Thursday, February 15, 2007

It's one rule for us and quite another...

... for the corrupt fucking bunch of venal cunts and fuckers sitting in the House of Cocking Commons, as per fucking usual. God I hate them.

Hey everyone! You remember that smoking ban that's coming into force in July, with no exemptions for private clubs or anything? Well, I don't know if you remember, but our bastard MPs weaselled out of that one by exempting Royal Palaces and... Guess fucking what? That's right: the Houses of Parliament are apparently Royal Palaces, so our fat-arse MPs won't have to stand out in the cold.

And, of course you'll remember that row with the Catholic Church over gay adoption? Well, now, just in case that wasn't effrontery enough, our bastard MPs have done it again.
This is the full text of the Equality Act 2006. Section (52) titled "Public Authorities" says the following
(1) It is unlawful for a public authority exercising a function to do any act which constitutes discrimination.

It then says,
(3)The prohibition in subsection (1) shall not apply to-
  • (a) the House of Commons,

  • (b) the House of Lords,

  • (c) the authorities of either House of Parliament,

  • (d) the Security Service,

  • (e) the Secret Intelligence Service,

  • (f) the Government Communications Headquarters, or

  • (g) a part of the armed forces of the Crown which is, in accordance with a requirement of the Secretary of State, assisting the Government Communications Headquarters.

So when all those politicians were banging on about how the Catholic Church could not possibly be exempt because equality from discrimination was universal and applied to everyone, what they actually meant was everyone except them.

Seriously, where the fuck do these seamy, steamy, pus-ridden, worm-riddled cunts get the fucking effrontery from? I mean, what the fucking shit? Surely, when you've got someone like Groper Prescott waddling around, the House of Commons should have the fucking Act applied rerospectively, for fuck's sake.

Right, that's it: I am going to assemble an army of volunteers and, after an extensive breeding programme, we are going to storm the House (at some point when more than about three of the piss-lazy arsewipes have bothered to shift their, fat, obdurate, lard-bucket bodies into work), and we are going to stuff entire families of Madagascan Hissing Cockroaches up all the men's jap's-eyes.

And just to show that we don't discriminate, we're going to shove entire colonies of the fuckers up the female MPs' cunts, where the little brown beauties will rapidly breed in the warm, foetid stink before bursting out of their victims' orifices in an orgy of giant insectoid blood-letting.

Fuck you, you hypocritical cunts; may you die by cockroach...


Anonymous said...

I am very angry with the fuckers, I'll join your army. They must know this legislation is shit otherwise they wouldn't have to exempt themselves.

Roger Thornhill said...

At the gates of the Palace

MP: This is blasphemy...this is madness...

Electorate: Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!

"This is where we fight...this is when they die!"

Anonymous said...

Welcome back old boy.

Anonymous said...



G.S.S. said...

The hypocrisy of these cretins never fails to surprise. However, are you certain that the genital insertion of Madagascan Hissing Cockroaches will be painful enough? I mean, surely these pigs deserve to endure something far more horrendous. Aha!
How about tying them to chairs and playing Placebo's new album on repeat for a couple of days? Chilling...

Aaron Murin-Heath said...

I have an old Nazi Luger I got from my grandad.

Little Black Sambo said...

Your restraint is remarkable in view of the provocation.

Unity said...


Mmm... There is a rationale to some of this, at least, which does not rest on modern hypocrisy.

The reason that the Commons, Lords and Parliament are exempt is because Parliament is still a royal palace in law - remember you can't prosecute the Crown.

Anonymous said...


Since the Crown in Parliament is - in theory - supreme, an Act of Parliament can exempt the Commons, Lords etc from the general exemption covering royal palaces (including exemption from prosecution). Anyway, although the Crown is exempt in a general sense from prosecution - even civil legal action - one of the few things the post-War Labour government got right was to allow government institutions to be subject to (more or less) normal legal process in the courts. Further, if royal palaces are always exempt from this type of legislation why did the crooks feel it necessary to set out the exemptions in the Act? Was it just to annoy? If so, they succeeded.

Bag said...

This sounds interesting. You want some volunteers to help with a breeding programme. Can you explain this a bit more because it sound like it could get an old fart like me some extra nookie and I've some spare time. If it's to help breed the cockroaches then I'm too busy. I'm a planner not a doer. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Devil you don't sound to pleased ,just calm down and have a cry, and remember when it comes time to vote.

ps is it possible to sell my vote ,they sell peerages ,so I think when they come round to my house wanting my vote ,I will offer it to the highest bidder ,Iam sure legality is not a problem

Gavin said...

If you think that makes you angry, just wait til you've read THIS.

QT said...

Re: tom tyler:
Here come the STASI.

DK: I'm an avid reader of your blog, and this post is one of my all-time favourites. Keep up the good work!

Unity said...

Further, if royal palaces are always exempt from this type of legislation why did the crooks feel it necessary to set out the exemptions in the Act? Was it just to annoy?

That's what you get for having an unwritten constitution - the exemption is matter of unwritten convention, which means it has to be enacted any time a law is passed that could affect its operation.

Anonymous said...

"the exemption is matter of unwritten convention"

Convention or not, it's either the law or it isn't. If the exemption is law there's no need to write it into every act: if it isn't - or it's never been tested in the courts so the crooks are uncertain - then I can see why it's written in as a specific exemption.

In any event, my understanding of constitutional convention in the British constitution is that specifically "conventions" are not law: they are generally accepted methods or modes of operation or behaviour that are "conventionally" observed. For instance until 30 April 1997 an anus like Prescott would have resigned (or been forced by the PM to resign) after it became public that he was attempting to shaft (and often succeeding) every woman within a bargepole's length of his ministerial person. This wasn't law but it was "convention". Another example are the "conventions" of individual and collective ministerial responsibility which were that, respectively, a minister was responsible for every act of his civil servants (and responsibility=resignation) and all members of the government supported all acts of that government or resigned (ie a squirrel-faced hag - or, as she is more politely called, minister without portfolio - would not demonstrate locally against the effects of the NHS policies of the government of which she is a member).

When (more or less) honest people were in government the unwritten rules worked well. With the present gang of shysters (or the most likely alternative) no rules written or unwritten appear to be obeyed without question (or at all). Writing up the constitution is no remedy if the people who operate the constitution are the crap who are either currently in or potentially in office.

Anonymous said...

Based on the obvious quality and even-handedness of your opinions of the powers that be, you are hereby formally presented with an invitation to join the community of ARRSERS (Army Rumour Service) at where we are sure you will make a valid and valuable contribution to the debates.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...