In a word...

...disgusting.

The fact that this facility is taxpayer funded means you are paying for this sort of shit.

The Strange Death of LPUK...

...and looking to the future.

In a moment of what looks like outstanding petulance from a (former) party chairman, LPUK is felled by its own leadership clique:

Final closure: de-registration papers have been received by the Electoral Commission this morning. When they have been processed, LPUK will cease to be a political party.

And the reason for this? The leadership seems more willing to destroy the party that open the accounts up for a bit of scrutiny. Which is ironic when you consider that one of the reasons why the party was formed was to campaign for more openness in politics.

A word of warning, though, for those people who have been predicting an acrimonious breakdown in the party since its inception: before you start your "I told you so dance", remember that the confusion in the party has been massive over the past few weeks, and in particular over the past few days, so there is every chance that half the party will claim that it is finished while the other half claim it is still a going concern. Clarity is something surely lacking in all aspects of the Libertarian party at the moment. (As if to prove the point, while I was writing this post, there has already been a counter claim that the party is not finished. Way to go, people.)

But if the party is truly dead and gone, then two things are going to happen. FIrstly, they'll be a lot of blame to fling around. Some of it will probably end up heading in the direction of Anna Raccoon and perhaps even blogs like this one, which have been fiercely critical of LPUK of late. That would, of course, be blaming completely the wrong people. Besides, any party that can be felled by a few blogposts really isn't a credible political organisation.

No, the blame lies with a leader who was utterly irresponsible, in particular with the finances of that fragile organisation. It also lies with a chairman who, when faced with serious allegations about the party finances, decided that a vapid, banal report determined to blame just about anyone else other than the leadership clique was the best way to cope with that problem. Ken Ferguson's insider account of the past few weeks is a startling read, and a damning indictment of an incompetent and incapable leadership - and, if I were a senior member of that party,that report would leave me wondering whether a police investigation into the finances would be the best way to move forward.

The second thing that is going to happen is that the supporters of the party who aren't utterly disenchanted with politics after this whole sorry farrago will have to decide what to do next. Joining UKIP isn't a credible answer, in my book - mainly because they aren't a Libertarian party. Likewise, forming a new party is probably not the answer - even if a constitution was put in place to try to stop this sort of thing happening again, a new party would still have the crushing problem of being staffed and led by interested amateurs with other jobs that would make their political efforts, at best, part-time. A party needs paid political professionals, and for that it needs a decent amount of money. That will only come when the issues it represents have been forced into the limelight.

So the best thing the (former) party's supporters can do, in my opinion, is to do everything they can to raise the profile of libertarian (and liberal) issues in this country. Attend things like this, support organisations like this, and contribute to joint ventures like this. Then, when a genuinely liberal alternative has been brought to the attention of a much wider audience than the libertarian wing of the blogging world, it would be time to form another party.

Jamie Oliver - The Smoking Gun?

Regular readers will know that I am not a fan of Jamie Oliver. In fact, I think that fat-tongued prick is an utter arsehole who shouldn't be allowed near a TV camera - let alone being given blanket coverage by the media when he chooses to say something.

Yet many disagree. Because, for a celebrity chef, Oliver seems to have a genuinely philanthropic streak. Not for Oliver the Gordon Ramsay approach to career management - traveling the world slagging off failing restaurant owners is not for the often tearful and misunderstood Oliver. No, he wants to change things and, unlike so many others in our society, actually does something about it other than flap his (fat) lips a bit.

So we come to the latest Oliver project - his Dream School. Aside from sounding a little bit like an unmade sequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street, the concept of a Dream School sounds like a lot like the chance for various celebrities to play at being teachers. Then again, the education system is in the need of urgent, radical reform. So why not let Jamie and his posse undertake it?

The answer is in this paragraph - see if you can spot what it is:

He assembled an impressive staff room: the drama teacher was Simon Callow, politics was taught by Alastair Campbell, art by Rolf Harris, history by David Starkey, maths by Alvin Hall and sport by Daley Thompson; other figures such as Cherie Blair, Tinchy Stryder, Andrew Motion and Rankin also pitched in with lessons. The teachers were advised by award-winning secondary headmaster John D'Abbro.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I cheated. I highlighted the relevant section. But I'm sorry - the concept of Alastair Campbell teaching politics is surely the death knell for any school. Alastair Campbell is what many would rightly call a terrible cunt: he is the Machiavellian administrator who allowed Tony Blair to achieve power, go into a damaging nonsensical war and then propped up Blair in power just as most people realised how ghastly Blair was/is. He's a crucial henchman to an abhorrent PM. He did so much to destroy political discourse in this country. In fact, I can't talk anymore about Campbell without resorting to very creative swearing, so I'll hand you over to Michael Howard:

And that man - Alastair Cunting Campbell - is the politics teacher at Jamie's Dream School. It's a bit like making Sarah Palin your teacher for evolution - a dumb fucking idea.

Of course, Oliver needs to find some celebrities in order to attract attention to his project. Choosing Mr Smith at Tooting Bec Comp wouldn't have quite the same impact as choosing the man who facilitated the British involvement in Iraq. But then again, there are other political figures - far less tainted political figures - who could have done just as well. Why not use one of those? Why not use someone less compromised than Campbell? After all, that covers off pretty much political figure barring Tony Blair.

Because that's too difficult. And that's the problem with Oliver - the Smoking Gun or final proof of his idiocy, if you will. He wants to do the right thing, but he is so naive and so unthinking that he will pretty much say anything and engage with anyone in order to achieve whatever philanthropic intentions he might have. To misquote a famous saying, the road to Alastair Campbell is paved with good intentions...

Sweet Jesus, what fresh hell is this?

Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is to make a documentary about the pornography industry for the BBC.

Mrs Smith resigned from her cabinet post after it was revealed she claimed expenses for two pay-per-view porn films watched by her husband.

Right, so Jacqui Smith - an abject failure as a politician - is (presumably) being paid by a public funded body to make a documentary about porn? What precisely is her qualification for this role? Oh, I know, the fact that she charged some of her husband's wank material to the British taxpayer. Just as well she didn't kill someone, or the BBC would be paying her to make a film about murder.

I know dignity and Nu Labour politicians are two concepts that will never exist together in the same room, but honest to fucking God, is it too much to ask that cretins like Smith just fuck off out of the limelight when they are justly turfed out of the corridors of power?

Chaytor; Guilty, sentenced

Of course, there's still some debate about MPs expenses, with a number of people - including intelligent people whose opinions I normally respect - arguing that there was nothing particularly wrong with those MPs who rinsed a system that was so clearly open to rinsing. To them I say "shite", but I accept that not everyone agrees with my view that anyone who uses the public purse to enrich themselves is a total cunt who, at the very least, is not fit to hold public office.

But surely not even those prepared to give those scummy MPs an easy ride could argue that this isn't very welcome. Chaytor's sentence is, in my not at all humble opinion, richly deserved. Not only did he commit fraud, but he chose to steal from the very people he was elected to represent. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether he's been left a broken man by all this - after all, what broke him was not a realisation that what he did was wrong, but rather being caught and punished for his wrongdoing. He's a thief; he deserves to be punished. Cue the old cliche - don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I fully expect there to a virulent outbreak of rage against Chaytor on the interweb, and no doubt someone right now is typing out the sentence "prison's too good for him". On that, I'd have to disagree. Prison is exactly right for him.

Gordon Brown: Loser, Not Hero, Of The Year

Been a while since I last did a good fisk. This article is practically begging for it - a piece of pap trying to make Gordon Brown - who this year, more than any other, made himself clearly stand out as a total loser - into a hero. Let's go take a look:

Unlike the current leader of the Labour party, I cannot imagine Gordon Brown being a tolerable person to make a snowman with.

I don't want to make a snowman with any party leader of any party ever. If I did, then both Miliband Minor and Brown the Cunt would be pretty low down on the list. But sorry, what is the point about this idea of making snowmen with party leaders? Is there one?

He would fuss about the precise placement of the carrot nose and pebble eyes, possibly employing a ruler and spirit-level, and fret that this was not an appropriate use of our intellectual resources.

Still struggling to see the point of this snowman shit. But anwyay, Brown'd probably chuck a mobile phone at your face for not agreeing with him that snowman should look exactly like him (which is like a fatter Richard Nixon, fact fans).

But, and herein lies the rub, I have never felt the need to imagine the potential for cold weather fun with the head of the party I'm supporting, simply to feel confident in their potential to lead it to power.

Then why the fuck mention the whole snowman thing? Jesus. Try reading back your own article next time. Just so it makes some sort of fucking sense, as opposed to just being padded out fawning and bullshit.

Brown, it has often been observed, was born into the wrong era. Paralysingly ill-suited to the territory of 24/7 performative politics, his stock would have been valued considerably higher in the olden days when moral compass, staunch resolve and attention to detail were as important as the ability to crack a genuine smile on YouTube is now. But Gordon Brown, as in so many other areas, had no such luck.

What moral compass, staunch resolve and attention to detail? None of this was shown in Brown's failed time in Number 10. He was a shallow opportunist, determined to cling to his unelected and undeserved position. His time in power is summed up by his odious slogan of "British Jobs For British Workers". He would say anything to stay in power; the problem (for him) was that he was shit at saying it.

He did not, of course, lead his party to power in May, but down to the doldrums of defeat which may well last much longer than this country deserves. And yet, though his inability to capture public confidence was personal as much as it was circumstantial, it is his dignity in defeat that makes him my hero of 2010. His exit from Downing Street was touchingly humble. No amount of nippy accounts of "22 days in May" can deflect from the power of Guardian photographer Martin Argles's shots of Brown with his family in their final moments at Number 10.

I'd rather read a million accounts of those 22 days in May than gawp at a photo of Brown strutting down the street like he is some sort of genuinely historical figure. After all, those 22 days - for better or for worse - gave us our incumbent government. Whereas that shot was of a man leaving a building he should have vacated days before. And he appears, for all the world, to be dragging his family with him.

Returning with them to Fife, he has embraced life below the radar as a constituency MP, surfacing only recently to offer his characteristically comprehensive thoughts on the potential for global financial restructuring in his book Beyond the Crash, serialised here.

Oh, please. Brown went from being Prime Minister to being an MP who could not be fucked to work for the constituents who elected him. He did nothing after being turfed out of Downing Street except write his book which has, to a large extent, been a failure - a dead weight on those bookstores that elected to stock it.

When he denounced Tory cuts as "immoral" and "economic vandalism" in an article for the Mirror last Saturday, he only echoed the sentiments of the thousands of protesters who had taken to the high streets that day to express their outrage at the national plague of tax avoidance.

Thousands of protestors in a country of 60 million? What a man of the people Gordon Brown must be. Particularly since he was just rehashing the muted attack lines of his replacement as Labour leader.

In his passionate belief in international co-operation to temper national insecurity, we see beyond Brown the caricature to Brown the believer.

Never seen this belief in international cooperation. What I've seen is Gordon Brown the believer in his own (undeserved) entitlement to power.

The country may not have wanted him as a fatally flawed leader, but it needs him now as a quiet economic hero.

In what way is the man who nearly bankrupted this country - and forced these cuts on the coalition - a fucking economic hero? And in what way is he quiet - this man who once blithely boasted that he had ended boom and bust? Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ, the last thing we need is to hear more from Gordon Brown. His time in power was an absolute fucking disaster, and his incompetence and malign policies will hurt this country for many years to come.

Gordon Brown's Book - A Failure

So, having checked the figures in my local bookshop, it appears that the “Right” “Honourable” Gordon Brown has managed to sell just 13 copies of his book in its first week of release. That’s less than two a day.

Of course, it would be wrong to compare the sales of his book with a high-profile release of, say, a popular fiction title (or, to put it another way, a book that people in large numbers might actually want to read). So let’s compare like with like – let’s compare the first week of sales for Brown’s book with that of another former Labour Prime Minister – Tony Blair. How did Blair get on? Well, he sold nearly 400.

Are there any mitigating factors that might explain Brown only managing about 3% of the sales of Blair? Well, we are in the run-up to Christmas, but that should work in Brown’s favour. After all, his book could be a bought as a gift as well as for the individual purchaser to read. Yet that just hasn’t happened. Once again, Blair has outperformed Brown.

The reasons are simple, as far as I can see. Even as someone who would rather cut out my own eyes and fry them than read either one of those books, I can clearly see that Blair’s self-aggrandising nonsense would be preferable to Brown’s pathetic excuse making. Ultimately, Blair won three elections and ruled this country for ten years. Brown won none and was in power for under three years. And he hasn’t even chosen to give the insider account of his time in power – instead, he’s trying to paint himself as the man who saved the world once again – even though we know he was just a pathetic shit who made sure that the economic crisis hurt each and every person in this country through his ineptitude.

And why does it matter? Because we paid Gordon Brown an MP’s salary to stay at home and write this fucking thing. Even when taking months of unauthorised paid leave from his job, Brown is no capable of turning out a book that people might actually want to buy. What a waste of space – both him and his book.

Cunt.

Self-Justification and Political Memoirs

There are many reasons why a politician would write their memoirs - to record a genuinely historical moment in history (like, say, Churchill), to set the record straight (like Nixon tried, and spectacularly failed, to do), to gossip to a much wider audience (Mandelson) and to make a shit load of cash (hello, Bill Clinton). However, with the publication of Bush's book (a tome apparently not written on chew-proof paper with waterproof crayons, much to the astonishment of most) a new form of political memoir has been truly been enshrined - the whiny pile of self-justificatory tripe.

Bush has been defending waterboarding - how he fought for freedom by getting others to torture suspects. It is, of course, entirely justifiable in Bush's worldview - but then again, Bush only sees the world in terms of absolute good and absolute evil. He misses the shades of grey that define existence for most. Yet the very fact that he is having to justify and explain his actions shows how he and his idiotic War on Terror have been tainted since the days when he had a genuine chance to unite pretty much the whole world behind him in an assault on globalised terror.

Bush seems to be claiming that lives were saved by waterboarding. Aside from the fact that this doesn't make it right (torture often works - many nations choose not to do it anyway because they are aspiring to be civilised), waterboarding may have prevented certain terrorist attacks. The operative word there being "may". But how many others have become radicalised because of the stories of US waterboarding of terror suspects? Actions as controversial as water-boarding have consequences, both good and bad. Bush says water-boarding saves lives - I say it will also cost lives in the future - if it hasn't already.

Bush is not alone in publishing this sort of memoir, though. Blair's own book seems to have a large theme running throughout it that basically seems to be saying "Don't judge me because of the Iraq War!" Like Bush, he seems to be fighting for a place in history that doesn't come with the tag of "warmonger" - something that, for neither man, is going to be very easy.

Brown's forthcoming book won't be about the Iraq War - he's not fighting the tag of "warmonger". Rather, he's trying to avoid the caption next to his picture in any history book reading "incompetent cunt". He's going to be banging on about how the recession wasn't his fault, but any signs of recovery (however slim) were entirely down to him. His book gives every indication of being a wretched last gasp of a desperate man who has not quite come to terms with the fact that he utterly fucked up in the job he fought for across his adult life. It is Brown's last-ditch attempt to avoid being tagged as a failure for the rest of time (or at least until his abortion of an administration is forgotten - which, given the levels of the debt he left us with, will be quite some time). Like Bush and Blair, he's seemingly destined to fail.

Of course, the books of all three men will make lots of money (even if some of it will be grudgingly given to charity by some of the authors) and keep the authors in the public eye. But the tone of these books seems to be about the last ditch attempt to carve out a place in the history books. None of these men deserve anything more than consignment to the dustbin of history as incompetent, immoral failures. So if you do waste your time and money by buying and then reading their books, just keep in mind that these tomes are nothing more than the final, desperate ramblings of compromised men.

Work For Welfare

And just what the hell is wrong with this new welfare plan?

Under the plan, claimants thought to need "experience of the habits and routines of working life" could be put on 30-hour-a-week placements.

Anyone refusing to take part or failing to turn up on time could have their £65 Jobseekers' Allowance stopped for at least three months.

The Work Activity scheme is said to be designed to flush out claimants who have opted for a life on benefits or are doing undeclared jobs on the side.

So, people who may be taking out the piss out of the benefits systems are going to be expected to do some work in order to justify their ongoing benefits payments. What the hell is wrong with that? It is basically saying that those who want benefits should have to work for them. Like, say, the vast majority of poor sods in this country. How the hell can that be controversial?

Fortunately, the Archbishop of Cunterbury is waiting to tell us:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, expressed his concern, telling the BBC: "People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are - I think - driven further into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in that way.

"People often are in this starting place, not because they're wicked, stupid or lazy, but because their circumstances are against them, they've failed to break through into something and to drive that spiral deeper - as I say - does feel a great problem."

Good ol' Rowan Williams - he always manages to make the separation of Church and State seem like not only a good idea, but absolutely fucking essential.

Fundamentally, I don't get his point. If people are genuinely trying to find work as part of a quest for a stable future, then surely the government helping them with a work placement is rather helpful. Yes, it may not be the sort of work they want or aspire to, but remarkably few people actually have a job they proactively want to do. And this scheme isn't even aimed at genuine jobseekers - rather, it is trying to deal with welfare careerists and benefit cheats - those people who really shouldn't be paid for doing fuck all. And this is the point; people working for money is the norm. The fact that some people live of the beneficence of the state should not given them immunity from the need to work to earn money.

Sure, this policy will give certain people a stark choice - work or not get money. But the vast majority of people in this country have that choice and choose the former each and every day. There is nothing - fucking nothing - controversial about saying people should have to work for a welfare cheque. If you are on welfare and don't want to work then that's fine - that's your choice. But don't be surprised when the state - or the British taxpayer, more accurately - makes the choice not to fund you anymore.

Woolas: Labour Politics in a Nutshell

That the odious Phil Woolas has got himself into serious trouble is something to cheer the soul; every single shitty MP who is held to account, particularly in the courts, is a plus as far as I am concerned. And it even gives Harriet Harman the chance to talk arse once more. She said:

"I don't think this is a reflection on the Labour Party as a whole"

Right. So you don't think that someone misleading others to win an election is a reflection on the Labour party. Have you not met Anthony Blair? And you don't think that smearing someone is a reflection on the Labour party - despite the fact that its leaders have employed people to do precisely that on a full time basis. And you don't think that someone using crude, borderline racist rhetoric on immigration is a reflection on the Labour party. Don't you remember your last leader, Gordon "British Jobs For British Workers" Brown?

The fact that a Labour MP has been forced out of his seat is always going to be a reflection on the Labour party, if only because of his allegiance to that organisation. But what is striking about the Woolas case is just how accurate a reflection of Nu Labour politics that little turd appears to be. He isn't an oddity or an aberration - he is a perfect encapsulation of the vile politics ushered into this country in the Nu Labour era. Deception, smears and crude racial/racist politics - some of the most recognisable calling cards of the Blair/Brown years.

Banksy: Cock.

Good God Banksy is a tedious cock whose art work is predictable and obvious. Take his intro to The Simpsons - described by The Guardian as follows:

The minute-long opening sequence begins almost as usual, but with Banksy's tag being sprayed across Springfield monuments, and a masked Bart writing "I must not write all over the walls" over the walls of his schoolroom.

It then pans to a dark, dilapidated factory where dozens of workers animate sketches of the family. Cats are shown being thrown into a wood chipper to create stuffing for merchandise such as Bart Simpson dolls. A unicorn, chained to the factory wall, is used to punch holes in DVDs.

The titles end with a grim image of the logo of the show's owner, 20th Century Fox, guarded by searchlights, a watchtower and a barbed wire fence.

Ooo, how original - how cutting edge. No-one has ever called 20th Century Fox bad before now, and no-one has ever pointed out that sweat-shops are appalling places to work. Hang on, what's that you say? People have made those points before now? Really? So Banksy isn't a cutting edge, subversive artist but actually a bit of a cock who makes really tedious points through his "art"?

Rather like The Simpsons these days, Banksy is a subversive icon only for middle class types who don't really like subversion but want to appear hip to their friends. At best, Banksy is well past his sell-by date and at worst, his "art" never really had a point beyond saying in a really obvious way "ooo, look - some stuff's bad".

On Jeremy Kyle

That video of the egregious twat that is Jeremy Kyle getting an envelope lobbed at him by a rat-boy is everywhere - but it really is worth seeing. So in case you haven't, here it is:

Now, don't get me wrong - Jeremy Kyle wades through the detritus of our society. Yep, that's a harsh thing to say, but from what little of the show I have been able to sit through the guests on there are not the best specimens that humanity has to offer.

Then again, if you're running a show like Kyle's, what do you expect? The premise - like all shows of this ilk - is for people to wash their dirty (and often fetid and utterly shameful) laundry in public. And guess what? People with pride, and with options, won't be willing to do that. However, the shameless and the desperate will. So Kyle gets both on his show.

Yet however base his guests may be, there is simply no excuse for Kyle's behaviour. He is an obnoxious, odious little cunt of a man. He is the sort of unsympathetic, judgmental man that it is impossible to like. At best, with Kyle, you can admire him for saying what others would not be willing to say to the dregs of our society. Which would be more admirable if he wasn't paid a fuck load of cash to do so, and he didn't have several thug like bodyguards who rush to protect him when he gets into trouble.

Kyle is a typical angry little man, full of bile but actually a coward beneath his strutting bravado. His brash, arrogant style achieves what should be impossible - he makes his guests appear sympathetic despite their numerous, glaring flaws - if only because they are being bullied and hectored by a man with no qualification other than he happened to get his own TV show.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the worst Kyle has had to endure is an envelope to the head. Frankly, I'd have though that someone would have kicked the living shit out him by now.

The New Ed Miliband

Just when I think I'm growing out of swearing on this blog, I read something like this: Ed Miliband is apparently turning his back on the Brown and Blair years.

It isn't an original observation, to be sure, but I'd just like to point out to him that you were a key player in those fucking years, you cunt.

And if you want to know why you lost the election, Ed, it is because of arseholes like you.

Still, perhaps the way forward for Ed's leadership is to turn his back on his government career, and I think we could all accept that. With a full, frank apology for his time spent backing Brown and an offer of reparations for the financial crimes of the last government.

But if that isn't forthcoming, Ed, then I'm sure I won't be alone in telling you to fuck right off. And please feel free to take your fucking party with you on your way to political oblivion.

The Idiotic and Offensive Pope

Oh my word, take a look at this for an example of Papal crassness and stupidity taken to an extreme:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny"

Yes, Britain did indeed fight the Nazis and quite rightly too. The totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany was a nightmare, and it needed to be fought by any nation or movement that claimed in anyway to me moral. Britain fought the Nazis. What did the Vatican do? At best - at very fucking best - it sat on the fence in World War Two.

Furthermore, many people opposed the Nazis and some did so for reasons other than religion. The Soviet Union opposed the Nazis. And as an FYI, Ratzinger, the Soviet Union was atheist.

But that's just background noise to the truly ignorant and offensive rubbish that the Panzer Pope is spouting. The idea that Nazism represents "atheist extremism" is palpable, insulting nonsense. In fact, if anything, the structure of Nazism resembles that of religious orders, and in particular the Catholic Church. The Führerprinzip closely resembles Papal Infallibility. Both belief systems were big on ceremony, of performing in stupid costumes, and to a large extent are based on meaningless, fabricated myths. But the biggest similarity lies in the fact that both belief systems are based on blind obedience. You have to believe absolutely in the teachings of the Church, just as absolute belief in Nazi propaganda was demanded by that regime. There is no allowance for freedom of thought under Nazism or the sort of religion espoused by the Vatican. Unlike in atheism, which is predicated on questioning what was the greatest authority in human life for centuries - that of God.

Sure, you could argue that Catholicism believes in God, while the Nazi regime believed in nothing. But this isn't true; Nazism adopted much of the structure of religion, but just changed the position of their God. Christianity sites God in heaven; Nazism had God in earth in the shape of the Führer.

Furthermore, the exclusion of God, religion and whatever corrupted concept of virtue the Church has from public life does not lead to a truncated vision of the person and of their destiny. On the contrary, the removal of the need to adhere to outmoded, out-of-date archaic teachings from millennia ago actually frees humanity up to achieve more. Stem cell research - banned by the Catholics - helps alleviate suffering and extend lives. Contraception - banned by the Church - helps slow the spread of the HIV epidemic. And so on. The removal of God from public life is a healthy thing. Furthermore, such a move does not bring about the removal of morals from society; "thou shalt not kill" does not need to be backed up by the threat of hell; it becomes intuitively plausible for an atheist through the use of empathy with fellow humans.

And where does this idea that Catholicism is synonymous with morality and virtue come from? The Church has, at best, a dubious record when it comes to morality. It isn't just the recent scandal over paedophilia that shows the Vatican's dubious approach to basic, moral concepts like you shouldn't let people rape children and then cover it up. Going right back to the Spanish Inquisition it should be plain to see that religion can be linked to immoral behaviour and, in far too many cases, horrific cruelty. So forgive me, Ratzinger, if I don't buy into your concept of virtue. It really isn't working for me on any level.

This is meant to be the Pope extending the hand of friendship to people in the UK. Likening those who have legitimate concerns about religion or who just plain and simple don't believe in religion to Nazis does not strike me as a good way to go about that.

Union Bullshit

Trade Union leaders failing to break the habit of a life time by talking total fucking bollocks:

TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept large-scale spending cuts, as trade unions gather in Manchester.

They will accept them, I believe, because public spending has become synonymous with waste. If the government trims the unproductive parts of its operations, it will not adversely affect how the public live their lives but will allow for, in the longer-term, populist measures such as tax cuts.

Mr Barber said unions would reach out to the wider community to form a "progressive alliance" to make the case for alternatives to spending cuts.

Oh, Jesus titty-fucking Christ, it's that word again - "progressive". And it is being completely misused here. What Barber wants to form is, by definition, a "conservative alliance" - he wishes to conserve the status quo. Which is fine - he can go away and do that to his heart's content. But don't lie about it - you're being conservative, Barber. And anyone with any intellect won't ally themselves with you because you're attempting to conserve an unsustainable and ultimately regressive status quo.

RMT union leader Bob Crow called for a campaign of "civil disobedience" in protest at spending cuts.

Well, I want to call for a campaign of "civil disobedience" against Bob Crow. And after the tube strikes, I think a campaign against him will be far more popular than a campaign against spending cuts.

I have no issue with the Trade Unions campaigning in the best interests of their members - hell, that's what they're for. But campaigning for the government to continue with the levels of spending that are running the risk of bankrupting this country is not in the interests of their members, and certainly isn't in the interests of the country as a whole.

Christian extremist lackwits call for Koran burning

Oh, good golly gosh this sounds like a such a dumb fucking idea:

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

And the justification for it?

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: "We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam."

Well, Pastor Terry Jones is clearly a fucktard of the very highest calibre if he thinks that this will be a clear message getting to radical Islam. After all, his country has invaded two nations and destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives trying to send a message to radical Islam. And if radical Islam is getting the message, it is only making them more angry. Which is what Jones's little piece of idiocy will do, if it goes ahead. Make angry radicals even more angry. Woo-hoo! That's great work there, Terry, you empty-headed lackwit.

Of course, burning books is never a great sign, but as we know, radical Islam is not above having the odd burning of stuff itself. So why shouldn't these Christians get in on the act? Well, partly because their religion is big on turning the other cheek rather than burning books, but also because this is a reactionary and stupid thing to do. The only comfort arising from this situation is that more mainstream Christians in the US and elsewhere are making their voices heard and are shouting this idea down. Which is what they need to do. Because the extremes of religion - whatever that religion might be - are very dangerous. And they discredit the whole of that religion; it becomes tainted by association with the bigots. Just as Jones reckons he is sending a message to radical Islam so Christian churches in the US need to send a message to their radical, or extremist elements - and they need to tell Jones and his odious ilk to go fuck themselves. Or more Christian words that have the same meaning.

Blair, Protest, and the BNP

Tony Blair doing his own little version of Godwin's Law*:

But Mr Blair, prime minister from 1997 to 2007, said: "I'm concerned that I don't want to put people through a lot of hassle at this Wednesday's signing."

He added that he had heard the British National Party "had wanted to get involved in the action".

Excellent stuff. A near textbook attempt to taint those who might protest against Blair for whatever the reason (being a profiligate war-mongering son of a bitch who allowed someone he thought was incompetent to succeed him would be my personal reasons for protesting) through an fake association with the knuckle-dragging Neo-Nazi louts of the BNP. This is just one small step above screaming "Nazis!" at his opponents and then running away.

Still, Blair is at least being consistent - even in retirement he is still spinning away and continuing to argue against the legitimate protests of those who might not agree with him. It's nice to have these occasional little reminders of why Blair was such a corrosive and damaging influence on British politics.

UPDATE:

And now he's cancelled it. Well, I guess the protestors have won this little battle. And Blair has reminded us of something else - he's a fucking coward.

*Before anyone says anything, yes, I know Godwin's Law actually relates to da interwebs - this is why I'm calling it a version of Godwin's Law.

Blair Welcomed in Dublin

Got to love the Irish:



Just a shame they didn't hit their target.

Coulson, Collusion and the Met

The fact that Andy Coulson is a bit of a shit with a shady background doesn't really come as a surprise to me; he edited a tabloid and has become the Tory answer to Alastair Campbell - he was never going to be a proper gent, now, was he? That's not to say I approve of the invasive techniques used by his paper when he was editor, of course - in fact, the opposite is true.

But what does bother me is the accusation that the police colluded in restricting the investigations into phone hacking by the News of the World:

The New York Times goes on to quote unnamed sources from the Met suggesting that its inquiry into the phone hacking was hampered by a desire to avoid upsetting Britain's biggest selling newspaper: "Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with the News of the World."

Sweet Jesus, how can that be right on any level? The whole point of the justice system is that it is neutral, and as a result the police should be neutral as well. Yet the fact that the News of the World sells well and has a "close relationship" with the Met seems to mean that crimes committed by that paper are to be swept under the carpet as much as possible - in other words, the crime of one of the Met's friend is less of a problem and not worth investigating as closely as the crime of someone else.

This stinks; it stinks to high heaven. The Met, whose reputation has been tarnished beyond repair by the deaths of Jean-Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson, is further dragged into the sewer by these allegations. The police sometimes seem to wonder why people don't trust and respect them any more. Stories like this one are the answer.