Vote for me type of thing

Blogging awards here. Go cast your vote.

But if Terry Kelly fails to get the ‘Most dyslexic blogger’ award, I will know they are fixed.

That is all. Carry on now.

Big brother is watching

Details of every phone call, text message, email and time spent surfing to be collected by the state. However, if you are savvy, you will get around this by using an SSL tunnel, or similar technology, to host all your shit on a US server, and to hide your browsing habits. Unless, of course, they manage to make the use of these technologies themselves, illegal.

 

All together now…. Police State.

Closing the shop

The Unions have secured a pretty impressive policy in return for their bribe promise of continuing funding of the BBC / Nu Labour alliance.

In order to be in with a shout of winning one of the £115 billion worth of public service contracts that will be available, the business must, as part of the bid process, demonstrate how they will “build good relations” with unions. It isn’t clear if this will be across the entire business, or just for those involved in the government contract. Equality and other similar laws would suggest the former.

This is classic jobs for the boys type of stuff. Government spending now accounts for 6% of GDP, which is a hefty wedge of the contracts on offer nationally ~ businesses will now have to effectively promote Union membership if they want to get a look in on any of those contracts. This, of course, benefits the Unions ~ a benefit they have secured by funding the Labour party itself.

This shameful state of affairs (which isn’t restricted to the BBC / Nu Labour alliance, the Tory’s are always up for a bit of corporatism, except in their case it is large corporations, not the unions, that tend to receive favourable treatment) is always a danger when political parties take money from anyone other than individual members. As Tim Carpenter, Head of Policy at LPUK says in the party blog,

This is the risk that exists when political parties are funded by anything other than their individual party members. Companies and Unions have similarities - they operate to increase market share and some are even about gaining favourable regulatory protection, often to shut out competition. They are ladder kickers. The result is inefficiency, waste and the stifling of innovation. Labour have now opened the door to entrenching such things in all the companies that it sources manpower. How long before this policy is extended to ALL providers to the Government regardless of product or service?

Quite. Predictably, the BBC / Nu Labour alliance website concentrates on the ’skills’ aspect of the legislation. Not that they are biased, or anything, you understand.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a free marketer? No, it’s InterventionMan

Chapter One: InterventionMan brings in measures to shield his corporate buddies from Evil Captain Market. Full color comic available here.

Next week ~ InterventionMan intervenes with the mysterious Shadow Cabinet to ‘fix’ broken society, with the aid of SuperNanny State, the fucktard.

I read it in a book

Who do you think is more qualified to give an opinion on the 42 days internment bill?

a) Baroness Manningham-Buller, who joined the security service ‘Specializing in counter-terrorism rather than MI5’s then-classical counter-espionage‘

or

b) Tony McNulty, who left University to become a BBC / Nu Labour alliance councillor and ‘senior lecturer in Organisational Behaviour, at the University of North London‘

The answer, of course, is b). Why? Well, because;

“Her experience in that end of operations… is very limited.”

Fucking hellsinki. You know, I actually think these morons believe their own bullshit.

Lillian Ladele & Peter Tatchell

Mr Tatchell is upset about the Ladele case.

It is understandable, really. While the state controls all aspects of partnerships, of any kind, these things are always going to happen. He is correct ~ everyone has a right to get hitched to whom they please, or not get hitched, or whatever.

The mistake he makes, however, is that people also have a right to follow whatever sky fairy beliefs they want, and the state is one employer who shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against it’s citizens whatsoever. The state isn’t a person with rights ~ it has no right of free assembly.

So what to do? Well, how about the state doesn’t bother itself with this issue at all?

Sky fairy folks could work for organisations true to their beliefs, and people could live their lives as they see fit, whatever their personal preferences.

It is the state that discriminates here ~ by defining what a marriage or partnership is, it tries to coerce people into fitting into approved ‘boxes’. I won’t go over the same arguments as the post above, but it reminds me of the Catholic adoption agency row. The problem there wasn’t, in fact, the Catholic agencies, it was the system imposed by the state. Children would be listed with a single approved agency, which meant that if that agency had beliefs that didn’t like to place children with gay couples, for example, they had a claim for discrimination. If, on the other hand, kids were placed with all agencies in their area, public spirited homosexuals could start an agency that assisted gay couples to adopt, Catholics could assist whom their sky fairy beliefs allowed, etc etc. The child would not be hindered by someone’s beliefs, and everybody wins.

The problem is that we often use the cover of rights to force our world view on others, using the state as a tool. Both Mr Tatchell and Mrs Madele are guilty of this from completely differing perspectives. Remove the state from the equation, and your problem solves itself.

Owned

Snigger.

Worst Law. Ever.

This is a clever piece of politics by the BBC / Nu Labour alliance, but an appalling law. It appears to be aimed at a universally unpopular type of criminal, the paedophile, and appears to protect a universally popular victim ~ poor children in poorer countries. Thus, by criticising this piece of legislation, one paints one self as either a child molester, or a heartless bastard.

Alas, I must do exactly that.

The problems are two fold. Let us examine the practical elements of the law first. As we are talking about countries where the age of consent is lower, sometimes much lower, than our own, there will be no local crime, and thus no local evidence gathering. How, exactly, do they propose to gather such evidence, and who will report the ‘crime’? The article says they will work with their local counterparts ~ how? Finally, when it comes to the trial in the UK, how will they present such evidence? Will they fly children and guardians over from impoverished countries, with the promise of safe refuge? Will the pay or otherwise compensate them? How else will they convince them to come? None of these appear to hold up to a very high standard of evidence.

The biggest problem is, however, the one of principle. Traditionally, the rule of law stated that one could only be convicted of an offence if it was illegal at the time and place it occurred. This laws extends jurisdiction to the whole world. Where does this end? Do we arrest anyone who has been over to the Republic of Ireland for a spot of fox hunting for committing wildlife crime when they return? What about a 16 year old lad on his first Costa jolly ~ sorry, sunshine, that holiday shag was 15 years old. Legal over there, but not here. Been to Holland for a smoking session? Naughty, naughty. In the slammer you go. Been to Prague for a paid bonk? Harperson has just made that illegal, you’re nicked. Shoot someone in self defence while in Texas? Tough titty, mate. Time to be charged with murder when you return.

Obviously, we would be unable to complain if other nations took a similar line. See that woman down the road, you know the one who’s just got divorced after having an affair? Well, she was originally from Saudi Arabia, you know, and they want you to ship her back for a stoning. It’s illegal there, you see… What, you used to be a Muslim? Unlucky. Time to be deported back to your mother country for execution.

You may be thinking that this is all a bit silly, I mean, they are only going to use this against known paedophiles, aren’t they? You know, like they only use terror laws against terror… oh, that doesn’t work, does it?

Sick bastards

Here, we have;

Jayne Jones had been escorting 14-year-old severely epileptic Alex each day by taxi, taking specialist equipment with her in case he had a fit.

But the mother-of-two was told she would not be allowed to continue doing so until her details had been run through a Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check.

and;

Last week a woman who was wrongly labelled a violent alcoholic and drug addict by the CRB was told she would have to allow police to take her fingerprints if she wanted to clear her name.

Amanda Hodgson, 36, a law-abiding mother-of-three, learned of her “criminal past” when applying for a post as a welfare assistant at her local primary school.

She was told she had a criminal record stretching back 18 years, including three convictions for assaulting police officers, and the only way to clear her name was to get her fingerprints checked against every unsolved crime in the country.

Super. The state has decreed that a mother must pass its own tests before being allowed to be a mother, and an innocent person should register with the state to prove her innocence.

Death is too good for the sick bastards that still wank over the greatness of the all encompassing database state. Mind you, I don’t see people marching in the streets, or even bothering to put down their copy of the Guardian or Daily Mail to protest about this kind of evil, sick bollocks, so perhaps we deserve it. Oh, come friendly bombs.

Don’t fret, Tony.

Mr Sharp is getting a bit pissed at the latest piece of BBC / Nu Labour alliance propaganda, it appears.

Now, I shall refrain from pointing out the policy of his own party on the AGW Alarmist bullshit, as he has a valid point visa vi Auntie, and generally seems a genuine kind of chap.

So, I shall point out something my very, very intelligent, but also very religious (unlike your atheist host) Prof. (yes really) Haddock Senior said to me when I was a lad.

‘Do you know what killed religion in this country? Compulsory RE in schools’

Keep in mind that when Prof. Haddock was at school, RE was actually, or more importantly, compulsory C of E.

So ramming a particular kind of sky fairy down peoples throats doesn’t always provide the results you think….

 

And no, he isn’t a member of the C of E.