As per a teenager going crazy with a gun, I don't particularly like Mondays. Not because, you understand, as a result of some errant angst against the world, but rather because Monday's so often bring with them stupid politics and stupid laws, today being no exception.
Apparently, from today the Police will have new powers to tackle feral gangs which will include the power to ban people from wearing "colours" such as a particular bandanna that associates them with a particular gang. Now, I ask you, have you ever in your life heard of anything quite so stupid?
After all, at least if you know a gang all wear the same bandanna you'll know when one of them is walking down the street towards and prepare yourself for the inevitable mugging at knife point. Now though, you won't know, what genius.
However, I digress, remember the absolute furore when someone suggested that we should ban the burka? People from all sides argued how stupid it was. On the civil liberty side it was quite rightly argued that banning certain clothes was absurd, and yet, here we are proposing to ban certain clothes and it's all about tackling crime so it's OK?
If you want to tackle the problem of gang crime it;s quite simple. Arrest them, convict them, and jail them. Don't ban them from wearing certain clothes. Not only is it an affront on basic liberty, but more so it won;t change the fact that some people are vicious violent bastards.
Are we seriously expected to believe that a gang member will wake up one morning and think "oh no, I can't commit a crime today because I;m not wearing my colours".
Note: The title of this post should be a candidate for John Rentoul's "questions to which the answer is no"
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Plain English at the FCO....
I'm probably alone in finding the following response from the Foreign Office to a question from Alok Sharma MP about the reduction of jargon and the use of plain English amusing, but according to Alistair Burt MP,,
Ministers and the FCO Board launched a diplomatic excellence initiative in November 2010 which will ensure there is a sharper focus on the use of precise, accurate English and avoiding jargon.There's nothing better than a "diplomatic excellence initiative" to place a "sharper focus" on precise English is there?
A storm of excrement this way comes......
Morning all, apologies for my apparent disappearance, but events in the offline professional world* have recently taken priority over delivering you reports of idiocy from Parliament; funny pictures from elsewhere on the Internet; or my usual flippant commentary of events to which I have no part of.
With that said, I have some Sunday flippancy for you all about the rather odd, and seemingly domino effect occurring across the North African coast at the moment. I doubt many have posited this thought, but depending on how events turn we could be about to witness an almighty ruck.
You see, it occurs to me that there is talk about Egypt that suggest the Muslim Brotherhood may be making a push for some sort power, or least hoping to step in and fill a power vacuum should it appear when and if Mubarak does the proverbial "runner" because he's worried he's going to be taken out Ceauşescu-style.
The thing about the Muslim Brotherhood is, of course, that they're as equally oppressive as that which has come before, and they're rather partial to the idea of Islamism rather than Islam - you know, the whole global caliphate type thing, a bit of Sharia law chucked in for good measure, and the total subjugation of man before other men, sorry, I mean Allah.
The big problem though is that sandwiched between them and Jordan (where they also have a presence) should they take power is this little sliver of a country called Israel where they following the same God, albeit with a different name, and errr, shall we say, don't get on with their possible new neighbouring powers all that well.
They are, of course, severely outnumbered, but have a trick up their sleeve because they have big bombs that can kill many many people, and they're not afraid to take pre-emptive action against states that potentially threaten their existence. You may not like that but it is a reality.
So where does that leave the situation? Well, if the Muslim Brotherhood succeed in tapping into the civil unrest, we could be about to witness what I believe is known in technical and diplomatic circle as a "shitstorm". Now obviously this isn't a very cheery thought but it's worth noting.
The optimist would no doubt be hoping for the sweeping democratic change, the birth of new states with moderate and sane checks and balances on power, and rather large group hug with all neighbours and then some sort of hippy-style free love movement. This would be nice, wouldn't it?
But then their is the pessimistic cynical reaction, sometimes called realism, that says what will actually happen is that one dictatorship will be replaced by another dictatorship albeit under the guise of spreading freedom and liberty just to calm everyone down, and then everything goes back to how it is.
Who knows what will happen though, but if I were a betting man I would have my money on the shitstorm.
* Those events will be ongoing for some time, but I'm not going to let them stop me posting stuff when I can.
With that said, I have some Sunday flippancy for you all about the rather odd, and seemingly domino effect occurring across the North African coast at the moment. I doubt many have posited this thought, but depending on how events turn we could be about to witness an almighty ruck.
You see, it occurs to me that there is talk about Egypt that suggest the Muslim Brotherhood may be making a push for some sort power, or least hoping to step in and fill a power vacuum should it appear when and if Mubarak does the proverbial "runner" because he's worried he's going to be taken out Ceauşescu-style.
The thing about the Muslim Brotherhood is, of course, that they're as equally oppressive as that which has come before, and they're rather partial to the idea of Islamism rather than Islam - you know, the whole global caliphate type thing, a bit of Sharia law chucked in for good measure, and the total subjugation of man before other men, sorry, I mean Allah.
The big problem though is that sandwiched between them and Jordan (where they also have a presence) should they take power is this little sliver of a country called Israel where they following the same God, albeit with a different name, and errr, shall we say, don't get on with their possible new neighbouring powers all that well.
They are, of course, severely outnumbered, but have a trick up their sleeve because they have big bombs that can kill many many people, and they're not afraid to take pre-emptive action against states that potentially threaten their existence. You may not like that but it is a reality.
So where does that leave the situation? Well, if the Muslim Brotherhood succeed in tapping into the civil unrest, we could be about to witness what I believe is known in technical and diplomatic circle as a "shitstorm". Now obviously this isn't a very cheery thought but it's worth noting.
The optimist would no doubt be hoping for the sweeping democratic change, the birth of new states with moderate and sane checks and balances on power, and rather large group hug with all neighbours and then some sort of hippy-style free love movement. This would be nice, wouldn't it?
But then their is the pessimistic cynical reaction, sometimes called realism, that says what will actually happen is that one dictatorship will be replaced by another dictatorship albeit under the guise of spreading freedom and liberty just to calm everyone down, and then everything goes back to how it is.
Who knows what will happen though, but if I were a betting man I would have my money on the shitstorm.
* Those events will be ongoing for some time, but I'm not going to let them stop me posting stuff when I can.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
End world hunger! Eat lots of food for money!
What a marvellous juxtaposition we have in the most recent copy of the Register of Member's Interests from champagne socialist, Dianne Abbott. Remunerated employment, office, profession etcSo, she gets paid three grand to gorge herself on food and booze provided by herself and three other "celebrities", then pockets a handful of tickets worth £760 to pop off to a benefit concert in support of ending - of all things - world hunger.
December 2010, fee of £3,000 for participating in Channel 4’s ‘Come Dine with Me’ television programme. Address: ITV Studios Ltd, The London Television Centre, Upper Ground, London SE1 9LT. Hours: 36 hrs. (Registered 15 December 2010)
Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)
Name of donor: The Hunger Project Trust
Address of donor : 1st Floor, Building 5, Chiswick Park, 566 Chiswick High Road, London W4 5YF
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: five complimentary tickets for World Hunger Day Gala Concert to be held on 9 January 2011. Each ticket is valued at £152; total value £760.
Date of receipt of donation: 19 December 2010
Date of acceptance of donation: 20 December 2010
Donor status: registered charity
(Registered 21 December 2010)
Can you just imagine the screams of outrage and "shameful insensitivity" if a Tory did that?
Monday, January 24, 2011
But I don't like yellow......
Preference voting in action!
Everybody gets what nobody wants!
Hat Tip: Crash Bang Wallace
Note: Yes, not AV, but still illustrates the core problem with preference style voting.
Everybody gets what nobody wants!
Hat Tip: Crash Bang Wallace
Note: Yes, not AV, but still illustrates the core problem with preference style voting.
Brown's phone "hacked": May I call bullshit?
So, the development of the "listening to voicemail" story went further yesterday, with the Independent on Sunday running an "exclusive" that Brown asks Scotland Yard to investigate if he was hacked. Apparently this was during Gordon Brown's time as Chancellor, and he was concerned his phone had been targeted.
So let me get this straight.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second most important man in the country - privy to not only vital state secrets of an economic matter but who would also have been privy to other intelligence briefings - was freely making phone calls on a non-CESG approved, unencrypted, and insecure line, susceptible to casual intercept by a chancer dialing into the voicemail service and using the default password of 1234 or 0000?
What's that smell coming from the Sindy? Is it sheep? Is it pig? No it's bull.
So let me get this straight.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second most important man in the country - privy to not only vital state secrets of an economic matter but who would also have been privy to other intelligence briefings - was freely making phone calls on a non-CESG approved, unencrypted, and insecure line, susceptible to casual intercept by a chancer dialing into the voicemail service and using the default password of 1234 or 0000?
What's that smell coming from the Sindy? Is it sheep? Is it pig? No it's bull.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Bed made.... lie in it?
Can some help me with my confusion on something. I understand that British Airways cabin crew are planning to strike again, and this time it is because of the loss of travel perks that those who went on strike last time had removed.
What confuses me is this. When they went on strike last time they were told, in no uncertain terms, that if they did they'd loose the perks of free travel, cheap flights etc, so why exactly do they think they've the right to have the perks back?
They were told what would happen, they knew what would happen. I believe the phrase you made your bed now lie in it, should be the correct one here shouldn't it?
What confuses me is this. When they went on strike last time they were told, in no uncertain terms, that if they did they'd loose the perks of free travel, cheap flights etc, so why exactly do they think they've the right to have the perks back?
They were told what would happen, they knew what would happen. I believe the phrase you made your bed now lie in it, should be the correct one here shouldn't it?
Which cuts does Balls support?
Interesting, I see Ed Balls has said he wants another one of bank bonus tax, but more interesting is that he also said,
"Of course we do not oppose every cut"Surely the simple response for the coalition is to push him on which cuts he does support?
The truth is not out there
Friday was a funny day wasn't it? I was actually quite busy at work so it was not until the afternoon that I actually heard about Andy Coulson resigning, then I had to build a new Nabru sofa on Saturday, hence the lack of posts about it.
Of course, such explanations would probably not satisfy the leftie blogosphere who will see the lack of comment on any right of centre blog in terms of "oh look they're commenting on this hugely significance negative story about their team!" So it's probably easier for me to simply say that I received a call personally from CCHQ asking me not to comment along with my paycheck from the CIA who are my true paymasters.
So, putting the idiotic conspiratorial loopiness aside, what is there to say about the resignation of Coulson in light of the "listening to voicemail scandal" (am still refusing to call something so pathetically non-hackerish as hacking incidentally). The most obvious thing to note is that the entire saga has become a double-whammy, because it's not just about Westminster politics but corporate politics too.
On the one hand it's no doubt lovely for the Left to "stick it" to the Tories and their "tory-led coalition" (a phrase that sounds so fake if you count how it is wheeled out these days as the line to take incidentally). The resignation has made the Guardian reading trendy liberal left ejaculate with immense pleasure, after all, it is about the seeking of truth dammit!
Rarely at any point of course is the corporate politics of the whole thing mentioned. By that I mean the tax-avoiding Guardian is engaging in a corporate battle with a business rival. Heaven forbid that there might be underlying motives for its campaign aside from journalistic and moral truth-seeking.
Personally speaking it will be interesting to see in the coming months how the Murdoch news empire chooses to react to this corporately. No doubt there are minions within that organisation currently seeking out any scandal the can to attack the Guardian with in retaliation, and, naturally, when they do it will be billed as shameful corporate politics and/or dirty tricks.
Is evidence going to surface that proves beyond reasonable doubt for a jury that Andy Coulson personally sanctioned the illegal access of others communications? Who knows. He's already guilty for so many, you only have to look at the netards on Twitter with their pathetic "Arrest Coulson" twibbons (stupid word) to note that he's already guilty anyway whatever evidence may or may not exist or be speculated upon.
To be honest, the real hilarity with this story is how well it highlights the sheer hypocrisy that goes with politics and the tribe. Take the Bristol murder case and the arrest of the victim's landlord as a case in point.
The shouts came up at the time of the terrible way in which the guy was facing a trial by media when he had not even been charged (and was released and someone else has now been charged); and yet now we have Andy Coulson being found guilty in advance by the very same people who turned up their noses in moral righteousness when such things happened to someone else.
Then again, Jo Yeates Landlord wasn't in Number 10 and associated with the evil child-eating bastard Tories.
Even now we have talk about "secret tapes" that may hold the truth of who knew what, when and where the bodies are buried. If they turn up then perhaps we'll know the truth, then again perhaps we won't. It won;t matter anyway, because if they don't damn Coulson there will remain the speculation, and if they don't turn up there will always the very idea that they might exist to ensure the perpetuation of his guilt, because that is how politics works.
Look at the cases of David Kelly, Iraq, or Cash for Honours. Those who believe Kelly was murdered by some sort of Establishment conspiracy will always do so. Those who believe Blair lied over Iraq will never waiver from that viewpoint whatever evidence does or does not exist about it. Likewise - and I'm guilty of this myself - some will think Honours were given out for money because we've connected the dots and reached our conclusion based upon on own tribal view no matter the evidence.
The only truth really about Coulson is that some have decided he's guilty and will always b so no matter the evidence for or against. Just look at what Chris Bryant MP said,
What do I think about Coulson? Frankly I don't care if he's guilty or not. The infringement of privacy by the News of the World or anyone else in the media exists because we have a culture that wants to consume these scoops. Some may stand on the sidelines wringing their hands at how terribly wrong it all is, but they're just as guilty of lapping up such stories when they come along.
The whole saga is the inevitable consequence of the human desire for gossip in a world with immediate and mass communicable media.
Of course, such explanations would probably not satisfy the leftie blogosphere who will see the lack of comment on any right of centre blog in terms of "oh look they're commenting on this hugely significance negative story about their team!" So it's probably easier for me to simply say that I received a call personally from CCHQ asking me not to comment along with my paycheck from the CIA who are my true paymasters.
So, putting the idiotic conspiratorial loopiness aside, what is there to say about the resignation of Coulson in light of the "listening to voicemail scandal" (am still refusing to call something so pathetically non-hackerish as hacking incidentally). The most obvious thing to note is that the entire saga has become a double-whammy, because it's not just about Westminster politics but corporate politics too.
On the one hand it's no doubt lovely for the Left to "stick it" to the Tories and their "tory-led coalition" (a phrase that sounds so fake if you count how it is wheeled out these days as the line to take incidentally). The resignation has made the Guardian reading trendy liberal left ejaculate with immense pleasure, after all, it is about the seeking of truth dammit!
Rarely at any point of course is the corporate politics of the whole thing mentioned. By that I mean the tax-avoiding Guardian is engaging in a corporate battle with a business rival. Heaven forbid that there might be underlying motives for its campaign aside from journalistic and moral truth-seeking.
Personally speaking it will be interesting to see in the coming months how the Murdoch news empire chooses to react to this corporately. No doubt there are minions within that organisation currently seeking out any scandal the can to attack the Guardian with in retaliation, and, naturally, when they do it will be billed as shameful corporate politics and/or dirty tricks.
Is evidence going to surface that proves beyond reasonable doubt for a jury that Andy Coulson personally sanctioned the illegal access of others communications? Who knows. He's already guilty for so many, you only have to look at the netards on Twitter with their pathetic "Arrest Coulson" twibbons (stupid word) to note that he's already guilty anyway whatever evidence may or may not exist or be speculated upon.
To be honest, the real hilarity with this story is how well it highlights the sheer hypocrisy that goes with politics and the tribe. Take the Bristol murder case and the arrest of the victim's landlord as a case in point.
The shouts came up at the time of the terrible way in which the guy was facing a trial by media when he had not even been charged (and was released and someone else has now been charged); and yet now we have Andy Coulson being found guilty in advance by the very same people who turned up their noses in moral righteousness when such things happened to someone else.
Then again, Jo Yeates Landlord wasn't in Number 10 and associated with the evil child-eating bastard Tories.
Even now we have talk about "secret tapes" that may hold the truth of who knew what, when and where the bodies are buried. If they turn up then perhaps we'll know the truth, then again perhaps we won't. It won;t matter anyway, because if they don't damn Coulson there will remain the speculation, and if they don't turn up there will always the very idea that they might exist to ensure the perpetuation of his guilt, because that is how politics works.
Look at the cases of David Kelly, Iraq, or Cash for Honours. Those who believe Kelly was murdered by some sort of Establishment conspiracy will always do so. Those who believe Blair lied over Iraq will never waiver from that viewpoint whatever evidence does or does not exist about it. Likewise - and I'm guilty of this myself - some will think Honours were given out for money because we've connected the dots and reached our conclusion based upon on own tribal view no matter the evidence.
The only truth really about Coulson is that some have decided he's guilty and will always b so no matter the evidence for or against. Just look at what Chris Bryant MP said,
"I hope now finally that the police will be able to conduct the full, transparent, and thorough inquiry into phone hacking that we are still waiting for and that the murky truth will come to light."The "murky truth"? He's already decided on what he thinks the truth is right there by referring to it that way. It doesn't matter what happens. Of course, even if he's arrested, charged and convicted there will be some or will not accept the guilt too, because that is how history, especially political history tends to work.
What do I think about Coulson? Frankly I don't care if he's guilty or not. The infringement of privacy by the News of the World or anyone else in the media exists because we have a culture that wants to consume these scoops. Some may stand on the sidelines wringing their hands at how terribly wrong it all is, but they're just as guilty of lapping up such stories when they come along.
The whole saga is the inevitable consequence of the human desire for gossip in a world with immediate and mass communicable media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)