The recession was a godsend for the Tories, but the recovery can be too. Gordon Brown has wasted billions. Taxes will go up because of Gordon Brown. That's the new Labour Double Whammy, and that's Cameron's working majority, right there.

Recessions do end. And the demise of this one should do nothing to change the upcoming demise of Gordon Brown.

When Horror Films Go Wrong: "Orphan" and "Paradise Lost"

Horror movies are always going to be popular with filmmakers. After all, classic movies like Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween, were made for relatively little money but have gone on to become cash cows and legends in their own right. Many a filmmaker must have thought “I can make a quick buck and a reputation with a decent horror movie.” The problem is that making a shit horror movie is far easier than making a decent one. Let’s look at two examples.

First up, let’s look at the film Orphan. It has a twist in it – and, by the way, I’ll be revealing that so spoilers ahead. Of course, horror has always had twists and the moment when it was revealed Norman and his mother were one and the same has rightly become a classic moment in cinematic history. Done right, and a twist in the film can be awesome. Done wrong, and it is… well, Orphan.

The film starts in a mediocre way. It is obvious there is a child (from Estonia, natch) who is up for adoption and is clearly more than a little odd. As things go on, it becomes clear that she is a cuckoo – and a murderous one at that. She tries to split up the family, she kills a nun, and drives the mother to the point of insanity before almost setting fire to the eldest son. Then – in a scene that is compellingly uncomfortable and awkward – a 12-year-old girl attempts to seduce her middle-aged father. Thus far, the film has had some scary moments, some good performances and some examples of exceedingly clunky dialogue. There were some minor lapses in logic*, and the parents do appear to be shockingly inept both in their relationship with each other and their dealings with their children. Nonetheless, it sort of works, if for no other reason than this girl appears to be an evil human, as opposed to the Anti-Christ or the spawn of an unseen alien race.

And it is just after that seduction scene when the film jumps the shark.

About halfway through the film I had a thought that maybe Esther the Evil Orphan could be an adult in disguise. But I dismissed the thought. It just seemed silly. Yet, actually I was bang on. See, Esther has hypopituitarism – she actually is an adult! It is supposed to be an awesome twist; one that is deliberately mimicking the twist in Psycho. Instead, it completely undermines the whole film. It was set up as a film about an evil child – a lot of the horror came from the apparent inhumanity of the child. Once we learn that she’s actually a lusty adult looking for a quick fuck, the film loses much of its potency. In the final chase scene, Esther becomes nothing more than a pint-sized Jason Voorhees. Orphan was never going to be a classic film, but its twist just makes it deeply disappointing.

However, it is far better and far more intelligent that Paradise Lost. Paradise Lost is a dumb movie, that is aspiring to put the “horror” into “horror movie.” The problem it finds is that there is a distinction between a movie being a horror and just being horrible. Paradise Lost is very much the latter.

It isn’t just the violence in it, although Lord knows that there is no shortage of machete slashing, eye-gouging, foot slicing and unnecessary surgery in this film. No, it is how the characters are presented. There is not one sympathetic character in the whole thing. Which is a massive problem in a horror movie. Put simply, why should I give a fuck about your characters getting their kidneys removed if there is nothing whatsoever to like about them? Paradise Lost became a little like Our Daily Bread, with witless backpackers taking the place of the cattle. But whilst Our Daily Bread is a interesting documentary, Paradise Lost is a haven’t-I-seen-this-all-before sort of a movie, trying to distinguish itself through the use of graphic violence.

But what is most repugnant about Paradise Lost is the racism within it. Of course, horror films are never going to be that aware of racial (or gender) politics. But Paradise Lost makes a whole country into a nation of thieves, whores, and serial killers. Even the justification by the lead villain for his actions (America exploits us, see?) is shown to be utterly spurious – he had no compunction about killing anyone, including one of his associates in front of a boy. The story seems to say that if you’re going to go to Brazil, then expect to be involved in a bus crash, drugged, chased, tortured and then killed. Your best bet is to get into a plane and fly away. Horror always has thrived on the fear of the unknown; unfortunately, Paradise Lost thrives on the fear of the foreign. It is as racist as it is stupid.

So the message here is two fold. If you are going to make a horror movie with a twist, make sure that your twist doesn’t destroy your whole film. And if you are going to have a monster, then make sure that the monster is defined by its actions. Not by its nationality.

*Such as neither one of the parents picking up on the nun’s comment that Esther socialises well with the other kids when she has to. Which should be a massive alarm bell, followed by "run away from the freaky kid!"

Debates, Audiences and the Tired Nu Labour

Every now and again you just get a hint of the unthinking arrogance of Gordon Brown. Here, we see his views on the audience of the upcoming party leader TV debate:

The Prime Minister also wants the audience to be comprised of twice as many Labour supporters as Conservative ones in order to reflect the Government's current majority.

Effectively, what the Prime Minister is saying is "I've got the biggest majority" to Cameron, simultaneously channelling the spirit of one Alan B'Stard and missing the point that it was Blair who won that majority rather than Brown. Plus, as it turns out, it probably won't matter who the audience supports:

It emerged yesterday that both Mr Brown and Mr Cameron have demanded a ban on questions from the floor to prevent being ambushed by rival party members.

There we have it: Gordon Brown in a nutshell. Frantically fighting to have a silent audience stacked with supporters of the man he deposed as Prime Minister. The levels of delusion and stupidity are as eye opening as they are frightening.

At least the ever charismatic David Miliband is on hand to take the fight to the Tories:

In a separate television interview yesterday, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, reignited the row over class-war politics by accusing the Conservatives of planning “the biggest redistribution of wealth to the wealthy in two generations”.

He said: "What do they actually stand for? Abolishing inheritance tax, bringing back fox-hunting and isolating ourselves in Europe. That’s not what the country needs. That’s not change. That’s driving with one eye on the rear-view mirror.”

Well, it is change - by definition, anything that isn't maintaining the status quo is change. It may be reactionary change that Miliband doesn't approve of, but it remains change nonetheless. Still, his charge would stick more if Labour had something to offer. Unfortunately...

Labour has stressed that it wants to put social mobility and aspiration at the centre of its election message to try to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters than the party's traditional working-class supporters.

Yep, and that's what they've been saying for the past 12 years and they have done nothing about it. Now, given the delusional nature of the pathetic man they are likely to make their choice for PM, why would anything change if they win yet another term?

In fact, they have become the conservative party. They want to conserve the status quo. Which would be fine if things weren't in such a disastrous state of affairs...

Psychoville: A Review

Being gloriously behind with general TV watching, I missed Psychoville when it first aired last year, despite being a massive fan of some of the other work of the writers/stars. Finally got around to watching it this week. And I was impressed. Conditionally, of course.

At first it looked like just another collection of grotesques, very much in the vain of The League of Gentlemen. They even had a serial killing couple, albeit a mother and a son this time rather than a husband and wife*. Yet, once the scene-setting of the first episode was over, it became clear that there were not just a collection of random freaks and there was actually a wider narrative behind the series. It felt like the story was going somewhere. Of course, where the series was going was towards Episode Seven - where more questions were raised than actually answered, and a series of deeply unlikely surprises created a feeling that this was meant to lead to the sequel series, rather than wrap up the current story. But at least it was an attempt at an overall story arc - and a story that became more and more intriguing as it went along.

Furthermore, at least some of the main characters had interesting back stories that also came across as genuinely moving. Perhaps the best example of this was Joy - utterly, utterly mental, but when you learn why, you can't help but feel a little sorry for her. And Mr Jelly is a wonderful creation - if only because, despite being one of the most misanthropic characters I have ever seen, is someone who has been utterly shat on by life. He goes through all sorts of indignities, and - genuinely - it is not his fault.

And it is both funny and scary in places. It has a wonderful self-awareness, occasionally pointing out its own silliness and inconsistencies. Also, being a bit of a bastard, I enjoyed laughing at the really inappropriate jokes. Especially the moments that mocked the blind, conjoined twins, and dwarfs. It also truly manages to be nightmarish in places. When Freddie attacks, and the scenes involving the blood transfusion, really stand out in my mind as very dark moments for a BBC TV series. Yet...

Yet, Psychoville is far from perfect. It was too long. And too obsessed by its own sources. In the series, you could see One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, The Omen, 10 Rillington Place and Carrie to name but a few. I mean, does any TV series really need a whole episode devoted to recreating Rope? And the grotesque characters jarred when they were immersed in the real world. Royston Vasey worked because it was its own world within Britain. This series would have worked better had it just taken place in the (insane) confines of Ravenhill. It would also have worked better had it got the balance between horror and comedy right.

Which is probably the biggest problem with the series. The transition between the nightmare moments and the quips were, more often than not, utterly jarring. To the extent where the comedy moments undermined the moments of horror, and vice versa. It is neither a comedy or a drama; it is somewhere inbetween, and consequently very awkward. And I can't help but think that the next series of Psychoville should aspire to be more horror than comedy. Any moments of humour should be few and far between. The series itself should be unsettling and the stuff nightmares are made of.

And I think they can do it. Because, as pretty much everything The League of Gentlemen have ever done shows, what these guys want to do is write a great horror story. But they are too self-aware, too knowing, too self-conscious to do so. Yet if they did...

Well, it would be pretty fucking spectacular.

*And brother and sister, as it is implied in the programme.

(Idiotic) Quote of the Day

Overheard by your humble author in a university library:

"I'm not racist but I really hate immigration."

Proof, if any further proof was necessary, that any sentence beginning with the words "I'm not racist but..." is not worth hearing to the end.

Gordon Brown: And The Point Is?

Surely this news comes as a surprise to precisely no-one:

The UK government has become "utterly dysfunctional"

Absolutely. The UK government now resembles someone with dissociative identity disorder with massively self-destructive tendencies. It has arguably become the dictionary definition of dysfunctional. And this fact seems to almost be tacitly accepted by its own members.

But it is further confirmation of the complete lack of planning that went into the Brown administration that still startles me:

"When Gordon Brown became prime minister, no clear direction ever emerged from him"

Absolutely. Despite Gordon Brown not calling a General Election so he could spell out his vision.

Of course, there is no shortage of things within the Gordon Brown administration that could be classed as "unforgivable", but surely the failure to come up with any plans before Brown entered Number 10 must rank highly among them. From 1997 - for 10 years - Brown knew he was almost certain to become PM. Hell, it was a safe bet from 1994. Yet at no point during that period did he work out why he wanted to be PM, other than the fact that he felt he should. He never came up with any policies or ideas about what he wanted to achieve; none whatsoever. Few Prime Ministers before Brown have ever had quite so long to prepare for office; yet Brown almost seems to have been caught unawares by the idea that he should have a plan of what he wanted to do with the nation when he became PM.

This would have been shown up prior to Brown becoming PM had the Labour party bothered with a leadership contest after Blair departed; Brown's complete lack of an agenda or even any ideas would have been brought into the spotlight, and maybe his party would have denied him his coronation as Prime Minister. Perhaps this, then, is the true positive legacy of the Brown years; he shows both the importance of having a plan when you become PM (Cameron, take heed) and also how important it is that parties have real leadership contests before they make someone PM. Maybe that's the point of the Brown premiership.

I'd hope so, because as it stands, Prime Minister Brown is totally fucking pointless.

While writing yesterday's post on the Orwellian nightmare of terror threat levels, I found myself wondering whether there was any depth to which the Nu Labour government wouldn't stoop in order to create fear and division within our society. The best I could come up with is "at least they haven't done anything stupid like introduce Sarah's Law."

*Sighs*

Terror Threat Levels

OMG! OMG! The terrorist threat level has been raised! Stock up on the canned goods, and avoid contact with other human beings.

Alan Johnson:

"We still face a real and serious threat to the UK from international terrorism, so I would urge the public to remain vigilant and carry on reporting suspicious events to the appropriate authorities and to support the police and security services in their continuing efforts to discover, track and disrupt terrorist activity."

The facts:

The home secretary stressed there was no intelligence to suggest a terrorist attack was imminent.

Right, so the terrorist threat level has gone up despite there being no intelligence to suggest that it should go up. I can't be alone in seeing the absolute insanity in that. But the facts don't really matter, do they? Because the headline is "UK terrorist threat level raised to 'severe'", not "UK terrorist threat level raised to 'severe' for no reason whatsoever". And the raising of the threat level is intentional, but its intentions have very little to do with protecting us against terrorism. No, this sort of thing is about creating and maintaining a certain level of panic with society, that can then be used to suppress civil liberties, and to justify attacks on the way minorities live in this country. If you want proof that it isn't about fighting terrorism then just remember - there is no evidence to suggest a terrorist attack is imminent.

"It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party." Well, Orwell was right - to some extent. In that the ruling elite will always try to shape reality in order to meet their own ends. But it only becomes impossible to see reality except through the prism of the ruling elite if you let it, and if you don't challenge what they say. So the next time you hear that the terrorist threat level has been altered (which, lest we forget, it went down just before the London bombings of 2005) ask why that has happened, and whether there is any evidence that the situation has actually changed. I can almost guarantee there won't be.

For those of you who like your comedy to be scathing, vicious, topical and often uncomfortable, Chris Morris' output is always worth watching. He's been working on a jihadist comedy called Four Lions for a while, and The Guardian has a clip up from it. Go watch it. It looks like vintage Morris, and is almost certain to piss off just about everyone who lacks a sense of humour about the controversial.

DK has produced a round-up of the best of the Libertarian blogging of the past week (or so), and it is well worth a gander. Hopefully it will become something of regular feature...

Jack Straw: Wanker

The arrogance of Jack Straw:

"If I had refused (to give my support), the UK's participation in the military action would not have been possible"

Seems a curious time for Jack Straw to start boasting about his importance. After all, had he refused to give his support and saved the UK from the Iraq "adventure", maybe he would actually have something to boast about it. Instead, his importance merely highlights that he helped the Blair government to do ahead and invade Iraq. It's a bit like the defendant at a murder trial trying to win the jury over by saying that he held the victim down whilst someone else stabbed the victim repeatedly in the chest. It isn't as impressive a statement as "I tried to stop the murder from happening." Still, it's a good political epitaph for Jack Straw's career (which hopefully is nearly over): "Jack Straw. Could have stopped the war in Iraq. Didn't. Wanker."

But he is sorry for some of the mistakes made. No, really, he is:

"That was an error, an error that has haunted us ever since."

Ok, ok, maybe he isn't sorry. But he does admit there was an error, and he is "haunted " by it. Of course, he isn't so "haunted" that he can't do a senior government role. And he isn't so "haunted" that he hasn't been able to spend a large proportion of the last seven years decimating civil liberties in this country. Maybe he's just so brave that being haunted doesn't massively impact on his behaviour. Yeah, that's probably it. Jack Straw is brave in the face of having dragged this nation into a war that has killed thousands based on spurious and false data.

So there we have it. Jack Straw; an important man who is brave enough to live with being haunted, but who still manages to be one of the most repulsive politicians in a government that seems to pride itself in having repellent representatives.

The Road and an Apocalyptic Audience.

Went to see The Road last night. It painted a vivid and very real vision of a post-apocalyptic world, and had some haunting and some down right disturbing images within in. And it was a very faithful adaptation of the novel, even down to the cop-out ending that turns it into a cosy catastrophe story. All in all, though, worth seeing.

Of course, I probably would have enjoyed it more had I not been sat in a multiplex cinema in Nottingham, surrounded by a baying mob of feral fucking youths. Seriously, it was like the cinema was filled with those aspiring to be Beavis and Butthead. Not only did they snigger at every bit of nudity, but they also sniggered at every single emotional moment and also at a hefty proportion of the traumatic moments as well. "Hurr, hurr, look that man's naked. And he's got a leg off anything. Those people upstairs are, like, totally gonna eat him. Hurr hurr." Yes, that's exactly how you should respond to the imagery of charnel house filled with naked, mutilated humans awaiting cannibalistic harvest by their captors. Particularly if you are a budding young sociopath.

But it wasn't just the sniggering. They also talked throughout the whole film. They also used their mobiles, and at one point, one of the terrible little shitheads even started playing music on their mobile. Don't they fucking get that other people have paid money to watch this film? Actually, they probably don't and even if they did, they wouldn't care. Sociopathic, see? And the cinema staff were about as much use as a marzipan dildo - occasionally coming in and whispering a chastisement at some rat-boy or rat-girl. There must have been no fewer than 40 people disrupting that screening. The number removed? 3; kicked out at the start of the film. It is no wonder the teenagers thought they could get away with their crass behaviour because, well, the ineptitude of the cinema staff clearly showed they could.

The Road itself made me dread any sort of post-apocalyptic world. The behaviour of large swathes of the audience made me almost wish for some sort of apocalypse; if only to thin out the number of oiks who seem to be rapidly becoming the majority in this country.

"A Bit of Local Colour"

On that 45 minute claim:

"That is my personal explanation of why, as it were, people fell on the 45 minutes - at least that was something the secret service would allow to be used," Sir David said.

"And, with hindsight, one can see that adding a bit of local colour like that is asking for trouble but we didn't really spot that at the time."

Really, what the fuck? A "bit of local colour"? This was part of a report that sent British troops to kill and die in a foreign land. You don't add a "bit of local colour" to a report like that. You try to make it as accurate as possible! Surely, by definition, "intelligence" should at least aspire to be intelligent?

"A little bit of local colour" deserves to become as notorious as Alan Clark's claim to being "economical with the actualité". It simply adds to the sinking feeling I have that the film In The Loop actually wasn't a satire on how we chose to go to war, but rather a documentary.

Don't worry about the truth of any claim being made by the government, people. See, they might just be adding a "bit of local colour" to what they present as facts.

Caption Competition

If a picture paints a thousand words, then what are we to make of this picture of the British Prime Minister and the new EU President? There is something very revealing about facial expression of the latter, as he gazes at Brown's pompous face and ludicrous hand gesture...

Picture via the BBC.

Obama: One Year On

Happy first birthday to the Obama administration. Of course, it isn't all good news: the loss of Teddy Kennedy's seat to the Republicans is a blow, and one that may scuttle Obama's already faltering health plan. It is tempting to paint Scott Brown's victory as a crippling indictment of Obama's first year in office; while Obama's presence in the Oval Office may have been a contributing factor to some people's votes, it is equally possible that the voters of Massachusetts simply wanted to vote Republican after decades of mindlessly voting for Teddy Kennedy. God knows, I would. So be warned; losing the Senate super-majority does not mean that Obama is set to lose the White House in three years time.

See for Obama, it's one year down, and most probably seven years to go. Because while Obama has done little that is memorable in his first year other than creating a shit storm on the issue of health care, he has managed not to fuck up too badly. In the pantheon of Democratic presidents, he's no FDR - but he isn't a Jimmy Carter either. In fact, Obama is doing a hell of a lot better than Clinton was at this point in his presidency, and Clinton won a second term easily.

So I reckon Obama will win re-election in 2012, even if the mid-term elections later this year don't go tremendously well for the Democrats. Not least because the Republicans have, over the course of this year, done nothing to sort themselves out and find someone decent to fight Obama in 2012. Despite the Brown setback, the best birthday present the Obama administration could get from the Republicans is the one they are offering - the ridiculous Sarah Palin is still that party's leading light.

So what if Tory candidates don't care about the environment?

I can't understand why anyone thinks this is news:

ConservativeHome asked Tory candidates to rate 19 policy issues on a scale of one to five, with five being the most important. Only eight of the 141 Tory candidates who responded gave climate change five marks, the lowest number for any issue.

Yeah, that's 'cos they are Tories, for fuck's sake. They are not the Green party. They are not going to be obsessed by the supposed problem of climate change, in the same way that the Green party isn't going to spend a lot of time thinking about marital tax breaks. And personally I'd rather the party most likely to become the government before the year is out focussed on real issues facing this country, like the shafted economy, the two wars we're fighting and the decimation of civil liberties under Labour rather than made up tripe about the environment.

Bankers, let Facebook tell you what to do with your bonuses!

Ooo, looky - another stupid fucking Facebook group. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Bankers Bonuses to Haiti. Here's their stated aim:

We believe that the undeserving bankers who are being or have been awarded obscene bonuses a mere18 months after precipitating the worst financial crisis for decades, resulting in countless people losing their jobs and homes (not the bankers though!), should pay all or a percentage of their ill gotten gains to the Haiti Earthquake Relief effort.

Let's break that angry, crass blurb down a bit. First of all, "undeserving bankers"? Who says they are undeserving? The people who pay the bonuses certainly don't think they are undeserving. Otherwise they wouldn't get the bonuses. Because, err, that's how bonuses work. And did every banker precipitate the financial crisis? Or just some of them? And here's a crazy idea - perhaps other people have some sort of complicity in the crisis. Like politicians, and those morons who took out 125% mortgages on their home. And obscene - what, pray, constitutes an obscene bonus? 1%? 10% 100% 200%? And is it obscene even if the company who employs the banker believes that person is worth that money?

Moving on - do we really believe that no banker has lost their job and/or their house because of the financial crisis? Because a lot of people working for Lehman Brothers did lose their jobs. And, for all we know, their homes. And "ill-gotten gains"? Again, you need to understand that companies don't pay bonuses if they don't believe the person is worth it. Hell, sometimes they don't pay bonuses even if they do think the person is worth it. There is nothing "ill-gotten" about someone accepting a bonus offered to them by their employers.

Don't get me wrong, I think that people should give money to Haiti. If they want to. Which is the point of charity. Bankers should give their bonuses, or part of their bonuses, to charity, if they want to. However, if they don't, then they should keep their money and spend it on whatever they want. Even if it is coke and cheap hookers.

Because, again, that is the point of charity. It is voluntary. Charity is not enforced by yet another tedious fucking Facebook group. So, bankers, do whatever you want with your bonuses. They're for you, after all.

The Tory "Elitist" Education Policy

Go and read Bella Gerens on Cameron's latest education wibblings. She pretty much nails the deep flaws within the Tory education policy. So there isn't that much to add. However, I will emphasise a couple of points.

Firstly, this idea that Cameron has of teacher hiring being "brazenly elitist" is nonsense in two key ways. Firstly, any selection procedure is by definition elitist. That's the point of selection in employment; you want to create an elite of people who work for you; an elite based on those willing and able to do the job. Secondly, selecting people on the basis of degree results is no way to get the best people into teaching. You want people who can teach science, so you get people who have a great degree result in science, right? Wrong. Because, in my experience, people with a first or a 2:1 in science or maths seldom make the best communicators. And you know what? Teaching tends to go better if the person doing it can communicate.

But there is a wider issue here. Getting decent teachers isn't just about raising standards - particularly if you already can't find decent teachers. No, you actually have to make the job worth doing. Now, teaching isn't ever going to be the best paid job in the world. Likewise, it is always going to be high-pressure and stressful at times. The reason why talented people go into teaching isn't because of the money or because it is an easy job; they are attracted to teaching because of the less tangible rewards involved.

So make the job rewarding. Remove the endless, pointless targets. Give teachers the freedom and the chance to inspire children. Change the education system so it isn't about rote learning, and instead focussed on educating people about the world and how they can make their way in that world. Make education about teaching children, not indoctrinating them so they can pass increasing devalued exams. Understand that education takes place in a classroom, not in a government department in London that is completely disconnected from where the teaching actually happens.

Which in itself is part of the point - the only reason why the Tories are proposing a way to find better teachers is to improve education. But education isn't just about the teachers, in the same way that it isn't just about the school or the facilities. Socrates used to teach in the marketplace, for God's sake. No, great teaching is at the heart of good education - and a more elitist teacher selection process is not a guarantee, or even the best way, to get that.

Wanker. Absolute wanker.

UKIP and the burka

Nigel Farage seems to have lost it a bit, and jumped on to the banning the burka bandwagon. I happened to catch some of his performance on TV yesterday, and it pretty much ended any notions I have that the man has Libertarian leanings.

Let's see what Nigel had to say:

"I can't go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on. I can't wear a balaclava going round the District and Circle line."

As far as I am aware, Farage is right: you can't do either of those things. But he completely misses the point in his argument. No-one has a religious obligation to wear a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava. The same isn't true of the burka. And why would anyone want to wear a balaclava on the District and Circle line, for fuck's sake?

"What we are saying is, this is a symbol. It's a symbol of something that is used to oppress women. It is a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain."

Yes, it's a symbol of religious devotion. Now, as someone who finds religion - from Christianity and Islam through to fucking Jedis - absolute nonsense, I can't understand why anyone would wear a burka. But I also accept that their religious beliefs - which I think they are totally entitled to - means they feel they should wear a burka. If you want to cover your face because of the prattlings of long dead preachers, then knock yourself out. That's what the burka represents - devotion to a particular interpretation of Islam.

Has the burka been used to oppress women? I'd imagine so. Does that mean that when it is women wear it they are automatically being oppressed? Of course it doesn't. Some women may be wearing it because they want to, or feel it is their religious duty. That's not oppression - however, if you force them to take it off, that is oppression. Oppressing people to save them from oppression. Idiotic.

And of course the burka isn't a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain. The symbol of that is mobs of EDL members bashing the shit out of UAF members, and vice versa. And that symbol is created by this sort of dog whistle politics being employed by political leaders in this country.

"And the real worry - and it isn't just about what people wear - the real worry is that we are heading towards a situation where many of our cities are ghettoised and there is even talk about Sharia law becoming part of British culture."

Well, strikes me that this isn't about the burka at all, but about ghettoisation. In which case, the talk about the burka is a diversion, and Farage would do far better to address the real issue - how shitty some cities are becoming. And as for Sharia law becoming part of British culture, well, I've seen no real evidence of that. Besides, I'd only worry about it if it became actual law, rather than part of the culture of some parts of some cities. And there isn't a hope in hell of Sharia law becoming law in this country in Farage's life time or mine.

"There is nothing extreme or radical or ridiculous about this, but we can't go on living in a divided society."

There is nothing extreme or radical about this if you are a middle class, white MEP vying for a Parliamentary seat in Buckingham. However, if you are someone who feels a religious duty to wear a burka - or even a moderate Muslim feeling increasingly ostracised by a nation determined to dismiss Islam - this will be extreme and radical. And that is one of the things increasing tensions across the UK - this ongoing attempt by the media and certain politicians (of all political parties) to paint Islam as something odd and sinister. There is no quicker way to increase radicalisation of moderate Muslims in this country than by attacking their religious beliefs, and banning the burka is an attack on Islam, pure and simple.

Over the years many people have said I should vote, and even actively support, UKIP. I've been suspicious of them, and the party that lies behind the Farage facade. This policy confirms my fears about UKIP, and explicitly links Farage to those fears. And they certainly won't get my vote whilst they pursue this sort of moronic policy.

Like many of my fellow cynics, I was a little bit suspicious of the now famous Sleep Talkin' Man blog at first. It is very funny - particularly the comment about Superman - but it all seemed too good to be true. Or even a little bit too contrived to be true. Then, earlier today, I realised that I know the Sleep Talkin' Man and have met him on a couple of occasions. And, given I have met him - and even been involved in a conversation about his sleep talking with both him and his wife months before their blog became famous - I now believe the stuff on that blog is 100% the truth.

Which, given some of the comments on there, is a little worrying...

Gordon Brown: Champion of the Middle Classes

Middle class people, don't be fooled. He hates you. There's a simple way of proving this - he seems to hate pretty much everyone other than himself.

But this claim from our Prime Minister demands close analysis:

"And this is the next project for New Labour, our next generation project... The coming decade will provide the UK with more middle class jobs than ever before."

It is the sort of thing that appears on face value as great news. Unfortunately, it is only on face value that this can be good news. Because two questions spring to mind:

1. What will these jobs be? Because whilst Brown claims that only 10% will be unskilled jobs in the next decade, it all comes down what sort of jobs are being created here. After all, a job existing is no guarantee that said job will be worth doing or offering anything worthwhile. When you then take into account that it will be a government created post, the chances of it being in anyway pleasant or useful slip to basically nothing.

2. How will this job creation programme? Because the government gets its money from the people. So we could end up in the insane position where we have to pay more tax in order for the government to create more jobs so their are more people who can pay tax. In fact, it would seem impossible that any government could consider doing anything so crass, if it wasn't for the fact that it is so clearly in the best interests of the government to create as large a client state as possible.

So, any members of the middle class who might feel Gordo secretly cares for them, please rest assured that there is nothing but self-interest in this announcement. And if it happens, make no mistake about it. You'll end up paying for it.

I see the Communist ruling elite in China is once again flexing its progressive muscles:

A Chinese gay pageant, said to be the first held in the country, was ordered by police to close an hour before opening, organisers say.

Apparently, the pageant has been cancelled because it did not apply according to procedures. Which, in an authoritarian regime like the one in China, has a certain ring of truth to it. Until you consider this:

Homosexuality was illegal in China until 1997, and officials described it as a mental illness until 2001.

And we all know how the Chinese government feels about the mentally ill. But it is difficult to describe the actions of the Chinese government in any other way than blatantly homophobic. And also I note the number of left-wing movements that end up brutally suppressing their own people when they get into power. I'm pretty sure that the point of a utopia - Communist or otherwise - isn't to describe homosexuals as mentally ill...

You'd have to be pretty harsh to find this funny:

The floor of a Weight Watchers clinic in Sweden collapsed beneath a group of 20 members of the weight loss programme who were gathered for a meeting.

I, for one, am crying tears of evil laughter.

Blair... sorry, Boris's fare increases.

Penny Red is ranting about increases in travel costs in London, and, of course, levels all of the blame at one Boris Johnson. I don't live in London anymore, but did so for many years under Red Ken. So when someone talks about a rise in tube and/or bus fares, by immediate thought is plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

But is was this paragraph that really hit home for me:

For the rest of us, this is what happens when we allow ourselves to get dazzled by cartoon politics: we elect dangerous smiling bastards who don't give a damn about poverty and inequality and who are quite willing to make life exponentially harder for the low-paid majority at the expense of a privileged few.

Absolutely, Penny. Abso-ruddy-lutely. On no account should we be taken in by cartoon politicians with their evil smiles again. In no way should we ever allow ourselves to vote for that grinning, preening homunculus Tony Blair again.

That's who she's talking about, right?

The Daily Mail on what I would imagine is something of an annual ritual for them - complaining about how bad the TV was over Christmas. Their reasoning seems to be that people complained about some of the programmes (has there been any year where this hasn't be true?) and that the viewing figures weren't that high. Of course, viewing figures are no indicator of quality, otherwise The X Factor would be one of the best programmes ever, rather than one of the most furiously polished turds in history.

Perhaps inevitably this was the paragraph that stood out to me:

Despite having nine of the 10 most watched shows on Christmas Day, millions fewer tuned in to traditional stalwarts Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Christmas episode of Doctor Who was successful. But don't take me at face value (just as you should never, ever take anything The Daily Mail at face value). Let's crunch some numbers.

The End of Time (Part One) had provisional viewing figure of 10.0 million viewers. Consolidated viewing figures were 11.57 million viewers. Not bad, when you consider that the average viewing figures for an episode of the new Doctor Who series have been between 6 and 8 million. And not bad when you consider that The End of Time Part Two got initial figures of 10.4 million - and increase of 400,000 people. Doesn't sound too disastrous, does it?

However, is this a decrease on previous years? The answer is both yes and no. The Next Doctor was watched by 11.71 million, with total viewing figures of 13.1 million viewers. Voyage of the Damned got 12.2 million viewers, with a final figure of 13.8 million. Of course, both of those were stand alone episodes, and one of those starred Kylie. Which is a little different to watching the slow, elongated death of the Tenth Doctor in a two separate broadcasts.

Yet, The Runaway Bride in 2006 got 9.35 million viewers. Tennant's debut, 2005's The Christmas Invasion got 9.4 million; around a million people less than his final adventure.

So to put it in perspective, The End of Time Part One was not the most successful Doctor Who Christmas special ever, but nor was it the least. And in this day and age - of DVDs, Internet TV and Freeview - anything over 8 million is pretty damned good. The Daily Mail is talking nonsense when it burbles on about how this was the worst year ever for Christmas TV, as the viewing figures (and reception) of Doctor Who shows.

But when have they ever let facts get in the way of a good whine story?

Sorry, did this ages ago and forgot to upload it:

Can't remember where I got it from. Think it was LabourList.

Oliver Stone, Uncle Joe and old Adolf

Oliver Stone has sent us a missive from the parallel universe where, judging by his moronic opinions, he resides. With David Icke, Donald Rumsfeld and L. Ron Hubbard. He's given us a history lesson. Of sorts. Most outstanding are his comments on Hitler and Stalin. They really do defy understanding. First up for the Stone revisionism is old Adolf:

"Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply," he said.

Hitler as a scapegoat... right. I struggle with this one. Hitler was the leader of a regime that murdered six million people and fought both the UK and the US in a brutal battle for survival. Hitler is responsible for so much evil that I wonder why anyone would even need to scapegoat him. It's a bit like trying to pin a burglary on the Yorkshire Ripper; no-one is really going to care because, to be honest with you, the other crimes seem a little bit more important.

And then we have Stalin:

"Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any person."

I'm glad that Stone realises that Stalin shouldn't be painted as a hero, because his regime is one of the most lethal in history. But this concept that he fought the German war machine more than any person demands a slightly closer analysis of actual historical events. Before Stalin fought the German war machine, he signed a peace treaty with them, carving up Poland and allowing for the invasion of Western Europe. And Stalin fell apart after the German invasion of Russia, creating a power vacuum at the top of his regime at one of the most crucial moments in the war, and thus allowing Germany to invade far more of the USSR than they might otherwise have managed. And the brutal war of attrition against the Nazis saw both sides commit atrocities. Whilst it is tempting to think of good ol' uncle Joe taking down them nasty Nazis, the truth is somewhat more sordid and a little less like a John Wayne movie.

I suppose some might agree with Stone. Stranger things have happened. I suppose it comes down to your personal political opinions. And whether or you have a connection to the real world, or life in a twisted world detached from the reality where every one else lives, and believe that Hugo Chavez is a truly great leader, a Che t-shirt is the very pinnacle of cool and Stalin was a bit misunderstood.

If it is the latter, of course, you are a total wanker. Much like Mr Stone.

Islam4UK banned!

Only yesterday I pointed out what a bad idea it would be to ban Islam4UK. With their ongoing commitment to bad ideas, the government has only gone and done it.

And, lo and behold, Islam4UK is already playing the bleeding martyr. Witness this statement from Islam4UK spokesman Anjem Choudary:

"We won't be using those names and those platforms which have been proscribed, but I can't stop being a Muslim, I can't stop propagating Islam, I can't stop praying, I can't stop calling for the Sharia."

See how quickly and easily that happened? Islam4UK have gone from public nuisance to put religious group being suppressed for their beliefs by the government in one flick of the Home Secretary's pen. If you wanted a dictionary definition of counter-productive, then it would be this "proscription" of Islam4UK.

In fact, I find myself agreeing with Choudary - an unpleasant position for a passionate atheist like me to find himself in, and a turn of events I blame entirely on the Home Secretary:

"What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship."

Quite. I don't agree with Islam4UK - I think their call for Sharia law in this country and their stunt marches are idiotic. But, unlike the government, I don't think they should be banned for being idiotic. See, that is the measure of a free society - people have the right and the ability to express idiotic and unpleasant opinions, just as everyone else has a right to disagree with them. This latest government move just goes to show that we don't live in a free country. But we knew that already, didn't we?

Banning Islam4UK

Apparently Islam4UK won't be doing their march after all. I dare say that there won't be many lamenting their failure to go ahead with their crass plans.

But in amongst all the guff about this stupid farrago, this comment - from our "beloved" Home Secretary - stand out to me. It is on the subject of banning Islam4UK:

"Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism," he said.

Really? Necessary? Since when? When has banning a group ever done anything more than turn the members of that group into martyrs? How will banning a group - even one as vile as Islam4UK - stop them from holding unpleasant views and paying homage to terrorism? Does the Home Secretary really think that banning this group will make its members and supporters change their views? If he does, then he is even dumber than he looks. And he looks pretty fucking dumb.

And the problems associated with banning a group like Islam4UK are compounded when you consider that it would be Nu Labour ordering the banning. And groups are banned under Nu Labour not because they are vile, but rather because Nu Labour disagrees with them yet is too scared to debate with them. Nu Labour proscribing a group simply shows Nu Labour has no respect for free speech.

Proscription is not necessary in the fight to combat terror. Rather, proscription creates even more people who can claim to be suppressed by an increasingly draconian government. And in doing so, increasing the likelihood of more widespread radicalisation and therefore makes terrorism more likely.

Don't ban Islam4UK, Mr Johnson. Let the chunter away. Because letting them spout their shite will do them far more harm than any ban could ever do.

Former* Doctor Who star David Tennant on why he is voting Labour:

"I would rather have a prime minister who is the cleverest person in the room, than a prime minister who looks good in a suit."

Which seems like logical reasoning to me. Albeit reasoning that has little to do with the reality of British politics. See, Gordon Brown isn't the cleverest person in the room. Sure, he has advanced academic qualifications, but anyone who has ever been to a university knows that having such qualifications doesn't automatically make anyone "clever" in any practical way. In fact, Gordon Brown comes across as anything other than intelligent. Stupid and obtuse would be a better description. The only reason why anyone says Gordon Brown is the cleverest person in the room is because Brown himself has shamelessly propagated that myth for ages.

And what is this nonsense about Cameron looking good in a suit? Anyone with vision should be able to see that Cameron doesn't look good in a suit, he simply wears one better than Gordon Brown. This nonsense about Cameron being good-looking has to stop. He is just good-looking for a Tory - which, given that party includes the likes of Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind and William Hague - is nothing to boast about. In fact, Cameron looks faintly ridiculous. His pudgy face looks like it has been carelessly crafted by a child using silly putty. Like Blair before him, Cameron is only good looking because those around him have been heavily beaten by the biggest branch of the ugly tree.

Of course, Tennant is entitled to whatever political views he wishes to hold, and, as he is a long-time Labour supporter, I can't see him voting for anyone else other than el-Gordo. But it seems ironic that he worries about people buying Cameron's rhetoric when he has swallowed the Labour cliches about Brown and Cameron hook, line and sinker.

*Note to the BBC - you really want to be pushing Matt Smith as the star of Doctor Who now, rather than Tennant.

Dissing Cameron to Big Up the Brown

There's a new Facebook Group in town - going by the name of "I bet I can find a million people who DON'T want David Cameron as our PM". Which is fine, and the sort of thing I can buy into. I don't really want Cameron as PM, anymore than I want Gordon Brown to become Prime Minister. But then I started to read the rhetoric about why Cameron shouldn't be Prime Minister. And it mentions the supposed failure of the Major/Thatcher years, it talks about inheritance tax and Cameron's supposed wealth, it even name drops Pinochet. Which makes me a little suspicious, since whilst this group claims to be for people from all political backgrounds, it reads just like the tedious shite we hear endlessly churned out by the Labour party. So I decided to take a look at who had created the page.

It's Phil McNally who's created this page. His Facebook page shows that he is a fan of... wait for it... Gordon Brown. He posts links on the page Cardiff Labour Students. And here, on LabourList, we can see a comment he left after the Derek Draper fiasco. Particularly telling are these words:

I'm having nothing more to do with labourlist until Derek Draper resigns as editor of it. If we lose the next election, it's because of people like you.

If "we lose the next election..." Could there be a clearer indicator of a Labour supporter? So... this group for people of all political backgrounds has been created by someone who is most definitely a Labour supporter, and most probably an active one. He's clearly not neutral, and I have some completely understandable doubts that his Facebook page is neutral either. This isn't about a neutral attack on Cameron, this looks for all the world like a Labour supporter attempting to attack the Leader of the Opposition in order to big up our atrocious incumbent Prime Minister. That is reason enough not to join this particular group...

On That *Coup*

Well, that was the week that showed us perhaps the worst coup attempt in history. If you can actually call it a coup attempt. Hoon* and Hewitt had no replacement for Brown, no real supporters, no-one to resign from the Cabinet and nothing other than an e-mail that stopped short of actually speaking out directly against the leader they were looking to replace.

Worst. Coup attempt. Ever.

But does the crushing failure of this coup to make Brown look vulnerable for more than 30 seconds mean that we won't see another attempt to unseat him before the General Election? Common sense would say yes; however, we're dealing with the Labour party here, and for them common sense is something that happens to other people. And it isn't just this lack of common sense that makes it like that we might see another lacklustre attempt to end the Brown leadership. No, it is also the psychological state of the Labour party.

See, the Labour party - and in particular, Labour MPs - appear to be psychologically broken. They are conditioned to believe that they will fail, and that their time in power is nearly up. That is coupled with the fact that since Brown became their leader, they have not had any real leadership of such, and instead have had to endure bullying from the man who took over from Blair. This defeatism, combined with a lack of leadership, means concepts like taking the initiative have now become completely alien to Labour MPs.

Yet they are still part of the party that, in 2005, managed to win a comfortable General Election victory, despite having an unpopular leader who had taken the country into an unpopular war. So they - quite rightly - blame Brown for the fact that most of them will be out of a job after the next election, and those who aren't will be consigned to impotence on the opposition benches. And every now and again, amongst the hopeless, sullen faces of Labour MPs, there is the spark of something. A little bit of rage against Brown, and a little bit of desire to fight the terrible political situation they have found themselves in. So someone starts a campaign against Gordon, or hypes up Harman or Miliband to make a bid to replace him. And that's why I think it will happen again. As we near the election, someone else will boil over and make a move - however pointless - against Gordon.

And you never know, it might be Charles Clarke. Who could go all the way and actually make a bid for the leadership. Although, given that chap's temperament these days, he is just as likely to punch Gordon in the face as to try to take his job.

Whatever happens, I don't think the soap opera that is Gordon Brown trying to survive in office is over. There'll be another leadership crisis before he's finally turfed out.

*Who is now facing the consequences of his divisive action. I hope they deselect him, and the clueless cunt has to go get a job in Asda to make ends meet.

Harman Convicted

Harriet Harman, trying to justify her recent conviction for a driving offence:

"Ms Harman has pointed out that she was in her constituency attending the emergency reception centre for residents who had been evacuated from the fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell."

So what? What difference does that make? She committed an offence whilst she was doing her job. That is no excuse, that is not an extenuating circumstance. Even if she argues that her visit that day was an emergency (it wasn't, she was visiting an emergency reception centre) then it still doesn't make a blind bit of fucking difference. Just as it would if the person who'd been caught was a normal person, rather than an MP and Deputy Leader of the Loser Labour party.

Harman broke the law - and not for the first time. She already has 6 points on her licence for speeding. This shows very little other than the gross hypocrisy of the government's (of which she is a crucial part) war on drivers. What is nice about this is it represents one of the increasingly rare occasions when there isn't one rile for the people, and one rule for the rulers. More like this, please. Preferably on the issue of MPs' expenses...

In a piece of work that can only be described as absolute genius, I give you the Doctor's Facebook page.

Enjoy!

A Suggested Housemate for Celebrity Big Brother

For reasons that could best be classified as classic work avoidance, I caught the opening episode of Celebrity Big Brother on da interwebs yesterday. And, by God, what a bunch to total non-entities they picked! If your most famous people are one of the also-ran Baldwin brothers, a Hollywood madam, a talentless bit part player from a Guy Ritchie movie and Dane fucking Bowers, then your programme has absolutely no right whatsoever to use the word celebrity. It is an insult to any genuine celebrities out there. I mean, for fuck's sake, they've got a woman on there who is famous only for fucking a Rolling Stone. At this rate, Iain Dale will end up popping up as a special, last-minute addition. No, scratch that, he's too famous. Maybe Dizzy would be a better choice.

And the introduction episode was just that - Davina McCall (who, amazingly, still has a job despite having less charisma than the nail on the big toe of my left foot) introduced these celebrities. Since most people don't know and don't care who "Sov" is.

Still, I've got an idea to make this show more fun. I think, in order to shake things up a bit, they should get the Ood on there. In character and all. Seriously, as well as looking a bit freaky with the fronds and the egghead, the Ood are also eminently quotable. They could introduce themselves with the words:

Some may call him Abaddon. Some may call him Krop Tor. Some may call him Satan. Or Lucifer. Or the King of Despair. The Deathless Prince. The Bringer of Night. And these are the words that shall set him free.

Oh, and when there's an argument, this would be a handy phrase:

The Beast and his armies will rise from the pit to make war against God.

And, finally, when someone leaves the Big Brother house, they could say:

This song is ending, but the story never ends.

I reckon this is a brilliant idea, and that the Ood might even be able to win Celebrity Big Brother. And even if you reckon that having a fictional alien from a TV show is a bad idea, let me ask you this - would having the Ood on Celebrity Big Brother actually make it any worse?

Trying to depose Brown. Again.

Yet another coup attempt against Brown:

As we move towards a General Election it remains the case that the Parliamentary Labour Party is deeply divided over the question of the leadership. Many colleagues have expressed their frustration at the way in which this question is affecting our political performance. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this issue would be to allow every member to express their view in a secret ballot.

Part of a letter sent around by Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon. Not for the first time, I'll say that you can know a man by the calibre of his enemies. And if total wankers like Hoon and Hewitt are your enemies, then you must be shit.

Anyway, I don't know whether the latest anti-Brown coup will get anywhere. I mean, the one thing Brown has been good at as Prime Minister is fighting off the attempts to unseat him. But then again, that's probably about the calibre of his enemies. But I do have to agree with Dale when he states:

Do you know what I would do if I were Gordon Brown?

I'd consider going to see the Queen this afternoon and call an election.

Think about it. Why not?

Why not indeed? Ok, it would be the plot of the final episode of the most recent series of The Thick of It. But Gordon Brown would have very little to lose by going to the country now. A snap election might catch the Tories on the back foot, and it would hold off Labour attempts to destroy their leader - at least for the duration of the campaign. Labour might even end up losing fewer seats if they fight the election now. In fact, the only thing that could stop Brown from calling an election this afternoon is his natural, debilitating fear of any sort of competition.

Which is why I'd be very surprised if it happens.

Debating Islam4UK

Well, this is a smart PR move. Islam4UK (wonderful use of text speak there, especially given this is an Islamic fundamentalist group) won't carry out their controversial plans for a march if Gordon Brown debates with them. It's a smart move as it has got lots of media attention for what is the very definition of a tiny group. Yet there is no way that Brown can debate these people. Here's the reason why:

Islam4UK seeks the introduction of sharia law in Britain and has links to Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed who has been banned from entering Britain. The group's website gave no indication of when the march would take place.

Make no mistake about it, this is a fundamentalist group. If Brown debates them, then he is debating extremists. As soon as he has done that, then he is open to the charge that he is being elitist and almost racist against white people by not debating say, oh, I don't know... the BNP. Or the moronic EDL. As soon as he debates Islam4UK, then he's got to debate every extremist who comes along with a plan for a faintly upsetting march. And there is no way that Brown - a man who hates any sort of situation where it isn't him talking and others listening - would ever let that happen.

Of course, I'd argue that he should debate Islam4UK and every other group who wants to talk to him. Not on the TV necessarily, but as the Prime Minister of a democracy who must hold views that are worth defending (especially against religious fundamentalists), it would be nice if he actually engaged with his people. Rather than hiding in 10 Downing Street like a mole with agoraphobia.

Staggering, isn't it? That even in 2010 a bit of snow can do to great swathes of Britain what terrorist campaigns and the Blitz failed to do - bring them to a shuddering halt.

Nu Labour: Making You Safe With Child Porn

This cracks me up:

Campaigners have claimed the images taken by the controversial machines could breach legislation making it illegal to create indecent images of children, as well as threatening the privacy of other passengers.

Excellent stuff, albeit pretty bloody obvious. Let's start with the privacy issue:

Simon Davies, of human rights campaign group Privacy International, said he also feared that scans of celebrities or of people with unusual body profiles could prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees, leading to their potential publication on the internet.

There's nothing potential about the publication of such images; if these machines go ahead, this will happen. Just think about it. The first time a funny image or body shape goes through, the captured image will be e-mailed to a friend. It might be a man with a button mushroom penis, or a woman with more folds of fat than an opulent pig. And once that first e-mail is sent, it becomes a done thing. After that, more e-mails will be sent, and the whole thing will become normalised. And then, at some point, the images will be sent from one organisation to another, from one recipient to another, and the captured image will go viral.

So what if someone gets embarrassed? I can hear the shrill, "makemesafeatallcosts" brigade asking that question. After all, these machines are going to save lives. Except there is no guarantee that they actually will save lives. And just imagine if it was you - your body image - that went viral. How would you feel if you were exposed to international ridicule because you happened to want to get onto a plane in this increasingly insane, Orwellian country?

Moving on to the child porn accusation:

Terri Dowty, of civil rights group Action On Rights For Children, told The Guardian the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

I don't know about the technicalities of the law around this, but it does seem logical that taking thousands of pictures of children effectively in the nude might become a problem at some point. Given the government's record with sensitive information, something will leak, sooner or later. And the outcry if it happens to be nude pictures of children will be absolutely staggering.

But it is the irony here that really startles and amuses me. In their haste to make us safe from a largely ersatz, manufactured threat, the government may be proposing the production of what could be considered child porn on a massive scale. Which is perhaps the perfect summation of the idiotic "War On Terror" and the startling inability of this Labour government to get anything right.

Ways to Waste Your Vote #1

I'm not a fan of hunting. In general, the concept leaves me cold and I can see why some people call it brutal and inhuman. Then again, I'm not a fan of The X Factor - I think that is brutal and inhuman too. Which means I struggle with total shit like this:

I will vote Labour ... to save the Fox Hunting Ban!

Right. So you're going to vote for a party that has decimated the British economy, destroyed our residual international reputation through the invasion of Iraq and pillaged civil rights in this country because they will maintain their protection of those cutie-pie little foxes? You are really going to waste your vote and potentially prolong this reprehensible government based on that one issue? Really? Seriously?

If the answer is yes, then you are an absolute fucking moron.

Gordon Brown and the Class War "Joke"

Gordon Brown:

He told host Andrew Marr: ''If you think the playing fields of Eton was anything other than a joke then I am afraid you take your politics too seriously."

It seems ironic that someone who has spent decades living and breathing politics in order to become PM is accusing someone else of taking politics too seriously. Although I have to say that I would rather the PM erred on the side of caution and took politics extremely fucking seriously himself. If he can find the time inbetween watching The X Factor and calling for glorified photo opportunities international conferences on nothing that is.

Still, this is a nice attempt to rewrite history. Brown's declaration of class war - which is what the "playing fields of Eton" comment absolutely represents - was a fight-back. Yet another fight-back, in all honesty. And it didn't work. So now it is just a joke. Which, if nothing else, shows that Brown is about as good at comedy as he is at being Prime Minister.

You're safer with strip searches

Oh, what fresh hell is this?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has given the go-ahead for full body scanners to be introduced at Britain's airports.

Presumably this is to make us feel safer. Except, you know, it probably won't actually make us safer:

Experts have questioned the scanners' effectiveness at detecting the type of bomb allegedly used on Christmas Day in an attempted plane attack over Detroit.

Plus, the rollout of these machines - if they are going to make such a valuable contribution to aviation security - does beg the question why didn't it happen earlier?

The government's move has been largely welcomed by the Liberal Democrats.

But home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne did say the scanners could have been rolled out sooner as they had been kept in storage since being trialled.

Right. So we have machines - that do an effective strip search of passengers, lest we forget - that won't combat the type of bomb that failed to blow up an aircraft recently being rolled out after being in storage for God knows how long. You'll have to forgive me, but I suspect that this has fuck all to do with making air travel safer. This looks and feels like the sort of knee-jerk reaction from a panicked, beleaguered government desperate to avoid the charge of being soft on security. The outcome of this move won't be increased security, but rather increased costs and increased delays.

Ooo, and it also shows that even failed terrorist attacks can provoke panicked reactions from governments. Which is exactly the sort of message we want to send out...

BBC News:

Gordon Brown has called a summit in London to discuss radicalisation in Yemen, after the alleged failed bomb attack on a US plane over Detroit.

The actual story:

Gordon Brown has called a summit in London to try to hide the fact that time is running out for him, and the remainder of his tenure in office will soon be counted in weeks rather than months or years.

If 2010 brings nothing else, at least it should bring the end of Gordon Brown's so-called leadership of this country.