The Future Of The UK, Uneducated & Chav Populated

There's a Facebook group of this name, who say;

The key is two government policies which are totally messed up, namely the cut in child benefit and the cut in unviersity places and funding.

That would be "is that there are two government policies"

If you are not familiar with these cuts, they propose that families who earn over £44,000 per year will no longer receive Child Benefit where as lower income families will continue to receive it. University funding will also be cut forcing a reduction in the amount of available places for students wishing to go to university.

I was fairly certain the policy was if there was ONE person earning over £44k there'd be no Child Benefit, rather than families earning over £44k.

It seems that the fact some families can earn nearly £88k and still get Child Benefit when others - where say the mother stays at home and the father earns £45k - won't get Child Benefit is where the actual arguments have started.

So if you put this into reality this will create a society where people who are higher earners will think twice about having a child, as the cost of the upbringing will have to be covered solely be them, where as a lower income family will not think twice about having another child as the cost of its upbringing will be met by the government in the form of child benefit and tax credit payments.

I think that the latter part of your suggested future is already happening.

If a single woman has more than one child, she is moved higher up the Council Housing ladder. You may also be interested in reading about these women who get quite substantial amounts of Child Benefit.

Also, if I were part of a family of higher income tax payers, just how much difference would my £20.30 (for first or only child, £13.40 thereafter) really make in my decision to have a child?

So what does this mean for the future of the UK, simple. The UK will end up being an uneducated, underachieving nation.

As opposed to now?

I ask you has the government never here the term "spend money to make money", if you increase university places, you get more educated people, who in term get better jobs, earn money money and pay more taxes, likewise if higher earners continue to propogate they will, in most cases, produce children who will also go on to be high earners and again pay more taxes.

Hell of a sentence there fella, you might want to start using full stops. Oh and "here the term" should be "heard the term" and then put a question mark after "money", okay?

If you increase University places, you do not necessarily get more educated people. If you apply a reasonable entrance requirement, you could easily end up with less people doing degrees. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that increasing University places will increase the number of people with degrees.

If you increase the supply of something, without increasing the demand, the price of that object will fall. This is basic economic theory. If you increase the number of University graduates without increasing the number of jobs specifically aimed at University graduates, then the graduates will not get a higher salary than someone without a degree.

What you may do is make a degree a requirement for the most menial of jobs, as employers can pick and choose, meaning that graduates actually get paid less as a result of increasing University places. People without degrees - as people whose skill level is worth less than the minimum wage currently - will not be employed. The higher the entry requirements to work, the more people will be unemployed, the higher the tax burden on those with jobs to pay for them.

But I think the UK will end up being a CHAV populated benefit run society.

Which is, I think, where we were headed under Labour.

And I speak as someone who is unemployed, old enough to remember the horror of living under some of Thatcher's regime, and lived in the North of England when everything was shut down. I'm what was called a traditional Labour voter. Then NuLabour came in and frankly destroyed the country. While I don't agree with some of the Coalition's policies - nor the actual way in which this one is being rolled out - I do not agree with anything you have written. And I'm not going to join your Facebook group either.

Dan Hannan Rips Gordon Brown A New Arsehole

Already seen on Devil's Kitchen, Guido and probably many more besides, but this is quite simply the best attack on the Prime Mentalist I have ever seen. And done in the full glare of the EU Parliament!



Interestingly, despite covering the Brown Gorgon's trip and quoting extensively from his speech, the only mention of the above speech on the BBC's entire site is in the comments section of Nick Robinson's blog post. Oh dear.

Anti-Terror Training Takes Three Hours (Including Coffee Break)

From SpyBlog comes an interesting (if you happen to be a paranoid geek like wot I am) analysis of the weekend's announcements from the Government.

Apparently - and I'm sure I can't imagine why - the UK is now at a severe risk of terrorist attack. So in order to stop these terrorists, "Tens of thousands of men and women throughout Britain - from security guards to store managers - have now been trained and equipped to deal with an incident and know what to watch for as people go about their daily business in crowded places such as stations, airports, shopping centres and sports grounds." That quote is from the Prime Mentalist himself writing in Sunday's Observer.

Jackboot Smith confirmed the Brown Gorgon's words on the BBC's Politics Show on Sunday, saying "What we're completely clear about is that if we're going to address the threat from terrorism, we need to do that alongside the 60,000 people that we're now training up to respond to a terrorist threat, in everywhere from our shopping centres to our hotels."

So, you may think that this training would be extremely detailed, involve long hours and probably some sort of exam at the end?

You would be, sadly, quite wrong.

"Project ARGUS is a National Counter Terrorism Security Office initiative, exploring ways to aid you in preventing, handling and recovering from a terrorist attack...

Project Argus is a free event which takes you through, using a multi-media simulation, a terrorist attack. A series of questions and challenges are put to you, both individually and as a group. You will work in small syndicate groups with other local business representatives and develop your responses to the attack. The whole event including a coffee break will last three hours."

Security theatre at its very best. Completely pointless, does more harm than good, and is likely to lead to huge numbers of innocent people being harassed by jumped up little jobsworths who think they're in MI5.

This Government is the reason we're at increased risk of terrorist attacks.

I am the Revolution, I am a terrorist, and I'm taking this fucking country back.

Tom Harris MP

A Labour MP at that, it should be noted at the outset, has a posting on his blog that he has labelled "political suicide". I shall leave you to determine just why it would be labelled as such after you read it.

From here

The return of morality
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

When Carolyn was in hospital, having just delivered us of wee Reggie, a very young girl in the bed opposite was also celebrating the arrival of her newborn. As was her proud father, who made great play to anyone who might have been listening (me) of how proud he was of his daughter. She was, I guess, about 16.

I don’t think he should have been ashamed. And it’s great that this youing girl had such a loving dad to support her.

But proud? Proud that his teenage daughter was not only sexually active but was now a mother? Proud that any chance of a decent education, followed by a decent job, was now remote at best? Proud that she was, in all likelihood, about to embark on a lifetime of depending on benefit handouts for her and her child?

I’m a Labour MP, so some will undoubtedly be surprised, and shocked that I’m writing this. But I can no longer pretend that the army of teenage mothers living off the state is anything other than a national catastrophe.

A previous commenter on this site got it spot on: many (though not all) teenage girls do not become pregnant accidentally because of ignorance, because of a lack of understanding of how their bodies work. They become pregnant because they have absolutely no ambition for themselves. They have been indoctrinated with the lie that they’ll never amount to anything, and have fulfilled that prophesy by making no effort to achieve any qualification. Very often they live with parents (or a parent) who have no jobs themselves, who are setting the example of benefit dependency for all their offspring.

Such young women see parenthood as one way of achieving a level of independence and self-worth. And they’re right, because that’s more or less what they get: a flat and therefore some privacy, an income for the first time in their lives. And in fact, many of them make a decent job of parenthood despite the awful circumstances. But even they are nevertheless rearing the next generation in an environment where the main adult isn’t working, but claiming.

I was lucky. I was brought up in a relatively poor household, but both my parents worked for most of the time I was growing up. When my dad was out of work in the early ’80s, he was depressed because he felt a responsibility to earn money to provide for his family. And so he started up his own business and got back on his feet. That’s the example I and my brothers and sister were lucky enough to have set for us.

A few years back I was shopping for CDs in Tower Records in Glasgow of a Saturday evening. It must have been about ten at night. Outside there were two very young girls, about 15, all dressed up for a night out. Apart from the fact that wherever they intended to go, they were clearly too young to drink, there was only one problem: one of them was pushing a pram. The child inside was a few weeks old.

This horrified me. It was wrong. There is right and wrong and it is wrong for anyone to choose to have a child without knowing what’s involved in its upbringing, without being prepared to sacrifice your own lifestyle for it.

That father in the maternity ward was telling the world about his love for his daughter and his new grandchild, and I’ve no doubt his pride was genuine. People shouldn’t be ashamed of their circumstanmces, but neither should we avoid making value judgments about others’ choices, especially when those choices result in a greater burden on the state, and lead to the continuation of the underclass.

Teenage girls shouldn’t be having underage sex. Why? Because it’s wrong.

Teenage girls shouldn’t choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career. Why? Because it’s wrong.

Parents shouldn’t teach their children that a lifetime on benefits is attractive or even acceptable. Why? Because it’s wrong.

(Please assume all the usual caveats: some people have no choice but to claim benefits, lots of single parents do a great job, etc.)

So what’s next, I hear you ask. What am I going to do about all this? What’s the government going to do?

This post isn’t about policy, yet. I’m going to take up a previous commenter’s suggestion that I have a coffee with the estimable Frank Field to discuss ideas for reform.

But policies are one thing; winning the argument about why they’re needed is another. And we have to start by making it clear what we believe is right and wrong. How can we expect parents to teach that to their kids if our political leaders aren’t prepared to say the same?

Being accused of agreeing with the Daily Mail’s agenda is not the worst thing my critics can say about me. Being accused of accepting the current appalling state of affairs, of pretending that the concepts of right and wrong are meaningless - that is far worse than being accused of pandering to the right.

And, of course, it is a complete load of bollocks to suggest that the ordinary working class people of Glasgow South and in hundreds of other constituencies throughout the country don’t agree with me. The most vociferous critics of the dependancy culture and of deliberate worklessness have always been those who live in the same communities, those who resent paying their taxes to help other people waste their lives.

Don’t interpret this as any kind of “back to basics” crusade; I’m not remotely interested in what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, and I’m not sounding the rallying cry for Christian or religious morality. But when the actions of others has such a debilitating effect on the rest of society, it’s time to stop being polite. It’s time to stop worrying about how people’s feelings might be hurt if we question the choices they’ve made.

Because very often, those choices are wrong. And it’s about time we said so.

H/t Obnoxio

No Shit, Sherlock

Apparently the UK is still an "unequal place to grow up" according to some research posted on the BBC.

To compound the "no shit" element, the report has found "success in life (is) largely determined by parents' backgrounds and earnings".

As if this alone wasn't enough of a shock, Martin Narey, chief executive of children's charity Barnardo's, said education had "not become the great leveller that many people believed it would be" and investment had "disproportionately benefited the middle classes". Which will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever met a middle class parent and discussed the subject of education with them.

The report also suggests child tax credits should be available only to low-income families and that they should also have access to affordable credit such as interest-free loans. Rather than the current state of affairs where they're available to pretty much everyone, one presumes.

This Should Cause You To Be Concerned.

As I think it's a very accurate comparison.


H/T to Guido

Contemptible Bastards

I see that prospective MPs may no longer be required to give their home address when they apply for election.

Harriet Harperson said: "Obviously, it is in the public interest for the public to know when they come to be voting in an election whether or not the candidate lives in that area or whether they live somewhere miles away... But whether or not there has to be the precise address of the flat number of the block in the particular street is questionable."

I'm guessing, call me cynical if you wish, that this is in direct response to The High Court ordering addresses be published as part of a wider Freedom of Information battle over expenses claims, to allow people to check MPs were living in properties they claimed for. In May the High Court ordered addresses to be published with expenses claims, but MPs voted to keep them private.

In its ruling, the High Court pointed out that "the addresses of well-known MPs like [Tony] Blair and [Margaret] Beckett were available in any event, and that every prospective MP would be registered as candidates and as electors, with names and addresses in the public electoral register." MPs now seem set on removing this information from all public record.

You'd think that if they had nothing to hide, then they would have nothing to fear.

Avoiding The Elephant

You may be surprised to see that I've not mentioned the Government and the current banking fiasco/crisis. I've tried to avoid it as I think I would find it difficult to stop once I've begun*.

I've been following it, obviously - both on the BBC and in the Metro (the only newspaper I actually read now I'm a commuter) - but I've been in an unusual position for me. I just don't know what to say about it. I've read an analysis from an economist's point of view (Timmy), a stockbroker's point of view (British Dude), a Libertarian's point of view (LPUK) and from the ex-trader's more political point of view (Guido). And I'm still not entirely sure I understand what's gone on.

As far as I can tell - and anyone can point out where I've gone wrong here - the American banks were told by their Government that they had to lend money to people who they would not normally lend to (the so-called NINJA loans - No Income, No Job) in order to allow said people to buy houses. I'm guessing that the American economy isn't quite as built on house prices as the UK economy, but that by having a credit history, these people could be proper consumers.

So the banks lent the money, knowing that it was more likely these NINJAs would default. In order to avoid having the debt firmly sat on their books, the banks wrapped it up in smaller packages and sold it on. To other banks. But with a AAA rating so that it wouldn't look as toxic as it would turn out to be. Hence the amount of banks that started to get into trouble when the NINJAs started defaulting to such a major extent that the house prices in America started to fall dramatically.

As the banks couldn't trust each other (as the amount of trouble they were in was hidden or just plain unknown) they then wouldn't lend to each other. As they wouldn't lend to each other, the banks were less able to pay off any short term debts they had in trading balances. And they couldn't get any money in from anywhere apart from the Bank Of England, and going to them cap in hand made the banks look desperate & likely to collapse. Thus confidence in them eroded further.

The Government claim that they tried to save the banks, but after Robert Peston informed everyone that the Government had had a meeting with all the big four banks who were looking for cash, bank shares fell even further. Whether this was incompetence of the highest order, or a deliberate attempt by the Government to get the banks nationalised on the cheap, time will only tell. But when both the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank Of England come out within a day of each other saying the UK economy is going into recession (thus sparking a sell off of Sterling by any sensible trader around the world) the impression I get is that it's incompetence.

At the same time, Iceland's banking fell over quite spectacularly. UK public bodies had somewhere in the region of £1bn invested - hardly a surprise as the interest rate was unbelievably (for good reason) generous - and despite warnings being issued some months earlier. I've even seen reports here that there were warnings in July 2007 about the fragility of the Icelandic scheme. Entertainingly, the Audit Office (whose job is to ensure that £180bn of public sector spending provides "value for taxpayers" and should oversee any investment advice) had £10m tied up in the Icelandic banks, and the Audit Commission are now being investigated by the National Audit Office.

In order to "protect UK savers" the Prime Minister then used anti-terror legislation to freeze the accounts held in the Icelandic banks. Interesting that this legislation was used against a NATO ally, but such is the joy of function creep and badly worded (or not, depending if you're a conspiracy freak) legislation. More interestingly, the legislation only freezes the funds for 30 days, so in a couple of weeks we should have another announcement about Iceland.

The strange thing is, I've been through two recessions before, some bad financial times and three stock market crashes (yes, I am old). This latest one didn't wipe as much off the share prices as the last one (when the dotcom boom suddenly went bust in 2001 - mainly after everyone suddenly realised that none of the internet companies had a business model that actually made, you know, cash). This one hasn't seen interest rates go up to 15%, indeed they've just come down again. There hasn't even been a single power cut yet, let alone dead people not being buried.

I'm not saying that this isn't a financial crisis, but it seems to be based more in the financial markets than in real life. How many people (outside of bank staff) have been directly affected by this in the UK? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? Out of a population of 62,000,000 that's not a huge amount.

Okay, so if you need to get a mortgage then it is now more difficult, but that's not necessarily a bad idea. The UK housing market was (and still is) over priced. If it falls, then more new buyers will be able to afford to get on the property ladder (having got deposits for more expensive properties). If you already have a mortgage that you can afford to repay, keep doing that and enjoy the fall in interest rates. Your house is worth less than you paid for it, probably, but you still have a roof over your head and you aren't starving to death. Chances are, if you don't move in the next 10 years it may eventually be worth more than it is now.

If you have a mortgage and can't afford to repay it, then (unless you've been made recently unemployed or had a change of circumstances) how were you planning on keeping the house anyway? Getting yourself in HUGE debt by hoping to sell your house for more money than you paid for it (so you eventually had no mortgage and a free house) is pretty much the same as the South Sea Bubble in 1720 - eventually, it will fail.

Why the Government were so insistent about nationalising the banks, rather than just letting them fail and guaranteeing savers their money back, I have no idea. Surely by propping the banks up, they're being told that no matter what stupid thing they do, the Government will always bail them out. Not going to make them take better decisions, is it?

Why the Tories didn't complain about the Government's plan and ask if there was a 'Plan B', I have no idea on that either. There was no mention in Labour's pledges to bail out banks. There was no discussion in Parliament about whether it was the right thing to do. Nothing. The Government just wade in with half a trillion pounds of taxpayer's money and do what, exactly? The FTSE is still hovering about 4000, the pound is still falling against a raft of currencies and the entire country is out of pocket.

How Gordon Brown has managed to come out of this looking like the saviour, when he was the Chancellor in charge of the country's finances for ten years prior, I similarly have no single clue. I'm still slightly surprised he hasn't called a state of emergency yet, and become a proper dictator.

Perhaps it's just a matter of time.

* - And having read the post, I think I was right. Apologies for the rather long rambling explanation of how I see the financial crisis.

Do As We Say, Not As We Do

Yesterday was the last day of term for MPs, who are now on their annual Summer holidays for a spectacular 76 days. If you thought teachers had a long holiday, try becoming an MP! Not only do you get paid so much more for doing so much less, you also get the opportunity to be a truly hypocritical bastard.

While coming out in droves to announce that there will be a clampdown on the alcohol industry and a forced end to "happy hours", MPs themselves enjoy the types of bar prices that the rest of us can only dream about. Oh, and they can also smoke while getting hammered at our expense, so that surely makes the whole thing more enjoyable, eh?

Compare this press release from ALMR that has uncovered hidden statistics which show the House of Commons Refreshment Department operated on a subsidy of £5.5 million of taxpayers’ money in the 2007/08 financial year, equivalent to total annual tax receipts from 35 pubs. When you've finished reeling in horror from that little statistic, check out the following:

Given the level of subsidy, it is unsurprising that MPs can enjoy much cheaper drinks than their constituents. A pint of Foster’s in Stranger’s Bar costs £2.10, compared with a national average of £2.80 (33% higher) and a London average of around £3.00 (43% higher). A House of Commons 8-year-old Scotch costs £1.35, while our politicians can enjoy a Pimm’s on the Thames-side terrace for just £1.65.

With the following report on the BBC which says Ministers have told the drinks industry to act more responsibly or face new laws governing alcohol sales.

Interim findings (of the government's review of the impact of pricing on alcohol consumption by Sheffield University) published to coincide with the consultation suggested cheap prices encouraged increased consumption in the young and heavy drinkers.

Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians and chairman of the UK Alcohol Health Alliance, pointed out one in four adults is drinking more than the recommended daily amount.

"This is not just something affecting a small minority, it is not about the binge-drinking culture, it is affecting a large part of society. If we don't get to grips with it, it will have serious health repercussions.

"The key to tackling this is price. Alcohol is too cheap and that has driven up consumption."

Which does tend to support the ALMR press release which says:

The subsidy, not published in the House of Commons’ Annual Accounts, was £693,000 higher than in 2006/07, a 15% increase.

So despite (or perhaps because of) the low prices, the Houses of Parliament subsidy has increased in the past year. Yet these bastards are demanding an end to cheap booze in pubs and supermarkets!

Utter cunts.

BBC Having A Laugh, Again

The BBC initially headlined that today's report by the Charity Commission into the Smith Institute had cleared them of too many connections to the Labour Party. Bloomberg had a slightly different slant on that report. The BBC have now amended the headline, probably because the original one wasn't entirely true. And you wonder why some people think the BBC is a bit biased towards Labour...

Now, on the Magazine page, there's an article saying that there are "Reasons to be Cheerful" in the current economic climate.

1. HOUSE PRICES ARE UP
2. EMPLOYMENT RATE IS HIGH
3. INFLATION HAS FALLEN
4. LOWER EARNINGS ARE GOOD
5. WE'RE LIVING LONGER

I have responded to said article with the following:

Good grief, was this written for you by a Government minister?

The elderly are getting wealthier are they? I'm sure the many pensioners in fuel poverty would be delighted to hear that. As well as the ones unable to pay the ever-increasing Council Tax.

The employment figures quoted are from May and obviously won't take into account the people made redundant in the building industry over what is normally their busiest times.

The RPI isn't weighted very well and puts too much emphasis on consumer electronics (not regular purchases) when the more major increases have taken place on food and fuel. Consumer electronics have always come down in price over time. Also how can it go down if house prices are still going up as you contend in the first point?

While there has been some over stating of the downturn in the economy, this article is diabolical.

Although I wish I'd asked them how tractor production was going. Or the war with Eurasia, come to that.

Fucking bastards.

Gordon Brown On The One Show/Knife Crime

Unbelievably, the Prime Minister spent yesterday evening on the comfy sofa of BBC1's 'The One Show'. I say unbelievably, as you'd think the fucker would have more important things to do with his time than being 'interviewed' by Adrian Chiles. And when I say 'interviewed', I mean "thank you for explaining Government aims and policy to us Prime Minister".

Obviously attempting to build on his "stunning" appearance on American Idol, Brown seems to think that by being on a non-political TV show (and note his lack of appearances on Newsnight, Question Time, Daily Politics, or even Channel 4 News) spouting his usual political platitudes, "real people" will believe him. Mind you, Tony Blair did do Richard & Judy, so there is a precedence.

On "The One Show" he re-iterates that carrying a knife should be punished and knife crime eradicated from society. But that he doesn't believe, unlike Cameron, everyone should be jailed. He seems to think that there needs to be more visible policing, but that it needs to be Community Support Officers! Which is ironic, given that just last night three actual policemen were hospitalised by a gang of people who beat them up for asking a girl to pick up some litter.

A more effective approach, I suspect, would be that advocated by the actor Lennie James in an open letter published in the Observer, that I feel needs as much viewing as possible.

To whom it may concern,

My name is Lennie James. I am a 42-year-old father of three. I grew up in south-west London. I was brought up by a single mother. I was orphaned at 10, lived in a kids' home until I was 15 and was then fostered. I tell you this not to claim any special knowledge of how you've grown, but to explain how I have, and from where I draw my understanding.

I want to talk to you about the knife you're carrying in your belt or pocket or shoe. The one you got from your mum's kitchen or ordered online or robbed out of the camping shop. The knife you tell yourself you carry for protection, because you never know who else has got one.

I want to talk to you about what that knife will do for you. If you carry it, the chances are you will be called on to use it. It is a deadly weapon, so if you use it the chances are you will kill with it. So after you've killed with it, after you've seen how little force it takes for sharpened steel to puncture flesh. After your mates have run away from the boy you've left bleeding. When you're looking for somewhere to dash the blade, and lighter fluid to burn your clothes. When your blood is burning in your veins and your heart is beating out of your chest to where you want to puke or cry, but can't coz you're toughing it out for your boyz. When you are bang smack in the middle of 'Did you see that!' and 'Oh, Jesus Christ!' here's who to blame...

Blame the boy you just left for dead. Blame him for not believing you when you told him you were a bigger man than him. Blame him for not backing down when you made your chest broad, bounced into him and told him about your knife and how you would use it. Blame him for calling you on and making you prove yourself. Tell yourself if he had just freed up his phone or not cut his eyes at you like he did, he wouldn't be choking on his blood and crying for his mum.

Then blame your mum. When the police are banging down her door looking for you, or she hears the whispers behind the 'wall of silence', tell her it's all her fault for being worthless. Cuss her out for having kids when she was nothing but a kid herself, or for picking some drug or some man over you again and again. Even if she only had you and devoted herself to you, even if she is a great mum, blame her anyway. Blame her for not being around more to make sure you took the chances she was out working her fingers to the bone to give you.

When you're done with her, blame the man she picked to make you with. Blame him for being less than half the man he should have been. When he comes to bail you out and starts running you down for the terrible thing you've done, tell him straight: 'I did what I did coz you didn't do what you should have done.' Even if he did right; respected your mother, worked to provide for his family financially and spiritually, taught you right from wrong and drummed it home everyday... Even if he nurtured you as best he could, blame him for the generation of men he comes from.

The one that allowed an adolescent definition of manhood to become so dominant. The one that measures a man by how many babymothers he has wrangling his offspring, or by how 'bad' his reputation is on the streets of whatever couple of square miles he chooses to call his 'ends'.

Damn them for letting you believe that respect is to be found with gun in hand or knife in pocket. Damn them and everyone who feeds the myth of these gangsters, villains, thieves and hustlers. Anyone who makes them heroes while damning hard-working, educated, honest men as weak, sell-outs or pussies.

If you are black, blame white people for the history of indignities they heaped on you and yours. For the humiliation of having to go cap-in-hand or get down on bended knee or having to burn shit down before you are afforded something so basically fundamental as equality. If you are white, blame black folk and Muslims for taking all your excuses. Failing that, blame a class system that keeps you poor and ignorant so the 'uppers' and 'middles' can feel better about themselves.

You have good reason to blame them all. I wouldn't be you growing up now for love nor money. Your generation has so little room to manoeuvre. We had more space to step around the bullshit. We weren't excluded at the rate you lot are. Teachers hadn't given up or lost their authority over us. They still tried to protect and guide us even through our most disruptive years.

The police stopped and searched us, but we fought that right out of their hands - we hoped into extinction. But they want to bring back that abusive practice. They are still hooked on punishment rather than prevention. They seem ignorant to the fact that they are feeding you acceptance of an already prevalent gang mentality. As far as you can see, the police are not protecting and serving you, they are coming at you like just another street gang trying to boss your postcode.

When I was where you are now, generations of state agencies, social services, policy-makers and politicians had not abdicated all responsibility for me. We weren't left to our own devices like you have been. Is it any wonder that you end up expressing yourself in such a violently pathetic way?

We should be ashamed. I am. You have shamed us into a desperate need to do something about ourselves. We have collectively failed you and we should take all the blame that is ours for that... but so should you.

I blame you. I blame you because as a generation you are selfish, self-centred and have little or no empathy for anyone but yourselves. You are politically stunted and socially irresponsible and... you scare us. What scares us most is that you would rather die than learn. Your only salvation may be that still most of you aren't playing it out dirty. The vast majority of young men, even with all that is stacked against them, are finding their way around the crap. The boy you will kill, should you continue to carry that knife, almost certainly had the same collective failures testing him. He probably felt no less abandoned and no less scared. He also, almost certainly, wasn't carrying a knife.

Whatever it seems like, whatever you've read, whatever you tell yourself about protection being your reason, statistics show the life you take will be that of an unarmed person. That is what that knife will do for you. It will make you escalate a situation to where it is needed. It will give you a misguided sense of confidence. It will make you the aggressor. That knife will make you use it. It will bring you nothing worth having. There is no respect there. The street may give you some passing recognition, but any name you think you might make will soon be forgotten.

Your victim will be remembered long after you. Name me one of the boys who killed Stephen Lawrence. Once you've bloodied that knife you may as well be dead because you'll be buried for 10 to 20 years. Banged up for that long, only a fool would look back and think it was worth it. You'll be nothing more than a sad, unwanted, unnecessary statistic.

If you were mine, this is what I would tell you. I would make myself a big enough man to beg. I'd get down on bended knees if I had to. I would beg you to take that knife out of your pocket and leave it at home. I would tell you that I know you are scared and lost and that I know the risks involved in what I'm asking you to do. I know that what we could step around, you have to walk through, and that there is always some fool who isn't going to make it any other way but the wrong way. I'm just begging you not to be that fool.

Be a better man than that. Let the story they tell of you be that you exceeded expectations... that you didn't drown. Don't spend your days looking to be a 'bad-man' - try to be a good one. Our biggest failure is that our actions have left you not knowing how precious you are. We have left you unaware of your worth to us. You are precious to us. Give yourself the chance to grow enough to understand why.

Be safe.
Lennie James

Now, ask yourself, who is talking the most sense? Lennie James or Gordon Brown?

Exercising Your Democratic Right

Fellow revolutionary Old Holborn is suggesting taking a spot of exercise on November 5th. Walking from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square then back again, at about midday onwards.

Obviously this route may well pass Downing Street and, given Prime Minister's Questions taking place at 12.30, may afford a possible chance for interaction with Gordon Brown or one of his many lackeys.

I intend to be taking the Government's advice on exercise and strolling in that very area on exactly the same date. I may also be taking Old Holborn's advice and wearing a similar 'V for Vendetta' style get-up. I shall also be making sure that thieves don't have the chance to get their hands on any documents with my identity on it by leaving all of them at home.

Revolution: it's coming your way, soon.

Democracy EU Style

This afternoon, it appears the Irish voted against the EU Treaty. This was a referendum that was promised to the British people by the Labour party, but while we didn't get the chance to say "NO", the Irish did. And they took that chance with both hands.

We had previously been told that it would take all of the 27 countries to agree on the treaty for it to be passed. As Ireland voted "no", then, I had stupidly assumed, that that would be the end of the Treaty. Obviously the European Commission head, Jose Manuel Barroso, called for other states to continue their ratification processes and said a solution should be sought. The twat.

Then, I hear on Radio 5, Richard Corbett - the Labour MEP for Yorkshire & the Humber - saying that despite the Irish vote, the Treaty should still be ratified. He proposes another referendum (presumably followed by another and another until they eventually get enough people to say "Yes") in Ireland.

"Nor should we accept the bleating from Eurosceptics that there is somehow something undemocratic about a new referendum. It is perfectly reasonable to address a divergence in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking the minority of one to think again - especially if its concerns have been addressed. What would be undemocratic would be to allow the one to prevail over the many."

Yes that's right Ireland, you got it wrong the first time, so you go away, have a little think about yourselves and try voting the right way this time.

Note, he's not proposing actually changing the Treaty, oh dear me no. He's just proposing that they put it out to referendum again. And again. And again.

"Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all the counties (now nearly 20) that have ratified already - then so much the better."

And why would it be better for the same referendum question being put out again, rather than a proper and open discussion of why Ireland (the only place in Europe thus far to actually get a referendum on ratifying the treaty, remember)?

"Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions."

I think you might be lying a bit there, matey. I suggest that YOU don't want any debate on the minutiae of the EU. Because if there was some debate, more and more people might realise just how little control of their own lives they actually have now. And where would your gravy train be if the people of the UK decided to leave the EU altogether?

When will the EU listen to a "no" vote? Why will they persist in shoving the EU Constitution as the only way forward, when every time a country has had a chance to vote, it has said "no" when first asked? Why is Gordon Brown pushing ahead with ratifying a treaty that should be dead in the water?

I'll tell you: It makes no difference we're already fucked.

I am the Revolution, and I demand my fucking country back.

Bob Spink You Are A Cunt

Yes I'm fucked off with the DUP, but they were bought. They will learn their fates from Paisley, I am sure of that.

Bob Spink however can fucking die.

From UKIP's own policy document

7.9 UKIP would abolish Control Orders, as we regard detention without trial as an improper state of affairs. UKIP would also allow the use of phone tap evidence in terrorist cases unless the security forces or police have overriding objections.

Yes, that's right, UKIP are against detention without trial. So much so that Bob fucking Spink - their only bastard MP! - voted WITH the Government, giving his own backing to the extension of detention without trial from an already extreme 28 days to the spectacularly extreme 90 days.

Ann Widdecombe I kinda expected to vote with the Government, she's mental and believes an invisible man in the sky talks to her. Going along with Brown must be a bit easier to swallow if you're already that mad. The DUP were bought. Some put the value of £200million and a concession on how the Embryology Bill will be implemented in Northern Ireland.

But Bob Spink? What the fuck were you thinking, you retard? You are a contemptible cunt and I hope you die in a suitably humorous way.

Drinkers, You're Next!

As I mentioned many moons ago (before the smoking ban came into effect) the next target on the Government hit list would be drinkers.

Like smokers, drinkers are an easy target. They pay a huge amount in taxes and duty, and because of their habits, generally enjoy a shorter life thus relieving their burden on the state in retirement (pensions, nursing homes, long term care etc). Drinkers, like smokers, are also doing something which is perfectly legal - but seen by the Nanny State as a "bad thing".

Health Secretary Alan Johnson has proposed an "alcohol squad" to help towns with the most drink-related hospital admissions fight their alcohol problems. The aim, like everything else, is to improve the nation's health and was announced at the same time as an initiative to cut obesity in the youth of the country.

I can see this back firing in the long term, but hey, who thinks about the long term? Apparently, the Department of Health highlighted evidence to show that for every eight people who received brief advice, one cut down on the amount of alcohol they drank. So that's up to 12.5% less alcohol being sold. Which would mean less tax and revenue from Duty. Pubs will require less staff, meaning less Income Tax and National Insurance, plus a possible increase in Income Support.

Obviously, there would be a way of recovering the Duty and VAT lost, simply by putting the levels up, but this wouldn't be politically very sensible as most people seem to think the Government already over tax them as it is. They'd be right too. But the other method of recovering the lost Duty and VAT is even more dubious - forcing retailers to put the price up.

Funnily enough that's exactly what's been suggested. The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire has said over the weekend that supermarkets are "making as much money out of people's miseries as they can" and that prices need to be raised. He goes further, though:

"I think there needs to be some control on prices and I wouldn't have it as self-service. I would have it sold under the counter like cigarettes because alcohol is just as dangerous as tobacco."

Yes, that's right, *under* the counter. Good work there Chief! I can imagine it's been quite some time since you've been in a shop, but at the minute, cigarettes are available OVER the counter. Although not for the want of trying.

Also, not sure if you're aware of this - being a copper and all - but it's actually illegal for prices to be fixed. See this handy Government document, specifically the third item down which says

Competition law prohibits almost any attempt to fix prices - for example, you cannot impose minimum prices on different distributors such as shops.

Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, said action would have to come from the government, but it was willing to enter into discussions. She said:

"We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law."

That was on the back of the British Medical Association (who represent Doctors, well known for their love of a good old drink up) demanding in February that prices should be increased to discourage drinkers.

The British Medical Association report said pricing and promotion of drinks was fuelling an "alcohol epidemic". It called for an end to happy hours in pubs and cut-price supermarket deals as well as improved access to treatment. The BMA report is based on placing greater restrictions on the availability and access to alcohol. It did not recommend how large the tax hike should be, but pointed out a 10% rise could reduce alcohol-related deaths by nearly 30%. Alternatively, it could do fuck all apart from increase shoplifting and people poisoned by drinking meths, but the BMA aren't going to mention that, are they?

Obviously, the alcohol industry are up in arms about this. Michael Thompson, head of communications at the Portman Group, which is supported by the UK's leading drinks producers, said:

"We need to change the drinking culture by making drunkenness socially unacceptable, proper enforcement of alcohol laws by police, better education and a crackdown on the minority of rogue traders who serve alcohol to children should be our priorities,"

All of which are true. More to the point, if I drink to excess, but don't harm anyone, that's my decision to take. Not the Government's. I can get pissed and know I'm doing my bit for the country. If I die early, good, I've saved the Government a whole heap of money down the line while contributing tons now. Stop deciding what is and what isn't good for me - I will make my own choices, thank you very much.

But I'm sure Middle Class England will be backing the Chief Constable, the Health Secretary and the BMA, because they think that alcohol related problems are down to the poor, the stupid and the North.

Sadly, they'd be wrong.

Thought Crime 2008

I know I'm coming to this a bit late, but I felt certain that there was no way it could progress as far as it has without someone seeing a bit of common sense. I am naive sometimes.

But first, a bit of background.

On May 16th a non Academic staff member at one of Nottingham's universities was arrested by the police. His "crime" was downloading and printing a document from the internet, for a friend of his in the Politics faculty. This document was the 'Manchester Manual' (so named because of where it was originally discovered), also known as the 'Manual of Afghan Jihad' or 'Military Studies in the Jihad [Holy War] Against the Tyrants'. To the Americans, it is known simply as the 'al Qaeda manual'.

"So," you may be thinking to yourself, "some miscreant has downloaded this for nefarious reasons from some pro-jihad website and has been caught. Good!" Well, if you are, just hold on a second. Let's have a look at which pro-jihad website the document came from, shall we?

That would be that well known sponsor of terrorism, the US Department of Justice. The document (split into four parts) is available for download here, here, here, and here. And I would heartily recommend that you do download it, if only to see if mass arrests follow. Oh, and to laugh at the phrase "undercover brother" - that reminded me of some kinda blaxploitation film.

The 'Manchester Manual' was originally obtained in April 2000 by British anti-terrorism agents and subsequently turned over to the FBI's Nanette Schumaker later that same month. It was originally the property of Nazib al Raghie (also known as Anas Al Liby to the US government) who was the equivalent of an old pensioner from the Afghan war living in retirement in Britain. At the time the manual was confiscated during a counter-terror recce operation, UK authorities were not interested in him. Neither, apparently, was the FBI and he was not arrested. Not unexpectedly, he then disappeared.

During the London ricin trial (where there was no ricin, and no crime) the defense considered the American government's description of it as "the al Qaeda manual" a manufactured title (see fourth paragraph from the end). Nowhere within the document is al Qaeda mentioned and it seems to have possibly originated in the last years of the Islamist resistance of the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. But from time to time the Manchester manual has been used by the US government to make political points.

As part of Bush's justification for the fight on terror, whitehouse.gov links (third link under third sub-heading) to a display page for the manual at the Air University, Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Alabama (which seems to have gone down, probably due to the number of people trying to see what was downloaded). This page was a mirror of the John Ashcroft Department of Justice's old placeholder on the book; one which had been taken down although copies of the material still reside on its machine - and were the links given earlier.

So why did the University authorities decide not to investigate, but instead to pass the matter on to the Police? The only real grounds they had for suspecting anything to be amiss was the downloading of a book. A book which is, as I've just shown, linked to by the White House website, and available from Department of Justice servers. And a book which would be, along with similar 'manuals' from the IRA, the Nazis or the Shining Path, be a worthy document for discussion in a PhD.

Under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a person commits an offence if they "possesses a document or record containing information"..."of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". The stunning vagueness of this sentence was focused dramatically in February of this year, when the Court of Appeal ruled that simple possession could not be enough for a conviction. There had to be demonstrable intent to commit terrorist acts as well.

The Times Higher Education Supplement reported on May 29 that the main accused was using the manual "as preparation for a PhD on radical Islamic groups [and] had downloaded an edited version of the al-Qaeda handbook from a site he found via Google... It is understood that [he] sent the 1,500-page document to the staff member... because he had access to a printer."

Not really a very good terrorist there, is he? Getting someone else to print the document for you, and then having the temerity to turn up and present yourself as being the person who downloaded it once the police arrived to investigate the person you'd sent it to. Your reward is potential deportation. Have a biscuit.

What the fuck is going on in this country when reading a public document - hosted by the US DOJ, ffs - constitutes a potential criminal act? I know I have invoked Godwin's Law previously by comparing Labour to the Nazis, but while the Nazis burned books, Labour seems intent on stopping anyone from discovering anything that would negate the bullshit they feed us in order to justify the removal of our civil liberties.

Fuck the Government before they fuck you. Join the Revolution.

I am the Revolution, and if there's anything left, I'd like my fucking country back.

Goodbye Freedom, Hello Gitmo

Gordon Brown will be pushing ahead today to inflict another blow on liberty. He plans to increase the amount of time someone can be held without trial to 42 days, from the already excessive 28 days it currently is. This measure is being introduced as part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill which does have some sensible parts, but could so easily see function shift - like the recent RIP Act abuses - into non-terrorist areas.

Britain already has one of the longest periods of detention without trial in the West. As you may be able to see from the picture below, Canada has one day, the US two, Russia five, France six, Ireland seven and Turkey seven and a half.


There are, as Liberty suggest, alternatives to extending the period.

Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty welcomes the Government’s proposed Privy Council review into the use of this evidence in terror trials.

Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases, provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.

Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

Liberty has pointed out that emergency measures which exist under the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) would allow the government to temporarily extend pre-charge detention in a genuine emergency where the police are overwhelmed by multiple terror plots. These powers would be subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight, something which is not guaranteed under the legislation about to go before Parliament.

Liberty also believes that even such an extreme measure would be preferable to creating a permanent state of emergency. Which does seem to be the direction in which the government are heading. A direction the US has already headed, and look how successful that is. Oh, and by the way, there's no need to call a General Election if the country is in a state of emergency. Handy if you happen to be trailing in the polls by a significant amount, eh Gordon?

To put the detention issue into perspective, here's a very interesting piece from The Economist magazine from October 2007. You'll note in the sixth paragraph:

"Britain likewise suspended habeas corpus in the second world war to allow it to detain around 1,000 suspected fascists. All were released after three years. During the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, nearly 2,000 suspected extremists were interned. But the practice was scrapped in 1975, as it was clearly fuelling support for terrorism — just as Guantánamo is doing now."

The removal of habeas corpus - freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, coupled with the right to challenge it in an independent court - is unnecessary. We have legislation in place that would allow any genuine terrorist suspects to be held longer than the current 28 day period anyway. With the removal of other pieces of restrictive police legislation, investigations wouldn't need to take longer than 28 days, plus evidence gathered by wiretap would be admissable. By increasing the length of detention without trial, the Government are actually encouraging terrorism - as happened in Northern Ireland - and restricting the liberty of British citizens.

UPDATE: There is an excellent dissection of this over at SpyBlog

This is a disgrace. We can end it.

I am the Revolution and I want my fucking country back.

Lying Bastards

Not content with being a general shower of bastards (as mentioned below) the Government have endeared themselves to me even more by this splendid bit of double-speak with regard to the current truckers' protest.

A Treasury spokesman said the government understood business and families were "feeling the pressure from high fuel prices". But they said the "immediate priority" was to encourage oil-producing countries to increase output, that a 2p-per-litre fuel duty increase had been put back from April to October and fuel duty was "still 11% below its 1999 level, in real terms".

Hmm. Really? Do you have, you know, figures to back that up? And what difference exactly would increasing output actually achieve? The majority of the cost of petrol and diesel at the pumps is Duty. And the Government sets the level of Duty. Instead of hand-wringing to OPEC, how about doing something constructive that would benefit the country?

Justice Secretary Jack Straw told the BBC he "fully understood" the hauliers' concerns, but "government revenues have to come from somewhere".

Ah, and that would be the real reason why the Government are more than happy to keep Duty at the present levels. Rather than doing what they're forcing the entire fucking country to do - cut expenditure because income is low - the Government are insisting that they can't control their spending, so we have to keep bailing the bastards out.

The Tories propose anyone under 21 who is unemployed for three months would be sent for an intensive programme of work-related activity. If they were still jobless after a year they would be moved to a full-time 12-month community work programme, with those who turn down a job losing their benefits. Which would be a start, eh?

Or maybe cutting down on profligacy in Government, as more than £325m a year is being wasted by government departments through inefficient use of office space, MPs have said. The Commons public accounts committee (as in MPs themselves, never the harshest critics of their own white elephants) recommended more civil servants should be relocated from London to cut costs. Amusingly, the committee said the Treasury was spending the most on employees' workspace and urged it to "set a better example".

Yet the Government take the "we need more money, so fuck you all" approach instead. And by doing this, show the short termist mentality you'd normally find in investment banks. By not reducing fuel duty for hauliers, the Government risks losing all tax income from that industry. Foreign hauliers, buying fuel on mainland Europe, can come over to the UK and offer their services at a greatly reduced price. No income tax, no VAT, as the theme tune to Only Fools & Horses says, failing to add, no fuel duty, no vehicle excise duty etc, etc, etc.

Fuck the Government, before they fuck you. Join the Revolution.

I am the Revolution, and I want my fucking country back.

Oh For The Sake Of Fuck

The Times are reporting that MPs are going to be able to vote for a £23k lump sum payment to cover the costs of their second homes.

You complete cunts.

So that's essentially a £23k payrise. That they can vote for. And since this lump sum payment won't require any receipts, it completely avoids public scrutiny. Remarkable decision, given the fact that MPs have just been forced to release their expense claim details by the Information Commissioner's office.

According to the Times, the automatic grant will be a key recommendation of a review of MPs' expenses, led by The Speaker Michael Martin. That's the same Michael Martin who was embroiled in a row over claiming his wife's taxi fares for shopping trips, by the way.

A spokeswoman for the committee said its report was not yet ready and it was "too early to specify its findings".

No, I'll think you'll find it isn't. The taxpayers of the UK pay your fucking salaries. The taxpayers of the UK should know IN ADVANCE what your recommendations are going to be and then they can decide if they think you're providing value for money. It gets better though. Not.

This lump sum payment would end the principle whereby MPs are compensated only for "costs incurred" and give nearly 250 MPs who claim less than £23,000 a substantial tax-free income boost. Yes, that's right, tax-free. The same people who decided it would be perfectly fair to double the minimum tax band will be getting a tax free lump sum in excess of the annual salary of the people most affected by the scrapping of the 10p tax rate.

Even more unbelievably, MPs are also preparing to reopen the battle over their salaries, arguing that it is unfair that they are paid £10,000 less than head teachers and £40,000 less than equivalent roles in the private sector. Unfair? Un fucking fair? I'll tell you what's unfair you shower of shits, the fact that you can - and do - claim expenses of up to £100k a fucking year on top of your already perfectly pleasant salary.

A report on parliamentary pay commissioned by Gordon Brown should be submitted by the end of next month. Senior MPs on the House of Commons Commission have recommended a salary rise from £61,820 now to about £75,000 after the next general election, expected in 2010.

So you're already on £62k a year basic, are proposing you get £23k a year tax free lump sum ON TOP and are saying it's unfair you're paid less than a head teacher? Do the words JUST FUCK OFF YOU WHINING BUNCH OF CUNTS mean anything to you? You shameless, grasping, duplicitous pile of wankers should be shot. Repeatedly. Starting at the ankles and working upwards in two inch movements.

I am so angry I can barely type.

UPDATE: I see Guido is also steaming from under the freakishly shaped hat about this as well.

I am the Revolution, and I demand my fucking country back from you cunts.

Lib Dems Also Wankers, Shock

The documents relating to a FOI request into MP's expense claims have been released. Among the nuggets released so far, receipts from 2003 show the then prime minister Tony Blair spent more than £10,000 on refurbishing the kitchen at Myrobela - his constituency home in county Durham. Items included tiling and £1,000 on fitting a mantel shelf to the AGA.

More entertainingly, the MP's are HUGELY pissed off that their home addresses are going to be published. The High Court ruled that MPs' addresses should be published - pointing out they were already disclosed when MPs sought nomination for election and if someone was determined to discover it, they were likely to be able to do so.

Liberal Democrat MP Bob Russell has tabled a motion calling for a breakdown of the expenses of, and home addresses of, High Court judges. Conservative MP Julian Lewis backed Mr Russell's move in the Commons on Thursday, branding the release of MPs' addresses "barking mad" and claiming it opened them up to hate mail and attacks by "extremists".

Perhaps if your expense claims weren't so fucking outrageous, and you hadn't backed the illegal war in Iraq quite so obediently, you wouldn't have so many people anxious to tell you what a shower of cunts you all are. Just a thought.