Saturday, December 30, 2006

Ding dong the murdering arsehole is dead

So, Saddam Hussein has been executed for the murder of 148 Shia muslims. Personally, I am against the death penalty (mainly because in places where it is still carried out, such as in America, it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison, and I don't think murdering bastards should have such a huge amount of money wasted on them) but in this case, I think the only pity is that he could only be hanged once.

That is not to say that I agree with the invasion of Iraq; far from it. I was studying International Law at the time of the invasion of Iraq under a highly esteemed professor who is one of the foremost international lawyers in the country. He had resigned from his position advising the government when they declared they were going to go to war. On top of that, a friend in the FCO recently told me that she had seen documents from her department being sent to N0. 10 outlining the lack of post invasion preparation and warning of years of insurgency and violence if these things were not planned properly. The response from No. 10 to these in depth documents? A scrawl on them saying 'thank you very much for your input.'

Nice to know that our government hadn't already made up their mind and were, in fact, interested in fully examining the situation.

Watching the reports today over the life of Saddam I was reminded again of how mistaken we were in going to war again in 2003. In my opinion, we should have finished the job off in the 1990s.

One could almost say that they were continuing the first gulf war the second time around, because they justified the use of force under UNSCR 678, 687 and 1441. But these resolutions did not provide a legal basis for invading Iraq. Indeed, the US ambassador to the UN said "this is not a smoking gun" and that they would need another resolution for the invasion to be legal under international law. Indeed, a further resolution was attempted by the Americans and the British, but this was not passed, essentially because it was based on what one could term a large streaming pile of dog poo.

Please note: I am not even going to get into a debate about international law as a concept. The US and the UK have signed up to it, and so I am approaching it from the angle of, sign up to it and stick to it until otherwise.

Furthermore, 678 and 687 were specific to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and so using these resolutions, which permitted the use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, is rather like using anti terror legislation to evict someone from their council house.

So, let's leave aside the resolutions - rather in the manner of our great leaders - and have a look at these weapons of mass destruction. 45 minutes, hey? Well, not according to Margaret Beckett the other day on the Today programme.. I am sure that it was mentioned in the dossier from 2002 which outlined the case for going to war? Wasn't that rather the whole premise of going to war? that Saddam Hussein was not only a threat to the region, but that on his ordered, WMD could be launched on the rest of the world and reach us in only 45 minutes.

It would have been nice, I suppose, if the weapons inspectors had been sent to Iraq to do a proper job, rather than as some fickle ornament, less meaningful than a trill on a top note in a Chopin nocture. But completely ignoring what the inspectors found (or didn't)was rather a bad move as surely people would raise more than eyebrows once they read the transcripts from the Security Council meetings?

Of course, when it was discovered that the whole 45 minute claim was a big, fat, lie then Dubba started talking about the importance of the invasion because of 'human rights'. Sorry, chaps, but
human rights comes under Chapter VII which does not permit military force to be used. As any fule kno.

So, essentially, under international law it was illegal. And it was unjust. And now the country will probably be split up because there is a civil war taking place.

But, hey. At least that murdering cunt is dead: every cloud has a silver lining!

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Dosh for Dining-Rooms

Conservative MPs are being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over the alleged misuse of House of Commons dining rooms.

More tea, vicar? Is David Davis slipping Theresa May a length before the late night sitting? Legs spread, her hands slamming into the ramikin dishes full of mustard, globules dangling from her fingers before they are thrown against the wall as her whole body shudders in ecstacy?

Not quite.

Sir Philip Mawer launched a preliminary inquiry after two Labour MPs said 22 Tories were using the facilities to raise party funds.

Perhaps whoring Theresa May out in the dining room, then? The David Davis escort service?

Wrong again, Trix. Get your mind out of the gutter. Or at least DKs lap.

It seems that the holier-than-thou Mambpy pamby lets-all-sit-by-mother-at-the-party Tories have been hosting dinners to raise money for their party. Well, they don't have any policies, people aren't joining (try getting some policies?) and they can't get any more big loans from people as that all went a bit tits up, so I suppose a quick dinner of melon balls, chicken supreme and trifle is as far as they are prepared to risk it.

I think I gatecrashed one my friend was hosting the other evening. He's a candidate so I suspect he falls into the category of:

But Labour MP Kevin Jones told the BBC: "They're using private dining rooms for direct fundraising, not only for sitting members of parliament but also for target Liberal Democrat and Labour seats.

Is it just me, or are these two Labour MPs the sort of dribbly nosed prim sneak that always ended up having their head flushed down the lavatory because everyone couldn't stand the fact that they were such a no fun tell tail tit? Really. I am no fan of the Conservatives (although I did send that nice Mr Cameron a bunch of flowers the other day to thank him for all his hard work) but two members of a political party whose own leaders are being arrested and questioned by police over a financial scandal really are just grappling around for anything they can lay their hands on to divert attention for the mess the Labour party is in.

It's no surprise it's in a mess, though. Nor any of the others. What with them being dominated by self serving, herpes infected cunts with free-flowing flapsnot.

Monday, December 25, 2006

Death of a legend

James Brown has died. I liked his music. And I am sad to report that the bad taste jokes, courtsey of my cousin's other half, have already started....

Papa's got a brand new body bag:


Merry Christmas

Sunday, December 24, 2006

I am fucked off

I went down my local tonight to celebrate what some people think to be the birth of the Messiah. Well, have a lovely religious festival.

I personally went down the pub to see my friends. It's a local in a village I live in (but only for a few more weeks) which is basically full of people who think the Sun is a literary masterpiece. In many ways, it could be considered so, but for actual political content, it really isn't. And I love the people who write for it: those politics guys are bright, funny, sharp and know exactly what's going on, but they quite simply don't have the space to write it all.

Anyway, my big 'Moan of the Year' goes to inverted snobbery

These very same people I drink with on occasions are the people who will -not to my face - slag me off. Come on; I'm a big girl. I can cope with someone telling me they don't particularly like me. I've said it to enough people myself. But when grown men and women can't accept the fact that someone younger than them is more qualified, more intelligent (maybe a presumption, but I am fairly on the ball) and better paid than them, they can only cope with it by ganging up and being spiteful.

Can you imagine if I refused to speak to someone on the grounds that they only flipped burgers for a living? Me, with both my degrees by the time I was 22 decided that I was too good for them? Me, who put myself through university, including spending many years working behind bars, decided I was better than other people because of my qualifications and my job? There would be an outrage.

But in Nu Labour's Britain, that's exactly what happens. Those very same people who sit there drinking their child benefit which I pay for, also have the right to be evil to me because I am younger than them, and, in their eyes too, more successful. They are allowed to slag me and my friends off for not being like them, because in their eyes, being successful is a bad thing.

Fuck you. Shove your fucking attitude back up your fundament where it belongs. You sit there being so cunting smug, so polite to my face, so full of yourself and yet what have you actually done but as little as you possibly can, whilst those of us who wake up to go to work around the same time you are finishing your last beer, who pay in tax more than you will earn because they work hard, are supposed to feel sprry for doing so?

I will never feel sorry for working hard. I will always strive to be successful. I will always do what I think is best; and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself.

That is, of course, after you've spend my tax payments on beer making yourselr feel like the ruler of the universe.

Cunts, the lot of you.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Don't you know who he is?

European Parliament = a big building
Lots of rooms, very boring meetings, shit gets left around. Consequently, anyone using an EP e-mail gets bombarded with messages about lost items, requests for phone chargers (you're very welcome to use mine, but I am in London) and how to say Merry Christmas in 25 different languages. It's a bit of a community, you might say.
A certain Tory MEP hasn't quite got to grips with how it all works; or maybe he has, and he's just very important and busy?

Dear All,

I have lost my leather coat, it is a soft, brown, leather jacket. I believe I left it in Agriculture Committee yesterday in P01002, if anyone has found it, could you please bring it to E14***!!

Thank you very much and happy christmas to everyone!

Tory MEP

Comment from friend in the Parliament:

'If I lost my jacket, and somebody found it for me and had the decency to let me know, I would at least get off my arse and go and collect it myself!

But then he is a special person, isn't he. And they wonder why only senile old farts and wannabee spivs vote for their shitty old party of the dead!

If I find it, I'll piss on it.'

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Again, why?

Am slightly bothered as to why, during the many debates and articles on ID cards, no one has seen fit to mention the EU angle of them.

The EU is currently in the process of harmonising the format of ID cards including the biometric details stored on them. Don't believe me? Look at this then [PDF]:

2. Biographical data
The ID-card shall be machine-readable in compliance with Part 3 Volume 1 of ICAO Document 93031 ("Size 1 and Size 2 Machine Readable Official Travel Documents") and the way they are issued shall comply with the specifications for machine-readable cards set out therein.

The portrait of the holder shall not be affixed but integrated into the material of the front side of the card by the issuing techniques referred to in Section 5.

[from Council Document 15th november 2006 15356/06 JAI 598]

The EU is not actually forcing the UK to adopt ID cards, because this Labour government signed up to the measures at EU level. However, signing up does make them committed to their introduction.

Also, as Open Europe point out, it makes it very difficult for political parties who are opposed to ID cards, but want to remain in the European Union, to scrap the proposals if by the next election, the harmonisation process is very advanced.

Another thing which is so typical of the EU is the way they are going about it. I recall reading the European Parliament legislation on this, and having also read the council document and proposals, they are not going about it in a legislative way. No, because that would require Parliamentary scrutiny and then the press might report it (although I can see both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives being incredibly quiet about that one for fear of embarrassment)and then someone might say something unkind about the beloved EU!

No, softly, softly, catchy monkey is the attitiude. Let's all just lay down the minimum requirements so we all have the same ID cards which can be read in all our little machines and then once national law makes it all proper and above board, and thoroughly like 1984, we will have our way without anyone blaming the EU.

How about that, eh?

But why should I?

Sir Hayden Phillips has announced that the only party opposed to a cap on political donations was the UK Independence Party. The proposal is causing a big row amongst the other political parties, especially the Labour party who get loads of cash from the Unions. And flats for Fatty Prescott too.

But the case for a limit on individual donations was boosted by an influential committee of MPs which called on the parties to back a binding cap in return for extra public cash.

Why, but why should the public have to give any more money to our defunct policial elites? They pass very little of our legislation, they don't stop damaging legislation from the EU being passed into UK law, and public opinion of politics is pretty damn low at the moment.

But can you blame people for not being inspired by our current shower of politicians? We have a Deputy PM who doesn't actually do anything but get paid and a Prime Minister who has been investigated by the police. The leader of the Opposition hasn't quite yet managed to come up with any policies apart from mimicking Tony Blair and the Lib Dems appear to have disappeared into the ether. Which is a shame because they are always worth a laugh.

So why, then, should people have to give more money for politicians who don't inspire them, who they don't feel represent them and who they may not agree with. Their money will go towards funding political parties and MPs who do not represent them and who may actually be in favour of policies which those same tax payers are fundamentally opposed to, such as ID cards, membership of the European Union and higher taxes.

Why should politics be allowed subsidies? If political parties want more cash, perhaps they should try address the problems of why people aren't joining up with their parties or making donations. If a company was losing money say, by not selling it's product, would it be allowed to ask tax payers for funding to carry on? No. It would either sink or adapt so people did want to by their products.

And I think politics should be much the same, which is why I am glad that at least the UK Independence Party do not want yet more money from the public purse. People should spend their money they earn how they see fit.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Polly should stick to putting the kettle on

I tend not to read Polly, but as it's rather quiet in the office today (and I have a huge bruise on my bottom which makes moving too much rather difficult) I thought I would have a browse round the political commentators. And so here she is...

Here is a Christmas message from the Department for Work and Pensions: there will be a harsh crackdown on lazy, feckless, work-shy scroungers

Ooooh, are all the MPs going to get sacked?
This social contract (hand up, not hand out) has mostly been kept by both sides under Labour. Tax credits and benefits for children have doubled and, for the first time

And unemployment has risen, along with the tax burden, the number of homes being repossessed and personal debt rocketing. Nice.
there are now virtually no young long-term claimants, thanks to the New Deal.

How can you be 'young' and have a long career history? Surely a dubious comment, Polly? Or perhaps you weren't actually thinking what you were writing. Did it all just pour forth like bile onto the keyboard?
Is it that simple? There is a very grey line between the plain idle and those who are illiterate, mentally unfit, psychologically odd, ex-prisoners, unattractive to employers, non-English speakers (Labour has stopped free English courses), drug addicts, alcoholics and other bad prospects. In Glasgow, for example, what are these vacancies? Mostly part-time hotel and catering, bar work and waitering with unsocial hours.

I've had to work anti-social hours. I still do, in fact. So do most people I know. Not everyone can just swan into the office, Polly, write a couple of paragraphs of complete bollocks and then fuck off home, or to number 11, for a quick drink and a fuck on the hearthrug. And as for psychologically odd, well I think you have proved to us that £140,000 a year is a potential salary for someone suffering from that particular mental disorder.
the jobseeker's allowance is a pathetic £57.45 a week, not enough to survive on. I tried, and fell into unavoidable debt within weeks. Those in debt fear taking a job as loans sharks chase them once they start earning.

Champagne is expensive...
Let's look at how the state breaks its side of the social contract. The real value of that £57.45 has halved since 1979: it's now worth just 10% of the average wage and falling every year.

But they're not actually working, are they honey. Why should they get the same wage as someone who has to get up in the morning, travel into work and actually do something all day? Why should I be funding someone to survive through the money I make by spending most of my life working? Where is the incentive there, sweetheart?
Rents are sent sky high, making it impossible for the unemployed to lose housing benefit by taking a job. They will never own a shed in the capital as the gap yawns ever wider between the 70% homeowners counting untaxed winnings every month, while the rest and their children are consigned to social housing forever.

How do you get these housing benefits? I'm still enjoying living with my parents as I coundn't afford to rent immediately when I travelled back from London. But soon, I will be renting and paying those sky high rents. Yes, It'll take me longer to pay back debts, I won't be able to go out very much, or to have so many lovely things. But it's my choice. It's what I have chosen to spend my wages on. And clearly, if rents are that high, then other people have also chosen to spend their wages on it, too.
Why is the language of rights and responsibilities, of the duty to contribute as well as to draw out, never applied to those who dance on the ceiling as they spray jeroboams of Cristal over those living on the floor?

Memories of a night with Gordon, darling? Him shaking the bottle and spraying the fizz over your snatch before licking and sucking it up? Or was that just in your dreams

Actually, that's a bit unfair to you, Pol. You strike me as more of a babysham kinda girl.
But before you despair of Labour,

Too late
wait for next July's comprehensive spending review.

Before I emigrate?
But, above all, he repeated Labour's pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 - no shirking, no moving the goalposts. That means some £4bn of credits and benefits must be announced within the next seven months.

Oh fucking great. No tax cuts for me, then! I'll continue to work my arse off, pay back my student loan and wait until my parents retire before I can even consider getting on the property ladder.

Monday, December 18, 2006

A Christmas message from St Thickchilds

My eyes have been opened to another blog which is rather good: and from it, I have stolen this little work of genius:

A Christmas message from St Thickchilds

Dear Parent/Guardian/Window licking Inbred,

Just to remind you that this year we break up on Friday 15th December for the Christmas holiday. After this time we have no desire to see or hear from your charmless offspring until Tuesday January 2nd. The caretaker has asked me to remind you that your foul mouthed child should be kept away from the school grounds during this time. (He would like to know why this is so difficult when you seem to be able to manage it perfectly well during the term)

Before my telephone starts ringing to herald an earful of your witless prattle, I am well aware that the 15th is quite early to begin celebrating Christmas, but since you have had your awful glowing Santas up since mid October, you have no cause to complain. Frankly we are all heartily sick of your child demanding to be entertained with traditional Christmas activities (Mindless scribbling whilst watching violent DVDs) in lessons, rather than attempting what they laughingly refer to as ‘work.’

Many thanks to those of you who attended the Carol Concert last week. If any reader should know the current whereabouts of the computer and printer which disappeared from my office on that same night, perhaps you would be good enough to inform me. If the parent who decided to spraypaint ‘Mr. Morris is a qweer’ on the wall would like to get in touch, we do have a few school dictionaries left.

The Prize draw in last months ‘Quarterwit’ (a lever to open a car lock, should you have ‘lost’ the key) was won by Ryan, formerly of Year 11; now unfortunately behind bars. We will therefore hold the draw again next month.

Congratulations to Tamsin Sprouthead who has successfully completed her first term at Downtown University, where she is pursuing a Degree in Celebrity Studies. We also offer commiserations to Chavney whose Lottery winning parents bought her a swimming pool to celebrate her GCSE success (in Drama) only to have it filled in by the Council due to an unfortunate lack of planning permission.

Finally, let us not forget as you go about your alcohol fuelled mayhem; that Christmas is a time for giving as well as receiving. By this I do not mean that you should give a mouthful of foul abuse to the telephone receptionist when you receive your benefit cheque a day late; but rather… oh never mind.

Yours Faithfully
Mr Morris

Friday, December 15, 2006

Don't do as she says, or as she does!

From my article about why I feel prostitution should be made legal, I notice that the ragged old fleabag charming and intelligent Harriet Harman thinks the opposite.

Always nice to have someone like that disagreeing with you; it rather confirms to me that I am probably correct.

Ms Harman said the "awful" Ipswich serial killings demonstrated the need for a change in the law to make soliciting illegal.

But honey, it is illegal already....

She claimed the only way to make women safe was by toughening up laws to include a total ban on buying sex.

Erm, no. Some old chap whose wife has died and who wants a bit of sex every now and again is hardly a danger to a woman who is perfectly happy to partake in the arrangement. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most people who pay for sex actually want to have sex, rather than strangle the prostitute and leave her naked body in the wood. Oh, and you're never going to stop people buying sex.

Ultimately we should be criminalising the demand for prostitution, criminalising the men who pay for prostitution...

Hmmm. Sounds to me like you are wanting to criminalise libidos...That could be a tough one. Bromide for all men as soon as they reach 13? A higher dose for the ugly ones as they are less likely to be able to get a shag without paying?

The minister, who sits on the cross-department committee on the issue, warned that prostitution in London was part of organised crime involving drugs and guns.

Yes: by prostitution being forced into the underworld, the risk makes it highly profitable. It provides demand for brothels run by pimps and people traffickers who abuse women and force them into sex, in a way which would be less likely to happen if women and men were just allowed to be prostitutes. And if you're trafficking people across (it's so much easier now with no internal border controls) then why not ship drugs and guns too. Maximise profits by sharing costs?

The London MP, a candidate for Labour's deputy leadership, rejected claims that the "oldest profession in the world", could not be eradicated. "Just because problems are old, doesn't mean you can't try to solve them."

But why should they be 'solved'? What's actually wrong with someone paying for sex, and someone else providing it? It's not my cup of tea, personally. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who reguarly paid for sex, but that's my personal opinion and I don't think two consenting adults hammering out (sorry) an arrangement between the two of them should be anything to do with the state.

The street prostitution I admit could be a real problem for people who lived around the area, but if you took it off the streets, then that antisocial aspect of it would rapidly diminish. I'm sure these women would much rather sit in a nice, warm house than parade about on the streets in cheap shoes.

I think Ms Harman's views are based on her opinions that prostitution is 'wrong'. I don't think politicians should legislate on their personal morals, just as these days we tend not to have politicians running the country based on their religion.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Please sir, can I have some more, sir?

So, Alastair Darling is going to ask the European Commission very nicely if he can provide investment of £1.7 billion for the Post Offices, is he? It's so nice to know that these people we elect to run our country, who have recently decided they just don't get paid enough, can't even decide how they are going to spend tax revenue.

Mr Darling said the annual £150m subsidy to help rural branches stay open will be extended beyond 2008 until 2011.

What, however, Mr Darling doesn't say is that under Article 88 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, a national government needs permission from the European Commission to grant state aid, and under Directive 2002/39/EC, this permission must be granted before the aid can be given.

In fact, this figure of £150 million a year to the post offices was allowed to be made after the EC decided that this was the maximum figure they would allow. Never mind that the actual cost of these post offices are £4 million a week, which leaves a £58 million a year black hole...oops! Still, at least they've extended the time this can be paid from 2008 to 2011. How lucky we are to have such a generous Commission to let us do these things!
The closures are likely to begin next summer and will continue for 18 months, reducing the size of the network to about 11,760.

This has all come about, because the European Postal Services Directive decided that the reserve for the national monopoly had to be cut from post weighing 350g (No, I don't actually know what that is in real measurements) to 50g, meaning that the money which was made by the post office could be pumped into the rural post offices etc. which do not make profit.

Not that any of our little poppets in Westminster are actually bringing themselves to say this. They can't even bring themselves to say 'market failure' when it comes to services such as the post office, as then they would have to explain why they are not funding the rural post offices properly, even though it is one of the few roles which the government can actually do better than private companies.

Can you imagine the grief Mr Darling would get (oh, if only he was a Captain) from dear old Tone' if he stood up and, perhaps, told the fucking truth about this post office debacle?

"Sorry, chaps, the European Commission says we can't fund post offices, even if they are the only facility in a rural area or tiny village miles from anywhere, somewhere that the elderly rely on. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They are the bosses now, and if they want to bend me over and bugger me with the Acquis Communautaire then they can."

Why are our politicians allowing themselves to get the blame for things which they could blame on the EU? Oh, yes. Because they keep on dragging us further and further into the stinking, corrupt cess pit that is the European Union and so they have to keep hiding the truth from people or they won't get their way of a wonderful, happy political union based on the recollections of someone who read 1984 whilst on acid.

I tell you, there must be something really good in it for them if they are prepared day after day, week after week to lie on behalf of the Portuguese orange cunt Barosso and his gang of merry men. Maybe a one way ticket out of the mess they are creating, perhaps? Sunning themselves in Latin America along with the rest of the political crackpots and assorted nasty bastards, whilst we try frantically to keep up with the rest of the world who aren't restrained by the most convoluted, harmful, regressive, spasticated organisation ever to exist.

Just let us leave...before it's too late...

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

My Winter Treat

Normally I go ice skating at Hampton Court, but this year, following the complete failure of DK to actually move any limbs this weekend, my plans to go whizzing around the ice rink in Edinburgh did not happen.

So, have decided instead that the devil will have to put a woolly hat on his horns and wrap a scarf around his tail and I can push him around the ice rink at the Tower of London.

Perhaps he's afraid that it signifies that hell has frozen over...or maybe he's just rubbish at skating?

If it's so old, why is it illegal?

As someone who had the pleasure of spending many, many hours in the lesbians women's committee in the European Parliament, I am used to listening to well meaning, yet rather ignorant people talking about prostitution.

I even had the joy of reading a report which suggested that the European Union should make prostitution illegal across the EU.


Why can't a consenting adult charge someone money for having sex with them? Why can't someone who wants to pay someone for sex do so?

Prostitution has been around for longer than democratic politics. Soliciting for prostitution has always been illegal. It has been pushed onto the streets, making it unsafe for most concerned. And yet it is still here.

I think it should be legal. I really can't see why it can't be regulated, with prostitutes paying tax and their clients can ensure that the women they are sleeping with are safe because they have regular health checks. These women (and men) can come off the streets and into a safe environment, and the need for pimps would be removed.

Also, one thing which is regularly mentioned is people trafficking. I notice the Tories put some caring advert about highlighting girls trafficked from Eastern Europe. Surely if they really cared about stopping this they would:

1) Impose some kind of border controls between EU countries. Whilst open borders facilitate legal trade it does, by nature, facilitate illegal trade to a great extent.

2) Remove the market for these women forced into prositution by having a legal market. If prostition is not a crime, then criminals will not get involved.

Or am I missing the point?

Friday, December 08, 2006

I wonder if that's what he meant....

The German Commissioner, Günter Verheugen, has been snapped frolicking on a nudist beach with his newly promoted aide.

The 62 year old German was snapped in nothing but a baseball cap on the beach in Lithania, and apparently his wife knows about it.

Well, am not actually that interested in other people's private lives. Let's face it, it frees up two sunbeds for the other guests who want to soak up the sun around the swimming pool.

No, what really got me and made me laugh until my colleague had to hit me over the head with a copy of Vacher's quarterly were the comments by José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Soviet:

José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, rushed to the aid of his German Vice-President yesterday, saying that he expected “people’s private spheres” to be respected.

And which 'spheres' might they be, Mr Barroso?

*cue yet more chuckling....*

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

European Affairs debate a complete joke

Am listening to the European Union Affairs debate in the House of Commons and am getting rather angry. Firstly, there are about five people in the chamber and, considering that the European Union is really the biggest issue in British politics, I think this shows what a complete bunch of losers we have in our parliament.

Get your heads out of the fucking sand, you bunch of rabid ostriches. You all sit there listening to Gordon Brown waxing lyrical about a 1.25p rise in petrol duty, and then you all fuck off and ignore the debate which is controlling far more of our money and the plans for this country to give away even more power to Brussels. Why are you there if you have no interest in the important matters which affect this country? Hmm? I mean, you've all sat their with your fingers up your arses saying how little you get paid and how you need to take yet more of our money for your wages, but what are you actually doing?

Secondly, am desperately trying not to grab TV and throw it out of the window whilst I hear the so called 'opposition' agreeing with the 'basic thrust' of what that facially inept Foreign Secretary says. And she is saying that she wants enlargement, that the European Union should have more powers, that we should continue being members of the European Union because that's the only way we're going to compete with Asia...

Compete with Asia whilst being part of a socialist trade block which thinks that trade protectionism is a good thing? Which has a globalisation fund to subsidise countries and industries which have lost money 'due to globalisation'? What the fuck? Our MPs support subsidising inefficient industries and countries which can't be bothered to become more efficient and compete on the global market - surely the quickest way for these countries to go down the pan.

The way we compete with these Asian countries is to embrace free trade, lower taxes to encourage investment and hard work and to rid ourselves of the burden of harmful EU regulation such as the Working Time Directive. Not by jumping on the large waterbed of the EU orgy and gang-banging everything to do with 'cooperation' and 'the future of Europe' and 'combined decision making with our neighbours'.

After hearing Graham Brady encouraging further migration from the EU to the UK, despite the Shadow Home Secretary making numerous comments about how immigration needs to be controlled, I think that if the UK Independence Party did not exist, rather than vote for any of these shower of shits, I would rather poo on my ballot paper to properly register my disgust with this millenium consensus in Westminster.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Learn to Love the EU

From the Mail on Sunday:

A multi-million pound propaganda war to force the British people to love the European Union and Brussels bureaucrats is to be launched by Tony Blair as part of his legacy as Prime Minister...

It's actually taken me a day to calm down and try and discuss this rationally, but just typing that out again makes me want to run the short distance over to Westminster and scream "what the fuck are you doing with my tax money, you bunch of utter cretins?"

Don't get me wrong: As much as I hate the EU I would welcome debate. But fair debate. The EU itself already has a huge propaganda budget with which to try convince people that what they are doing is all about fluffy bunnies and happy, smiling children, as opposed to the plans for a super state with a spot of third world death along the way. So why do they need more money?

I suspect it's because no matter how much they love the EU, people can see beyond their lies, their deceit and their selfish disdain for the feelings of others. The fact that they have to hide the truth from people means that even they must know, ignorant and spasticated as they are, that the CAP, the Euro, the Constitution, the 'aid' deals with the developing world, the biometric passports, the Euro Army with Germany, France, Italy and Spain (because they have such a good military record) are not wanted and not needed by the general public, and people can see how much damage they do.
The operation is to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften voters up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting

Would these be the plans currently being undertaken in the FCO for the British to lead the way in a new treaty? The ones which our leaders (and I use that in the loosest sense of the term) think they can scam past the public because British people wrote it, so it can't be something 'nasty' from Brussels? The one which will probably appear in some shape or form on the 25th March in Berlin, possibly under the name of the 'Berlin Constitution Declaration'?

I haven't filled in my tax forms yet, but I think I may be deducting some from the final total: EU contribution, funding of Hamas and paying good money for these shower of spastics to tell me what to think about the EU. I'll tell you what I think - I think you should shove your 'Blue Flag' clean beaches up your fundamental...

Friday, December 01, 2006

Smoking: funding the NHS for nearly 60 years

Forgive me if my typing is not so accurate today: I am combining writing this post with smoking a delightful cigarette. In the office. I felt that I had better make the most of it before that malevolent witch Patsy Hewitt makes it illegal to do so.

"A ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces in England
will come into force on July 1 next year, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, announced last night. From next summer all offices, factories, shops, pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, public transport and work vehicles that are used by more than one person will be smoke-free. The new law will also mean that indoor smoking rooms, still common in workplaces, will no longer be allowed. Anyone wishing to smoke will have to go outside instead."

There are three people who work in my office and we all smoke. There are a few other people who come into the office occasionally: some of them smoke, some of
them don't, but if they have a problem with the foggy air then we tell them to fuck off don't smoke whilst they are there. The point is, that we don't need some mad old bat who is completely fucking up our health service trying to tell us how to work.

More annoying than that was this comment from the Express:

"However, people will still be able to smoke outdoors, in private homes and places that Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt says are "like homes", such as care institutions, Army barracks and prisons."

Right. So some criminal who would probably have to have murdered 25 people, raped a few children and mugged the entire population of Kent to actually end up in prison can smoke, but I can't.

Let's not forget that inmates these days are allowed to take drugs, which if I recall correctly are illegal, and six inmates actually received compensation for their horrific 'cold turkey' treatment.

The cost of treating smokers, even at the highest estimate, is £1.2 billion. The money raised by smokers is £9 billion. Maybe that's the reason why smoking is still legal? Because as much as Mrs Hewitt hates smokers, and peers out of the window of the dept of health giving her evil glare to anyone in Main Building nipping outside for some 'fresh air', she needs us smokers to fund her department and the establishment which she is slowly running into the ground.

So if I summarise the few articles I have seen in the media these last few weeks I would draw the following conclusions. If, on July 1st 2007 I am still a smoker, the best place for me to go would be prison. Because there not only would I be able to smoke, they would give me drugs or compensation, I wouldn't have to work and I wouldn't have to pay tax.

Mind you, the chances of anyone actually being sent to prison these days is pretty slim: even our own Home Secretary quietly told some troublesome youths in Westminster to 'behave themselves lads' "you know the prisons are full."