Drinking, The New Smoking.

I read in the Metro this morning that 80% of doctors and nurses polled by the Royal Colleges of Nursing and Physicians believed that putting the price of alcohol up would curb people's drinking habits. The Metro article is quite short (and I'll cover why in a second) but the BBC have a much longer version of the same thing here that also mentions that the Prime Mentalist isn't too keen on the idea.

It seems Gordon is worried that moderate drinkers would be hit by such a plan. You think? I think Gordon is probably more worried that people who drink would hate him to the point of murder if he was seen to set minimum prices on alcohol, as Liam Donaldson wants.

But that's not my main point. The Metro, on the same page as the snippet linked to above, also had this spectacularly stupid idea.

Busy town centre pubs may be forced to introduce orderly post office-style queues when they run cheap drink promotions. Pubs and clubs may also have to limit customers to buying two drinks at a time, ban drinking in the queue and hire extra door staff to prevent trouble breaking out. Landlords would be made to give authorities a week's notice of promotions and pay for extra police officers to patrol, Oldham council in Greater Manchester has said.

Because pubs have plenty of spare cash at the minute, don't they? They could easily afford to pay the (presumably now hiked up massively) rate for doorstaff and/or police out of their huge profits*. The upside presumably would be that you wouldn't be able to go to the bar and get a round in for more than you and one person.

It gets better though.

Bars which refused to sign up to the new measures would be stripped of their licences.

Nice touch there: volunteer to do this, or we'll put you out of business. I wonder what kind of cocksucking ass hat would even think about being linked with an idea as monumentally insane as that?

MP Phil Woolas has described Oldham town centre as like the 'Wild West' at weekends.

Ah, there's a shock. Phil "we'll stop immigrants, oh wait, we can't, we're in the EU" Woolas. Or Phil "rent-a-quote" Woolas, as I like to think of him.

Amusingly - for me, at least, your mileage may vary - Alcohol Concern (a made-up charity, funded pretty much entirely by the Government, yet wheeled out as a legitimate voice of the public in matters such as this) said the plans "might have little effect" and added: "A pub is a very different environment to a post office."

Used to be very different from a Post Office, would be more appropriate. There are now a couple of worrying similarities. Firstly, there used to be lots of Post Offices, but quite a few of them have closed down and you have to blame that on the government. Secondly, you can't smoke in a Post Office.

I would also like to point out at this point, that while doctors, nurses and various government types are attempting to reduce alcohol intake by the majority of the population (and buttering us up for a minimum alcohol pricing structure by mentioning it at every fucking opportunity) the bars of Westminster in which the MPs drink are subsidised. By you, the taxpayer.

Fuck the Government. Fuck the minimum price of alcohol idea. Fuck the Nanny State. And fuck the arsewipes who cannot manage to drink without getting themselves injured.

This is my body, I will decide what does and does not go into it. I will not come crying to you if I damage myself and you will leave me the fuck alone and stop telling me how to live my life.

Now get back to your taxpayer funded porn and stop bothering me.

* - Sarcasm, for those that missed it.

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.

Quelle Shock, Not.

In a completely unsurprising move, a report by a group of MPs has called for the end of happy hours and a curb on supermarket's setting alcohol prices at a loss.

The Home Affairs select committee said reckless drinking was placing a heavy burden on police resources. One possible solution for England and Wales, MPs said, would be legislation setting a minimum price on alcohol. Scotland's new licensing laws already include powers to fix alcohol prices to stop cut-price promotions and happy hours, and ministers in Edinburgh say they might seek to set minimum prices for drink.

Interesting to note at this juncture that the bars in Westminster are subsidised. And you can still smoke in them. Unlike your local bar, that can now apply for reduced business rates (not that anyone actually told the bar owners, and the tax office initially turned them down) due to the smoking ban

Keith Vaz (a twat of some renown) chairman of the committee, said retailers must end a "pile it high, sell it cheap" culture around drink. He accused supermarkets of flouting the spirit of a voluntary code on alcohol sales.

"We cannot have, on one hand, a world of alcohol promotions for profit that fuels surges of crime and disorder and, on the other, the police diverting all their resources to cope with it," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"At the moment you have a situation where so much of police time is taken up dealing with alcohol related crime. Happy hours lead to unhappy communities. Loss leaders in supermarkets cause real misery to city centres on a Saturday night."

Couple of things there Vaz, you cunt, if the booze sold by supermarkets is being sold at a loss, then it's not going to be making them a profit, is it? Secondly, I would suspect that the majority of the booze sold by supermarkets is consumed at home, not in a city centre, particularly as it's now illegal to consume alcohol - or carry an open container of alcohol - on public transport.

Thirdly, and a point I've mentioned previously, it is illegal for supermarkets - or indeed any group of companies - to set prices among themselves. We have (or had at least) a veneer of competition in business. If I can sell something slightly cheaper than you can because I have economies of scale or a better business model, then I can and indeed *should* sell it cheaper than you do.

To force supermarkets to sell alcohol above a minimum price doesn't encourage them to improve their methods to lower prices for the consumer, does it? No, any improvement will only increase their profits and, as a Labour politician, you should be against that. It would also lead to an increase in the RPI, which will also look bad for you. You talentless fuckwit.

Still, don't let that worry you. Nanny knows best. A Home Office spokesman said: "We know the police and the public remain concerned about alcohol-related disorder. We have given the police, licensing authorities and trading standards officers a range of tough powers to tackle alcohol-related disorder, including on-the-spot fines, confiscating alcohol in public places and closing down premises that flout the law.

"Alongside this, the Department of Health has commissioned an independent review on the effects of alcohol price, promotion, consumption and harm which will be published shortly." And you can pretty much guarantee that report isn't going to be terribly positive, can't you?

You may be a smug non-smoker who happens to like a drink or two. You don't go into bars, yet you supported the smoking ban in there. You drink exclusively at home and you haven't once been arrested for causing a disturbance or public nuisance. And now you will feel the power of Nanny knowing best. Nanny doesn't want you drinking, so you will have to pay more for your booze than you previously did.

And there's nothing you can do about it. Except plan a revolution.

The Stepford Society

I will be posting something about the current crackdown on alcohol very shortly, but thought this article from Computer Weekly would be of interest.

In a keynote speech to delegates at the City IT and IT Security Forum, Ian Pearson, a former BT "futurologist" and a chartered fellow of the British Computer Society, spoke of a backlash against the government's preoccupation with surveillance technologies. He warned that IT suppliers who collaborate with the government on the increasing surveillance of law-abiding citizens face a public backlash, and may be at risk of acts of violence, including the smashing of computer centres.

Within five years Pearson predicted that the government's crackdown on law-abiding people could lead to marches in the street, demonstrations outside some computer centres and - if the government takes no action - targeted acts of violence.

I've said it before, and I will say it again, it worries me that it's mainly people involved in IT that seem to be the most aware of the totalitarian state in which we are living. The Register often points out the worrying use of IT to monitor the general population, and here we have Ian Pearson saying that IT will be used to monitor the law-abiding citizens. Can everyone else please wake the fuck up?

He told the invited audience of some of the UK's largest IT suppliers and users, "By 2012 to 2013 tops you will see a technology backlash in the major population. Why is it relevant to you? Because if your firm is providing services to government authorities, which help the government to crack down on law-abiding people, you are in the firing line. Be very careful you are on the right side of the line when the [backlash occurs]. You need to be very careful indeed."

Indeed you do. Come the glorious Revolution the piano wire/lampost combination will be a fetching look for politicians and their assorted hangers on, we don't need geeks up there unless it is strictly necessary.

The New Puritanism

Obviously keen to follow up their campaign to make smokers into a demonised section of society - latest plans show that smokers won't be allowed to adopt or foster children - the Government are now going after the other big revenue generators: drinkers.

In the past month I've seen proposals to increase the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to 21 (and hasn't that worked out brilliantly in the US?), for there to be a separate area in shops for alcohol so that customers have to queue twice (so that their "alcohol purchases can be scrutinised by other shoppers") and in Scotland, a proposal that while you can buy alcohol in pubs at 18, you can't buy it in a shop until you're 21 (which won't cause any confusion at all, will it?)

This is on top of the on-going campaigns the Government have to get fat people to eat less, and everyone else to eat what the Government decides is healthy and good for them. Combined with the recent call, by Ed Balls, to ban the opening of fast food outlets within a certain radius of schools, and you would suspect the Government are actively going after the Nanny State title.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are both still legal, yes? Burger King, McDonald's and the like aren't force-feeding anyone, are they? We're not in some weird Arab state run by keep-fit non-smokers, are we? At least not yet, at any rate.

So why the hell are the Government insistent on interfering in people's lives to this extent?

You'd think that with the current financial crisis - nothing to do with Gordon Brown's management of the economy over the previous decade, oh dearie me, no - the Government would have less time to fuck about in the petty areas they seem to love. But no. You'd be quite wrong. Because the Prime Mentalist himself waded into the "scandal" of Jonathan Ross & Russell Brand's radio show to give his two pence worth.

Despite it being FUCK ALL to do with him - although handily deflecting public glaze from his general cockpuppetry - Brown demanded action be taken.

Why, you incompetent fucksock, are you getting involved? Oh wait, I know. It's because he's a fucking Puritan dictator.

He's the one who will decide what is good for us and what isn't. Anything that is bad will be banned, and the only things that are available will be those that are personally allowed by the Prime Minister. We people, you see, aren't pure enough of mind or deed to be allowed to make these choices for ourselves. We're too stupid to see the benefits or failings ourselves, so we *need* someone to tell us what to eat, what to drink, not to smoke, to do more exercise, to believe in a vengeful God who will punish us for not looking after the planet properly, to understand that the Prime Minister is doing a good job and not destroying the economy single-handed.

He is, in short, a cunt. A righteous cunt. A complete and utter righteous cunt.

Well here's something from me to you, Gordon. I will drink & smoke as I please and I will die when I'm supposed to. There's nothing you can do to stop me, because I am the revolution, and I want my fucking liberties back.

Fucktard

Phil Woolas has just followed up his previous assertion that "the population of the UK will not be allowed to top 70 million".

Which, in itself, is quite some statement.

Seeing as I'm fairly certain there's not a single fucking thing the Government could do if the entire population of the EU decided to come and live in, say, Nottinghamshire. One of the main points of the EU is that it allows freedom of movement between member states. It's also one of the main drawbacks, as it means none of the member countries has the ability to deny access to a fellow member's populace.

How does Phil think he'll be able to stem the tide of Johnny Foreigners arriving from within the EU? Well, let's just say he's a bit vague on that. Asked whether he had made an eye-catching pledge that the government could not keep - because it cannot restrict immigration from within the EU - Mr Woolas told Today: "No, I don't accept that at all."

He said: "What you cannot factor in is how many people leave the country. You cannot factor in, as you rightly say, movement from EU and that is why you can't put a precise figure - but what you can reassure the public over is that the general trend will be controlled."

How?!? You fucktard, the UK has NO control over immigration if the people coming in are from the EU. If, as is accepted, the population in the UK is currently 62 million, 10 million people come in from the EU in the next five year and no-one leaves, we'll already be over your 70 million figure and there'll be fuck all you can do to change it.

Are you planning on offering people incentives to leave? Because if you are, can I be first in the fucking queue?

I am the Revolution and to be honest, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.

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.

CCTV In Parliament Square

Had a lovely walk round Parliament Square on Saturday, beautiful weather and lots of actual tourists masking exactly what I was doing: checking where the CCTV coverage is, and working out the best method for completely blocking off the (manually operated) entrance to Parliament.

As far as I could tell, there are two CCTV cameras on the lampost nearest the Churchill statue. There's one on top of the building behind Churchill. There's one on the building on the corner opposite that (although there is another one on that building, it's mounted facing the opposite direction with no apparent rotation platform). So that's four on the left hand side of Parliament Square as you're looking at the Houses of Parliament.

On the Houses of Parliament itself, I'm guessing the listed nature of the building has limited positioning of CCTV, but there are two on the newer section closest to Parliament Square (above and to the right of the gate). The gate, once opened, splits in two directions, to the right there is a metal barrier from above and a raised barrier (presumably also metal) from below.

There are two more CCTV cameras perched on top of the building to the right of Parliament Square. Adequate coverage and no apparent blindspots. At the moment the building directly opposite the Houses of Parliament are covered by plastic sheeting and scaffolding, but will presumably also have CCTV on top of them once the building work is completed.

Given the nature of the traffic flow, the best bet for blocking Parliament Square completely would be to crash a bendy buses across the left hand junction (from Westminster Bridge) - ideally into something heavy (like a truck) or another bus (for maximum disruption). The opposite junction doesn't have the same span and could easily be blocked using only a bendy bus.

The first crash may have the desired effect of the security staff opening the gates. Given the amount of flat surfaces around the square, and the cone effect of the Houses of Parliament's corners, the sound of the collision should be suitably amplified to make it sound significantly worse than it is. I would assume that their training would advise against assisting casualties, but that human nature would take over - the fear of negative headlines may also help in this respect.

Behind the Anti War protester there's more than enough space for helicopter landing, so this whole area would need to be torched. This would also reduce the possibility of off-road police vehicle or motorcycle mobility. Depending on the intensity of the blaze, it would also remove foot patrol assault as well. A concerted effort on the fire front would also allow it to spread to any crashed vehicles affording some protection with a "ring of fire". Similarly the smoke screen would remove at least three of the CCTV coverage.

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.

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.

Heathrow Ban Man For T-Shirt

Okay, in a 'crimes against fashion' type moment, Heathrow Airport made a man change his t-shirt before he was allowed to board a flight. The man had been wearing a Transformers t-shirt (and yes, he does work in IT) with a picture of Optimus Prime holding a gun on it.


IT consultant Brad Jayakody, 30, was shocked when he was told to change his top if he wanted to catch his flight from Heathrow’s Terminal 5. He asked to see the security chief, thinking the boss would "see sense" — but he backed up the decision and threatened him with ARREST. For wearing a t-shirt. For fuck's sake.

Perhaps I missed the memo about it now being illegal to travel if you happen to be dressed a bit funny. I mean if they'd said he couldn't travel because he was Australian, then I could understand it, but for a fucking t-shirt? Are you insane? As he himself said "What was I going to do, use the shirt to pretend I have a gun?"

You let people travel in tracksuits or dressed as a Moomin, but a t-shirt with a PICTURE of a PRETEND GUN on it is now a no-go?

What the fuck is going on in this fucking country?

I am the Revolution, I'm keeping this t-shirt on, and I'd like my bastard country back you fucking cunts.

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.

Sightseeing Trip

As you are no doubt well aware, there is a ban on protesting within one mile of Parliament. Which is a shame, as there's rather a lot to protest about at the minute.

Handily, there's no ban on sightseeing, or having a walk around Parliament Square.

So, here's the plan. I shall be having a walk around Parliament Square on Saturday 28th June at about 1pm. I will be taking photos of Westminster and possibly being nostalgic about how we used to have a Government worthy of the name.

If you care to join me, that would be super.

No banners. No slogans. No chanting.

This is not a protest. This is a Revolution.

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

Let's All Laugh At Jacqui Smith

First up, apologies for basically copying the entire BBC article onto here. Just loved every painful minute for it and felt I should pass it on.

The Home Secretary (Smith) has "betrayed the police service" by refusing to backdate a 2.5% pay rise, the chairman of the Police Federation has said. Jan Berry told its annual conference that Jacqui Smith's decision, affecting Wales, England and Northern Ireland, had been "a monumental mistake". Funny, in retrospect, but agreed, a monumental mistake. As Home Secretary you really don't want to piss the Police off, but hey, what would I know? I don't need them to follow every stupid law I pass, do I?

Ms Smith later addressed the 1,000 delegates herself. "I know you strongly disagree with the decision," she said, "but it was one that I took only after a lot of thought, after considering the full facts of the case, the need to keep mortgages and the cost of living under control - and that includes your mortgages and your families' cost of living as well. And there was another crucial factor at play: affordability. And for that, read police officer numbers."

So in an attempt to justify the spectacular decision to ignore the advice of an independent review panel - as has happened recently with the decision to reclassify cannabis - Smith is saying that the decision was based on financial prudency. Good work there, you dumb bint, seeing as the only reason the economy is so completely fucked is because of your fucking boss. I wonder if old one eye has anything to say for himself?

A Downing Street spokesman said Gordon Brown believed the home secretary's decision was "difficult" but "absolutely right". And there's surely no-one better placed to know about making difficult decisions. Now, doesn't that sound like a vote of confidence from Gordon by the way? Given his recent record of backing losers, then it seems only a matter of time before Jacqui walks or is sacked.

But sadly not soon enough to avoid this quality bit of abuse. Ms Berry, picking on her admission that she smoked cannabis in her youth, said "I am sure you felt like reaching for a stab-proof vest and perhaps slipping into an old habit - lighting up, calming your nerves. But as you've reassured us, you've moved on from those past indiscretions. Your recent crimes have been more for the serious fraud office than the drug squad."

Ms Berry also compared Ms Smith to Education Secretary Ed Balls who has recently defended a pay deal for teachers, but, and I have to compliment the speech writer here, in a fantastically funny way: "Home Secretary, what is it that Mr Balls has but you do not?"

Balls, being the obvious answer. Which is ironic, as that seems to be what Smith specialises in talking. Along with the rest of the disingenuous cunts in Government. We need a revolution, and we need it now.

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

Tories Just As Bad At Data Security

Proving themselves to be equal to the current Government in their disregard for Data Protection laws, the Tories have admitted today that they sent the details of 3000 people to Manx Radio, a local newspaper and one other un-named media outlet.

That's the names, addresses, telephone numbers and intentions of voters in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, by the way. So at least their banking details weren't involved for once.

Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith said "It is a serious concern if people's personal details and voting intentions have got into the public domain. Voting information is particularly sensitive. We will be launching an investigation to establish the full facts and see where responsibility lies."

Interesting choice of words there, "responsibility lies". I've noticed a bit of a theme of that recently, where people in positions of responsibility lie, and lie again in order to avoid the outcome of their actions. But I digress. The Tories, and fair fucks to them for this, have held their hands up straight away to the error.

A Conservative spokesman said: "The email shouldn't have been sent but we have done all that we can to ensure that it remains confidential. The email - which was based on information from the electoral register - was sent in error to a journalist. Within two and half hours the recipient was informed. Both he and the local newspaper he sent it on to have now given undertakings that the information on the email has been destroyed... An internal investigation has already discovered that it was due to human error but an internal inquiry has begun to ensure that it does not happen again."

You see, they are ready for Government. Blame someone, without saying who they are, start an internal investigation, so no-one knows what it is, and then claim to not let it happen again in the future. Brilliant.

Tories, Labour, LibDems, all cunts. There really is no point in voting for any one of them, we need a revolution.

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

Protest While You Can

Alarming news from El Reg about a teenager being issued a court summons for displaying the not exactly controversial statement: "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult."

Alarming because this happened in the City of London earlier this month.

The City of London Police read the protestor Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and removed his placard before issuing him with the summons. The Act makes it an offence to display "any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

In response, the teenager quoted back a High Court judgement from 1984. Justice Latey repeatedly said in a family division case that Scientology was a "cult" - one that was "immoral", "socially obnoxious", "corrupt", "sinister" and "dangerous".

The City of London Scientology building opened in 2006. The financial district's police force was heavily criticised at the time for their apparent endorsement of the sect. Kevin Hurley, the force's Chief Superintendent praised its work for bringing "positive good" at the opening of the multimillion-pound site, and it later emerged that officers had accepted hospitality from Scientology, including tickets to film premieres, lunches and concerts at police premises. The organisation also made donations of thousands of pounds to the City of London Children's Charity

Which kinda makes you question the City of London Police's motives in this specific case, doesn't it? As I'm fairly sure we have the right to peaceful protest - unless you're near Parliament - unless I missed the meeting where that was removed from us as well.

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

1984 Still Not Instruction Manual

In a completely unexpected move, Home Office staffers have suggested that the UK Government need to keep a complete log of all emails and phone calls. Obviously they claim this will help deal with terrorists, because terrorism is the catch all excuse du jour for such eye watering stupidity.

The Government - who have a fantastic track record in losing data - are proposing that they should have control over this FUCKING ENORMOUS database of information. And that somehow, magically, it won't be hacked, lost, sold or used for purposes other than what you're currently being told. Because I can't imagine any junior staffer who has access - and remember, under the RIP Act pretty much every jobsworth cunt up and down the country will have access - not just having a look to see who has been contacting who.

The BBC article states that MPs haven't seen the proposals yet, handily, nor says how long the data will be kept for, but there are already objections to the plan. The Assistant Information Commissioner, Jon Bamford said:

"We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable."

Or plausible. From an IT point of view it is just unbelievable. Do-able, yes. Expensive, you bet your sweet ass. Likely to happen in a given timeframe to exacting demands of the IC? No hope in hell. As the Slashdot tag for their article suggests, goodluckwiththat. So if this does come to pass, it'll be an exceptionally costly sieve through which all your personal data will fall like water into the hands of anyone who happens to want it.

When exactly did my private communications become the property of the Government? Did I miss that fucking announcement? I will - if this becomes law - set up a spam mailer on any number of open relays (quite often Government ones) telling all and sundry about my intention to blow up numerous Government buildings. Encrypted. In Arabic.

I am the Revolution and I want my fucking country back now, you disingenuous cunts.

Snouts In Trough

Good-ish news today, the House of Commons has lost its High Court battle against a decision to force disclosure of MPs' expenses. The Commons authorities must release the details by 1600 BST next Friday. They have until Tuesday to appeal, and I'm expecting them to.

The Commons challenged the Information Tribunal's "unlawfully intrusive" demand that a detailed breakdown of second home allowances must be given. They also failed to overturn the tribunal's decision that MPs' addresses should be published, as the courts decided that any individual who was determined to find out, could do so quite easily and legally anyway.

The Commons authorities have also been ordered to pay at least £33,500 in costs. And I'm fairly certain that will end up coming from the tax payer. Like every other fucking thing. And I'm again fairly certain the tax payer will be paying for the next appeal as well. As if MPs don't make enough money from the tax payer already.

On a related note, Commons Speaker Michael Martin was himself criticised when it emerged that his wife had claimed £4,139 on taxis - largely for shopping trips. The money claimed back comes from, you've guessed it, the tax payer! But on Wednesday, Parliament's standards chief John Lyon ruled Mary Martin's claims were "reasonable".

Presumably that's Parliament's definition, not that used by the public. Because I don't see how it's reasonable that the Speaker's WIFE - not even him - can have her taxi fares paid for by taxpayers.

The solution is simple. Stop paying tax.

I am the Revolution and I want my fucking country back, you thieving, money grabbing cunts.