Monday, June 30, 2008

Welsh efficiency

It seems that the Welsh have assembled a fund to give grants to small businesses.
A £19m scheme to support existing and new businesses in south west and mid Wales has been launched.

Almost 2,000 grants of up to £5,000 are being made available in five counties - Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Swansea, Pembrokeshire and Neath Port Talbot.

It is supported by £8.9m European funding, and there are claims it could create about 1,000 new jobs.

Vindico points out that the figures don't... er... add up to much.
Assuming each grant is the full £5k: 2,000 grants * £5k = £10m. So where does the other £9m go?

Well, one must assume that the remaining £9 million—which is, of course, a wee bit more than the entirety of the EU funds—goes on the administration of this system. Which means that just over 47% of this money is being spent on running the scheme.


Still, it's rather better than central government: I have seen it estimated that, of every pound that goes into the Treasury, only about 30p is actually spent on front line services.

Can I just reiterate that government does things very inefficiently and, if you do not like your hard-earned tax money being pissed up the wall, we should ensure that the state gets as little of our money as possible, and thus does only the bare essentials?

The rest is simply wasted. And it's your money.

UPDATE: young Ordovius points out that your humble Devil is famous at last!
The Devil's Assembly

Tory AM William Graham just quoted this post from the Devil's Kitchen in today's plenary.

Yes, yes: it is my assembly: Wales is my bitch.

Anyone know what he actually said?

UPDATE 2: here is a transcript of that particular Plenary.
William Graham: ... I am not a great reader of various things that appear online—I would not call them blogs—except where it mentions my own self, of course. This appeared in 'The Devil’s Kitchen’ and it says, under the heading 'Welsh efficiency’:
'It seems the Welsh have assembled a fund to give grants to small businesses’.

We agree.
'A £19m scheme to support existing and new businesses to south west and mid Wales has been launched. Almost 2,000 grants of up to £5,000 are being made available in five counties….It is supported by £8.9m European funding.’

Sadly, as it points out here, these figures do not add up. The amount of grants suggested only comes to £10 million. So, I will ask the Deputy First Minister to reply on that. Where does the other £9 million go? Surely that cannot all be swallowed up by administration.

As far as I can see, this question is not actually subsequently answered...

UPDATE 3: for posterity, here is the video...


You fucking what?

Via the equally incredulous Harry Haddock, here is a particularly egregious quote from an article by some 16 year old know-nothing at LabourHome.
It isn't capitalism that generates wealth. It's competition matched by a strong welfare state.

You fucking what? Look, you pig-ignorant tit, the state generates no wealth: the state has no money but what it steals from the people of this country. The Welfare State does not generate wealth. It might redistribute it—very inefficiently—and it might provide what this socialist nitwit would consider to be essential services, but it does not generate wealth. Ever. At all.
Every paper barrages us with statistics about how our children are getting dumber, and how education standards our getting much, much worse. This is a lie.

Uh huh. If you say so, sunshine. Although, on this showing, I can't help feeling that the standards are even worse than the eeeeeeevil media have portrayed them...

Now, why don't you bugger off and play with your skateboard or something...?

Tee hee

Do you think that Gordon is enjoying his premiership? Here's another vote of no confidence in the useless, monocular fucker...
Labour is doomed under Gordon Brown's leadership, former party donor Sir Gerry Robinson has said.

Sir Gerry, a businessman who last gave money to Labour in 2005, told BBC News Mr Brown had put it in "probably an impossible position to come back from".

He was one of four Labour backers to tell a newspaper they were reluctant to fund Labour with Mr Brown at the helm.

The party is also facing a financial crisis, with the prospect of repaying millions of pounds in loans made to it by wealthy individuals when Tony Blair was in charge.

The party - which files its annual accounts next week - is relying on support from the big trade unions as it seeks fresh donors.

But Sir Gerry, who has given £70,000 to Labour since 2001, said he would not be contributing any more funds until there was a change of leader.

Oh dear, oh dear... It really couldn't happen to a more useless, spiteful, unpleasant little man, eh?
Health Secretary Alan Johnson hit back at Mr Brown's critics, insisting the prime minister had had a "good year".

Mr Johnson also maintained that oil was actually $3 a barrel, that wind turbines were very useful and that Vesuvius had never exploded and the residents of Pompeii were alive and well.

The prime minister has had a "good year"? What the fuck? Seriously, does Health Secretary Alan Johnson think we are idiots?

You might argue, as NuLabour apparatchiks do, of course, that the upheavals of the last year have not been the Gobblin' King's fault but by no stretch of the imagination has Gordon had a "good year". It started off with near Biblical floods, Foot and Mouth (caused, it was revealed, by the government's incompetence) and Bluetongue pestilence, and the bombings at Glasgow airport; it has carried on with the credit crunch, the oil crisis and house price correction.

May I suggest that somebody check on Health Secretary Alan Johnson's mental health? Because whilst I am no doctor, if you ask me, he gone completely fucking hatstand. Either that, of course, or he is incapable of telling the truth.

Oh, wait, he's a politician...

Wikio Rankings again and other admin

Yes, I do seem to have found myself shilling for Wikio, but they send me the rankings in advance (though no money, alas). And I am pleased to report that this month, I can feel a little smug, since I have jumped up the rankings to regain my #2 slot in the political blog rankings. Here's the Top 10.

Strangely enough, your humble Devil is still not in the PoliticsHome Top 100 Blogs.

Bitter much, Mr Montgomerie?

In other admin news, the number of readers at The Kitchen has declined slightly over May and June; this is not entirely surprising given my more sporadic posting. From Google Analytics:
45,990 Visits
16,773 Absolute Unique Visitors
57,817 Pageviews

The really joyous news is that useage of all flavours of Internet Explorer, The World's Worst BrowserTM, has dropped to just below 47% (only a couple of years ago, it was near 90%).

However, you will all be excited to know, no doubt, that your humble Devil is still very much enjoying his job and seems to be making a good impression too. So that's nice.

And, despite the slight fall in visitors to the site, MessageSpace revenue has picked up considerably since I last reported on this. Whilst I made only about £250 from September through to the beginning of April, since then I have picked up another £150 in revenue. This ups my per monthly MessageSpace earnings, from roughly £38, to about £50. It's still not a living, but it does allow me to buy a beer or two (or buy petrol for a week)...

Finally, I have never been a big Flikr user since I don't take photos (never really having had a camera of my own). However, I have decided to resurrect my Flikr stream in order to put bits of artwork up there. It's mainly the Devil Tarot at present, but I have found a couple of sites that have encouraged me to start doing art for fun again and so I shall be working on some decent illustrations (rather than the rush jobs that the Devil Tarot represents).

In the meantime, the other designer at work has been signed off sick for three weeks and we have a lot of work coming in so I am pretty swamped. I shall attempt to keep posting throughout the week (if I can just get used to this concept of actually taking time off work for an hour at lunch) but not only am I (happily) busy with work, but I tend to be too tired to do much in the evenings (unless it involves free booze) so posting may get a little more sporadic.

It's a good thing that I don't have anything to do at weekends these days, eh? Although I am seriously contemplating a trip to Wiltshire to attend The Englishman's Chilli Cook-off next weekend...

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Britblog Roundup #176

The Britblog Roundup #176 is up over at Suzblog.

Lots of lovely stuff: do head on over...

The police state again

A former soldier, Frank McCourt, has been charged after making a citizen's arrest.
When Mr McCourt, of Crawley, West Sussex, was confronted by youths hurling stones and threatening his wife, he thought he was within his rights to make a citizen's arrest. Instead, police arrested the 56-year-old on suspicion of kidnapping. They treated the youths as traumatised witnesses.

They put Mr McCourt in a cell and charged him with assault. They let him live for months with the threat of a jail sentence until—after the intervention of a local MP—the Crown Prosecution Service decided that taking Mr McCourt to trial was "not in the public interest".

Sitting in a front room full of family photographs and his wife's ceramic ornaments, Mr McCourt has his freedom but, he says, "a little bit of me has been destroyed forever – the bit that believed in British justice, that thought I would get help when I needed it, instead of being betrayed."

Please do go and read the whole article: it is a shameful tale. If I were the parents of the children involved, I would be ashamed to show my face in public; if I were the children themselves, I would go and drown myself in a fucking bucket before someone did it to me.

And if I were the police officers involved, I would go and hang myself in the public square with a big placard around my neck, saying...
"I am a total fucking cunt. Please throw dogshit at my hanging body and let the crows peck out my eyes. Then dismember my body and bury the various bits in unconsecrated ground near the crossroads. Then piss on the graves and take a dump in my skull. I am a total fucking shit and I don't deserve to live."

Tom Paine has a rather more reasonable take on the whole affair.
The linked story illustrates poignantly what has happened to our nation under Labour. There was a time when youths would have feared to act in such a way, because the local community would have dealt with them and the police would have exercised common sense. Common sense in this case would have rejected the allegation of kidnapping, which was clearly part of a malicious campaign. But "by the book" bureaucratic Britain requires that common sense is not applied. The allegation was made and must therefore be given credence. Worse, the bureaucracy incentivises the police to pick low-hanging fruit and win a quick statistic, rather than actually tackle the crime that makes many parts of the country unliveable.

Mr McCourt did his country as much service here as he did when he served as a soldier. He is patently a good man; the sort any country should be happy to have as a citizen. He is even - amazingly—still willing to fight, saying he would do the same thing again. His wife's reaction is more typical—and heart-rendingly sad
"If I had to go through that again," says Mrs McCourt, "I would walk out. I back Frank, but I just couldn't face it again." Forlornly, she eyes her home. "We have been left defenceless."

Who can blame her? The state is not there to direct peoples' lives. It is there to provide a framework of law within which they can direct their own. It is also there to protect citizens from criminals who interfere with their ability to do so. In this story, as in so many, it has done precisely the opposite. It has done so under the direction, and with the approval, of the Labour government.

And let us be quite clear: the police have willingly colluded with this attitude. In return for a few more lots of silver pennies and more power to harass those whom they are supposed to protect, they have sold their soul to the politicians.

And since politicians are unredeemably evil, so they have corrupted the—hardly previously spotless—police. So, let me remind any officers, who might be reading this post, of your founder's vision for what you should be: I give you the Peelian Principles.
  1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

  2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

  3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

  4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

  5. Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

  6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

  7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

  8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

  9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

There are decent policemen out there (I know one or two) but the force as a whole has become corrupted—it has become a tool for politicians in a party political point-scoring process.

We must remove the police from political control: politicians seek power over their fellow man and are thus unsaveable from their quintessential evil. The police should serve the people and uphold the law: these two ideas are incompatible with being political stooges.

Unfortunately, the stupid and lazy who make up the majority of the denizens of this country—those who want security above freedom—continue either to elect authoritarian governments or to care nothing about the process. And the rest of us suffer as a result of their apathy and greed.

Who is John Galt?

Wind power is still crap

There's a new report just been released on the topic of wind power, which is reported in the Telegraph. Timmy has got hold of the report and reassures us that the article gives a fair summary.
OK, so there’s ths paper come out about the actual effects of having lots of windpower on the UK grid. Yes, I’ve read the paper and yes, this article gives a fair enough summary.

So, what does the article say?
Written by an independent consultancy and funded by the Renewable Energy Foundation, the report says backup electricity plants will be needed to meet demand during calm conditions.

Published online in the journal Energy Policy, the study confirms concerns among critics that wind around Britain is too volatile to provide reliable energy.

Using wind data from the Met Office, researchers found that in January, when energy demand is highest, wind farms often fail to produce enough electricity, dropping on occasion to 4 per cent of their maximum output.

The report says: "Wind output in Britain can be very low at the moment of maximum annual UK demand. These are times of cold weather and little wind.

"Simultaneously, the wind output in neighbouring countries can also be very low, and this suggests that intercontinental transmission grids will be hard to justify."

The authors used data on wind speeds and electricity demand from the past six years to work out what impact 25 Gigawatts - about 16 per cent of Britain's needs—would have had on the national grid if it had been supplied by wind farms.

The results show wind is highly volatile. In January 2005, for example, wind speeds varied so much that demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56GW.

In that month, a 1,000MW fossil fuel plant would have had to come on and offline a total of 23 times to make up the shortfall. At 6pm on February 2 2006—the point of peak electricity demand for the whole year—wind farms would have been unable to provide any power at all, researchers found.

It's pretty damning stuff, but hardly news to regular readers of The Kitchen or other half sensible blogs.
It comes after the Government last week unveiled a £100million plan to build at least 4,000 wind turbines, with a further 3,000 offshore. The programme is expected to drive household bills up by £260 a year.

This is rank stupidity; as Timmy says...
Now, could someone who really understands the science here (and preferably someone who supports the installation of wind power, if there actually be any people who are both) please explain something to me.

Why in buggery are we going ahead with wind? It doesn’t seem to solve any problems at great cost.

Good question, Tim. It is because our leaders, who were pig-ignorant in the first place, have been further deceived by snake-oil salesmen. Can an MP be removed on the grounds of insanity? Can they all be dragged from the House on the grounds of collective madness?

And can we hang them all yet?

Well, yes, some will say, but in the end, if we are so very concerned about the planet burning, no one is going to mind energy costs going up, eh? Who cares if a few pensioners die, or Africans can't get medication because they can't run the fridges to keep them?

After all, no one really gives a crap about the oldies or the darkies, do they? After all, what's the lives of a few million pensioners and some tens of millions of the world's poor against our precious fucking consciences?

And you just know that the fucking socialists are going to pop out of the woodwork and insist that people be more highly taxed to pay the power bills of the pensioners and the poor.


You want people to stop using so much power, so that we can save the planet, don't you? Then don't pay the damn power bills for them: let them die. It's for the good of the human race: better a few million of the poor and the old than the entire human race, right? Better the old and the poor should die than a few thousand animal evolutionary dead-ends should become extinct, is it not?

Here's the stark reality, chaps: we are going to beggar ourselves and murder millions to salve some lefty middle-class consciences. And when this AGW shit is shown to be the load of absolute fucking horseshit that it is, I hope that the enthusiasts—such as the odious and consistently wrong James Hansen—are put on trial for mass-murder.

UPDATE: thanks to Anonymous in the comments, who allows us the opportunity, once more, to yell, "don't these people have editors?" The Telegraph article states that...
... the Government last week unveiled a £100million plan to build at least 4,000 wind turbines, with a further 3,000 offshore.

Um, no. The government intends to spend £100 billion, not £100 million.

If you throw away a bottle...

I happened to notice that, playing in the MessageSpace ad space under some of my posts, this WWF-sponsored advert for Connect2Earth.

The message is clear: throw away a bottle and you will get hit by a truck.

Actually, I found the advert quite amusing, if slightly unlikely: who would be allowed to practise archery in their own home these days, eh?

But let us remind ourselves of what the consequences should be: what should happen is that you break the law and then someone accuses you, the police come around, charge you and then you answer to your peers in a fair trial.

These days, you throw a bottle into the street (admittedly, a fucking annoying and despicable act) and your retribution involves being hit by a twenty-ton truck.

Still, I welcome this ad. After all, the idea of karma is a religious one and it helps to enforce the idea that these Green nutters are little better than religious fundamentalists, consistently pursuing the wrong policies—can you say "biofuels"?—and using fear to attempt to gain support.

Just like the politicians who allocate millions of pounds of our money to these organisations then...

P.S. As standard, I like to check charity accounts to see just how much the British taxpayer has been forced to contribute to these so-called charities. So here's the accounts for WWF-UK, and below are the relevant sections.

Only £5.7 million from the EU and other government agencies. A bargain, wouldn't you agree?

Obviously, it would be more of a bargain if it wasn't your money being stolen from you and being used to support WWF-UK, whether you approved of their aims or not. You know, if "charity" actually meant "charity"...

Strike them off and strike them down

Oh look: another example of patrician cunts who set themselves up as arbiters of our behaviour acting like total swine! Who would'a thunk it?
Young women fleeing forced marriages are being betrayed by GPs and benefits staff who "collude" with families to return them against their will, a senior police officer police has revealed.

Doctors and Job Centre workers are breaching confidentiality rules and passing on vital information to families, allowing them to trace and punish Asian women who are attempting to escape coerced marriages and "honour"-based domestic violence.

Commander Steve Allen, who is the spokesman on forced marriages for Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), revealed that some doctors have informed girls' families that they have asked for the contraceptive pill, placing them at risk from fathers or brothers who believe this means the family's honour has been besmirched.

Cmdr Allen also told The Sunday Telegraph that Job Centre workers have accessed the National Insurance details of women who flee violent husbands, tracing where they collect benefits and passing the details on to their families so they can be found and forced back to their marital home.

Now, not to excuse the barbarity of the beliefs of many in this country—beliefs informed by a combination of religion and very, very small penises—these people named in the article are, plain and simply, utter, utter cunts and I hope that they die in screaming agony.

Timmy points out that a database state will make tracing these unfortunate women all the easier in any case.
Having a National Identity Register, one where it is a criminal offence not to update your address, will make tracking down such miscreants so much easier, won’t it? And with the hundreds of thousands of people who will have access to said database, it won’t be possible to stop people doing so.

Finally, a use for it then! To continue the oppression of young Asian women. Makes you glad to be British, doesn’t it?

Are these benefits workers not breaching data protection rules? Should they not be punished?

In the meantime, the doctors most certainly are breaching patient confidentiality rules. They should be tracked down and struck off the medical register.

And if anything happens to the women concerned, then they should be charged as an accessory to murder or assault, or whatever. And then their breach of the medical code should be taken into account and they should be imprisoned forever, without parole.

Utter bastards. These people are scum.


Squander Two discusses why Boris isn't up to the job, and then makes an error that I see far too many people making about politicians in general.
[Boris is] supposed to be running one of the world's largest cities...

No. He. Isn't.

London would run perfectly well without Boris. It would run perfectly well without Ken too. In fact, before the London Mayoral position was resurrected less than a decade ago, London carried on quite nicely, thank you. Oh, and Londoners paid roughly £300 less in Council Tax too.

Let me spell this out: politicians do not run anything productive. No one should ever tell them that they should be running anything, because then the evil bastards might think that they have some kind of ability.

Politicians should not ever try to run anything. Ever.

We don't do planned economies because it always leads to disaster. And when you talk about politicians running something, you talk about politicians running human interactions. And we call that "totalitarianism".

Politicians make laws that might—but usually don't—help to grease the wheels of human trade and interaction, but they do not, should not, and should never be allowed to run anything at all.

Oh, and it's not just "politicians": it's anyone. No one should try to run—or may I use the word "control"?—human interaction. Humans do things most efficiently and most responsively when they are allowed to respond spontaneously. The world is fast-changing and fluid.

It is a failure to understand this that makes politicians and governments and bureaucracies so uniquely unsuited to run things.

Think: you have a certain problem. People demand that politicians "do something". The politicians do some research, table a Bill, have it read, get it through, get it passed back for revisions, debate it again, etc. etc.

Finally, it is made into law. But by now, two or three years have passed and the problem that they were trying to solve has either gone away, or the nature of it has changed. So, the Bill to fix a problem that no longer exists goes through and has massive unintended consequences, and causes problems of its own. And now the politicians have a new problem to fix and the whole sorry procedure goes round again.

The politicians, of course, love this because it keeps them in a job. The more laws that they pass, the more problems are caused; and so there are even more problems needing to be "fixed" and even more justification there is for politicians.

But then, it's never the politicians who pay the price, is it?

They have voted themselves fat salaries, generous—and slackly controlled—expenses and gold-plated pensions so even if they are only in Parliament for one term, then they don't really have to worry about slumming it with the proles again (even if they were originally working class).

If they bollocks up the economy, or the budget, the politicians don't really have to answer to anyone. And if taxes go up... well... they just vote themselves an inflation-busting pay rise and yet more generous expenses (with a tax exemption from the Inland Revenue).

The point of this rant is that things would run just fine—and probably rather better, actually—if politicians were just to sit down and shut the fuck up.

And in the name of all that's unholy, don't give them the impression that they should run anything because it is we who will pay the price.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

"We don't want that flag here in Henley."

I am not really one to get overly excited about the whole English question and surrounding issues. I am, however, perfectly happy to take a pop at jumped-up little fascists and our state police.

So, via Harry Haddock and Wonko, here's an article from the Brussels Journal that demonstrates both, in spades. [Emphasis mine.]
Threats of prosecution or fines for flying the England flag in England is not new, and perhaps it should come as no surprise, then, that the English Democrats party—which uses the flag in its promotional material—is reporting that it has become a target of such intimidation. Yet it is different for one very significant reason: that there has been a longstanding, unspoken rule that political parties in Britain should not be harassed by the police, particularly when campaigning. We accustom such behavior with dictatorship, not democracy.

The incident occurred when candidate Derek Allpass and his team were out campaigning on June 21, for the Henley by-election (held June 26). They had set up a table with promotional material, and strung bunting sporting the red cross of St. George around it. However, the team was soon approached by the police and the Town Clerk, the latter of whom allegedly told Allpass, “we don't want that flag here in Henley.” Darren Riley, the Party's Kent Chairman, responded by pointing a church that was close by, and likewise flying the England flag (because it was under the denomination of the Church of England), and remarked, “if you don't want England's flag flying in Henley you had better take this up with the Vicar too.”

Nevertheless, the authorities claimed that the display of the flag by the English Democrats breached a by-law, and instructed them to remove both the table and bunting. The by-law in question has yet to be shown to the party, though as the town was also strewn with red, white, and blue bunting (signifying the United Kingdom, as opposed to England), one can only wonder how peculiarly specific it must be.

Indeed. There are an awful lot of stories of police and other state cunts over-stepping their authority and justifying it by "saying it's a by-law, innit" when often no such by-law exists.

Let me think: what do you call a country in which the police attempt to control the population by making up arbitrary laws?

It's on the tip of my tongue... um...

Fucking stupid socialist comment of the day

I found this comment, from some totalitarian cunt called ultimathule, on Tim Worstall's piece on pay equality at CiF.
I already told you what I want, I want the costs of maternity pay divided evenly with the employer of the mother and the mplyoer [sic] of the father. That way the woman would not suffer unfairly. It is his child as well, so it's inconceivable that only the mother shold [sic] take the disadvantage.

Ultimathule's argument reminds me of Polly Toynbee's, in that it contradicts itself within the same short paragraph.

Consider, Ultimathule says the following:
  • It is the mother's baby.

  • It is the father's baby.

  • The mother should not bear the sole costs of the child.

OK, fair enough. So, who does Ultimathule think should actually pay the costs?
  • The mother's employer.

  • The father's employer.

Um... Right, there are two agents to whom the baby definitely does not belong: the two employers. So, remind me again, why the living fuck should the employers be forced to pay for this couple's child?

Right now, employers and taxpayers seem to pay a large contribution to childcare costs. And it isn't their child either. If those parents' employers are so desperate to retain those employees services that they are willing, voluntarily, to pay maternity leave or paternity leave—and those parents are canny enough to screw said money out of employers—then great.

Otherwise, having a child is a lifestyle choice: the only people who should pay for the fucking sprog are the damn parents.

Swedish party politics

Now, I am just waiting for the odious Pollyanna to praise this absolute fucking travesty from her very favourite Sweden.
It was supposed to be a party with balloons and a birthday cake but the eight-year-old Swedish boy had not reckoned on his country’s obsession with equality and inclusiveness. Two of his classmates were left off the invitation list – and that, deemed his school – was forbidden and a violation of their rights in the strictest “nanny state” in Europe.

The case has been sent to the Swedish parliament and has sparked a national debate about individual liberty. Does a child have the right to invite anyone he wants to a party, even if he risks hurting the feelings of those who were left out?

Yes, he fucking does, and only an odious, nannying, totalitarian shit-heap like Sweden would think anything else. Egalitarian paradise? Fucking Communist hellhole, more like.
The birthday party case takes state intervention to a new level. Before the beginning of lessons the boy had cheerfully threaded his way through the class handing out invitations. When the teacher spotted that two children had not received one he confiscated the invitations.

“One of the children had not invited my son to his own birthday party,” explained the father of the boy, who lodged an official complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman. “The other one had been bad to my son for six months. You do not invite your antagonists.”

That was not convincing enough for the headmaster or government deputies. “I believe the staff acted correctly, in a model way,” said Lars Hansson, of the Swedish Liberal party, one of the four ruling coalition partners in the country.

That is because you are, without doubt, one of the most sinister cunts that I have ever heard of. You make our politicians look like mere amateurs.
“It is their duty to reject any forms of insulting behaviour. To eliminate individual children from parties is not acceptable.”

Really? And perhaps you would like to explain why the fuck not? Or perhaps you cunts don't believe in freedom of association?

Actually, let me rephrase that: you cunts don't believe in freedom of association, you totalitarian shitheads.

Timmy's comment is worrying naive.
Yup, they’re so communitarian that the invite list to an 8 year old’s birthday party is a matter for the State.

Somehow I just don’t see that quite catching on here: perhaps, contrary to Polly’s desires, we’re just not a social democratic nation?

I really wish you were right, Tim; I do. But we will be doing precisely the same soon. Have we not already done so? Did I not see a story the other day, in Scotland, where schools no longer make Father's Day cards because it might exclude those children without fathers?

If we haven't banned children from inviting who they like to their birthday parties yet, rest assured, we will do; we will do.

Once again, 1984—and I am pretty sure that it has been translated into the god-awful, gutteral, Swedish language—was a fucking warning not a cunting instruction manual.

I bet that you're fucking proud, aren't you, Margot? This is precisely the sort of behaviour that you would encourage.
Lena Nyberg, the Children’s Ombudsman, is waging a campaign against collective punishment in schools too. Children have been complaining to her about the way that entire classes are kept behind after hours to punish an offence committed by a single pupil. “Adults at work would never accept being punished for something which a colleague is guilty of,” Ms Nyberg said.

Really? What about the restrictions on drinking in Sweden? Or in this country, for that matter. Or the laws against drug use, or a million other things? Adults are constantly being punished for the stupidity and ignorance of other adults; it is what governments do these days; they punish the innocent majority for the sins of the guilty few.

Besides, you don't have adults: your molly-coddling Welfare State and communitarian bollocks has castrated your men and spayed your women. And thanks to your malign influence and the lack of cojones amongst the UK population, the British are rapidly going the same way.

Our politicians are turning most of the population into sheeple, fucking morons who will do anything to gain some crumbs from the government's table—crumbs that are, in any case, stolen—extorted under threat of punishment and imprisonment—from the productive in society. And these same fucking morons are forcing those of us who disagree with them to toe their line, to pay for their lifestyle choices, to fund their habits.

And everywhere goes the cry, "more people want it than not, so they must be indulged. The people voted for this, and they keep on voting for it."

Some call it democracy: I call it tyranny.

And I reject it.

I do not wish to be forced into state subjugation by the stupid, the ignorant and the just plain bastard lazy.

I do not wish to be forced to associate those with whom I have no wish to spend my time.

I do not wish to be forced to close my mouth for fear of arrest.

I do not wish to find myself locked away without trial, not knowing what I am accused of.

I do not wish to be an indentured servant, half of the product of my hard work stolen to pay for the lifestyles of those who are parasitic on the productive.

I reject this statist evil and I reject the validity of this democracy—this tyranny of the majority—this totalitarianism of the lazy and stupid over those who think and would be free.

I am not interested in democracy, but in liberty. And our democracy is proving, as any system of government always does eventually, to be the enemy of liberty.

It is why I am a libertarian—because it is the only moral philosophy. Under true libertarianism, no one is forced to support anyone else. No one is forced into a socialist hell-hole. No one is even forced to be a libertarian: if you want to form your own voluntary, socialist enclave, then you can. But you cannot force everyone else to pay for it.

Libertarianism is the only morally right choice if you believe in liberty. The problem is that few people in this country seem interested in liberty; as such, they will continue to vote for one of the Big Three statist parties and force their bigotry, their prejudices and their bleeding heart socialism onto those of us who do not wish to take part. And they do so at the barrel of a gun—holding up their hands and claiming personal innocence whilst their jack-booted, weapon-wielding representatives threaten us.

Is there any place free from these fuckers—these parasites? Is there nowhere where we who wish to be free can go? Can we not go somewhere else, and leave the socialists and their parasitic brethren to wallow in their own shit?

Who is John Galt?

UPDATE: I knew that I had seen something about seasteading somewhere.
Tired of the United States and the other 190-odd nations on Earth?

If a small team of Silicon Valley millionaires get their way, in a few years, you could have a new option for global citizenship: A permanent, quasi-sovereign nation floating in international waters.

With a $500,000 donation from PayPal founder Peter Thiel, a Google engineer and a former Sun Microsystems programmer have launched The Seasteading Institute, an organization dedicated to creating experimental ocean communities "with diverse social, political, and legal systems."

"Decades from now, those looking back at the start of the century will understand that Seasteading was an obvious step towards encouraging the development of more efficient, practical public-sector models around the world," Thiel said in a statement.

It might sound like the setting for the videogame Bioshock, but the institute isn't playing around: It plans to splash a prototype into the San Francisco Bay within the next two years, the first step toward establishing deep-water city-states, or what it calls "seasteads" -- homesteads on the high seas.

But if the idea turns out to be just crazy enough that it works, Friedman, following in the footsteps of his grandfather, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, envisions transforming the way that government functions.

"My dad and grandfather were happy arguing their ideas and were happy influencing people through the world of ideas," Friedman said. "I see a real need for people to go out and do something and show by example."

True to his libertarian leanings, Friedman looks at the situation in market terms: the institute's modular spar platforms, he argues, would allow for the creation of far cheaper new countries out on the high-seas, driving innovation.

"Government is an industry with a really high barrier to entry," he said. "You basically need to win an election or a revolution to try a new one. That's a ridiculous barrier to entry. And it's got enormous customer lock-in. People complain about their cellphone plans that are like two years, but think of the effort that it takes to change your citizenship."

Friedman estimates that it would cost a few hundred million dollars to build a seastead for a few thousand people. With costs that low, Friedman can see constellations of cities springing up, giving people a variety of governmental choices. If misguided policies arose, citizens could simply motor to a new nation.

"You can change your government without having to leave your house," he said.

A few more years of the insanity that we currently live under and I shall seriously consider moving to one of these, should they work. After all, with fast satellite broadband, there is no real reason why I could not work from one of these towers.

The only thing that makes me sad is that the Devil's Tower already exists...

Wendy finally fucks off

Newsflash: trout-faced, stinkingly corrupt old whore found officially guilty of being a trout-faced, stinkingly corrupt old whore.

Praise be! It seems, as Guido briefly reported on Wednesday, that Wendy Alexander was found guilty of fiddling donations to her leadership campaign. Both Guido and your humble Devil happily published this letter in December, which appeared to screw the stupid cow's denials completely...

Your humble Devil also reported that The Sunday Herald had obtained a highly damning MS Word document that listed her donors and flagged one of the impermissable donations.
However, the Sunday Herald has obtained a printed copy of Alexander's full list of secret donors, which names each contributor, how much was given, as well as the campaign member from whom it was solicited.

According to the "properties" tab in the Microsoft Word document, "Brian Ashcroft", Alexander's husband, is named as the "author". This means the document was created on a computer registered in his name.

The secret list, which has never been published before, states under the "donor" heading that [Channel Islands resident] Paul Green had made a donation of £950. No mention of CPS. The column marked "Name/ address for Elect Comm purpose" contained Green's Jersey address.

Crucially, the list also drew attention to the donation's illegality by stating at the end: "Permissible?" According to the word file on which it was saved, the document's date is November 5.

Now it seems that, having been found guilty of being a unprincipled, corrupt hypocrite and shameless liar, Wendy has fallen on her sword (though not, alas, literally).
Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander has resigned "with deep regret" after breaking rules on declaring donations.

There's no regret at this end, love, I can assure you. Fuck off into mediocre obscurity, you bitch.
It came as she faced a one-day ban from Holyrood after failing to register donations to her leadership campaign.

Ms Alexander said she had acted in "good faith" and on the written advice of the parliamentary authorities.

Yes, yes, we saw this argument when your fat friend, Jackie Baillie, attempted to defend your honour on Newsnight. Not only is breaking the law unintentionally not a defence, but the evidence made quite plain that you knew—or, at the very least, strongly suspected—that what you were doing was illegal.
She accused the SNP of waging a "vexatious" campaign against her, without regard for the damage it was doing to the Scottish Parliament.

Oh, fuck off, you stupid little bitch; the person who was doing damage to the Scottish Parliament was you.

You broke the law.

You acted corruptly.

You kept putting up piss-poor defences.

You continued to lie.

And—I shall say it again—the only person that is responsible for damaging the Scottish Parliament, in this case, is you, Wendy.

There will only be one person who will be upset to see you finally fucking off, especially since he thought that this scandal was all over...

Yes, I have just had the poor little Greek boy on the 'phone, sobbing his little eyes out*; not only has Wendy had to resign but he himself is not in the country to comfort her (and maybe get a little comfort himself, if you get my drift. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...).

Mind you, even my impecunious Athenian friend admitted that Wendy was treading on thin ice when she advanced the idea of an independence referendum.
The capacity of this government and its acolytes in the North for serially screwing things up is hilarious to watch. Already on its knees, it's an open question how many more of these self-inflicted wounds it can take before it expires altogether. But this is the break-up of the United Kingdom we're talking about; these pathetic internecine squabbles have consequences that will reverberate long after Brown and Alexander have returned to a richly deserved obscurity.

The fragrant Wendy has made a right balls-up of this entire affair, and politicians and columnists are now openly calling for her head. We may be very close to a tipping point for her "leadership", such as it is, and once that is reached, not even her biggest fan in the blogosphere will be able to save her.

Still, never mind, Mr E; I'm sure that Wendy will now have the odd empty hour to spend with her minge: maybe you could help her fill it...

* This may not be entirely true. Although I did send him a gleeful text and his reply was somewhat incredulous.**

** I may still be misrepresenting the situation. Or not. You decide...

Friday, June 27, 2008

Hara-Kiri Harman

Author's Note: The author of this post is not The Devil's Kitchen

Leg-Iron at Underdogs Bite Upwards has an excellent post up about Harriet Harman's Equality Bill
Now, if you are discriminated against because you are a white male, you have absolutely no recourse in law. If you are female and/or a member of any ethnic group, you can bring the full weight of the law down on anyone who so much as looks at you the wrong way. Especially if it's a white male. Those half-human trash should be made to cast down their eyes in the presence of their betters. Sound familiar? Remember who that once applied to? Remember what they did about it? Duck, because here it comes again.

People wonder why the BNP are doing so well. Christ, it's not rocket science. Turn the whole of the legal system against a group, any group, and they'll turn to whatever party offers to support them. In this case it's the Look After Whitey party. I certainly don't want them in charge but why do you think they're getting so many votes? Because they have something to offer? No, because the other parties are deliberately sending voters to them as the last haven of non-persecution they can find. The country has been simmering for a long time and it's coming to the boil.

Are Labour composed entirely of brain-dead idiots, or are they doing this on purpose? Is Gordon Brown really Nick Griffin in a saggy mask? Labour are certainly doing their best to raise support for the BNP at every level of society. There must, surely, be better ways to spite the Conservatives. Why not send voters to the Lib Dems? They seem relatively harmless. Or the Libertarians, one of the very few who actually have policies I can agree with.

This is just the latest fuckwitted move that has making me seriously wonder if Labour are trying to lose the next election in as spectacular a fashion as possible. Do they think they're setting Cameron up for a fall? NuLab are constantly being attacked by the likes of Polly Toynbee for doing the bidding of Murdoch and Dacre, and then they turn around and hand them something like this on a platter. The front page of yesterday's Express screamed 'White Men Face Jobs Ban'.

Next thing, they're having the temerity to wonder why white males feel disenfranchised. And then they're going to wring their hands about why the fucking BNP received more votes than Labour did and probably will in future elections also. Harriet, and everyone else in the Labour party who is behind this idiocy, are you all out of your fucking trees?

What's all of this nonsense in aid of? The 'positive discrimination' proposals aren't likely to actually change much out in the real world of employment. What they have achieved is to give the Government all of the wrong headlines and given the 'right-wingers' a partially true story that's going to do the rounds for months if not years to come. Why? So a fucking socialist cunt with no experience of the realities of the business world whatsoever can live out her fantasy student union politics? I fucking despair.

I think for all the rhetoric about politicians here and on other libertarian blogs, there's generally some kind of assumption that at a minimum level at least they know what they are doing, and have some concept of public relations. This is the latest move from Labour that shatters both of those illusions.

Labour less popular than the BNP

Well, the Henley by-election results were somewhat... well... absolutely disastrous for NuLabour.
The Conservatives have won the Henley by-election, pushing Labour into fifth place on the day Prime Minister Gordon Brown marks his first year in office.

Mr Howell took the seat with 19,796 votes to the Lib Dem candidate Stephen Kearney's 9,680.

Labour's Richard McKenzie could only poll 1,066 votes, behind the Green Party's Mark Stevenson on 1,321 and the BNP's Timothy Rait on 1,243.

NuLabour also lost their deposit.

And the BNP continue their worrying rise...

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The NHS: the politicians think it's fucked...

The NHS: we know it's fucked, the politicians know that it's fucked, and at least I'm honest about it...

... they just won't tell you that, apparently. The IEA have just published a new book—Sixty Years On: Who Cares For The NHS?written by Dr. Helen Evans of Nurses for Reform. I haven't read it yet, but the IEA's Prohibitions book is thoroughly excellent, so I imagine that this one will be pretty good too.
Significantly, the study lays bare for the first time the private views of a large number of the country’s most senior health politicians, policy advisers, academics, journalists and professionals.

Containing a series of devastating blows to the NHS as it prepares to celebrate its 60th anniversary, the research shows that when speaking off the record a substantial majority of Britain’s health elite no longer believe in nationalised healthcare.

Yeah, you can bet that almost every one of our bastard politicos has private health insurance (and charges it to expenses too, I'll wager).
While the NHS is itself now charged with being ‘inequitable’, ‘two tier’, ‘rationed’ and ‘costly’, a majority also believe it is too ‘monopolistic’ and want to see a much greater role for private funding arrangements—which could include personal health savings accounts.

Looking at private funding arrangements versus the state, an overwhelming majority of respondents surveyed (65%) believe that because people’s healthcare is unpredictable, some of its costs will increasingly have to be covered by private sources: ‘government arrangements such as taxation cannot do it all’.

As it happens, I know Dr Evans vaguely; her husband is Dr Tim Evans of the Libertarian Alliance (thoroughly sound chap); anyway, having dropped her an email, Dr Evans (who is, would you believe, a libertarian nurse: who would'a thunk it), was kind enough to give me a (no doubt, stock) quote:
“As people’s expectations increasingly outpace what the state can deliver, and as nationalised healthcare loses the battle for hearts and minds, behind the scenes our opinion formers are starting to seriously consider market alternatives.

With NHS dentistry collapsing before our eyes, ever more voters having private medical insurance, private health cash plans, or simply self funding for private surgery, the political class is under pressure to think anew. Already, in many of their minds, the NHS is dead. They won’t go on the record and say as much, but that is privately what they think.”

Anyway, you can download the text for free [PDF], so why not do so. As a leader of a party which consistently and honestly answers that, yes, we would abolish the NHS, I am going to have a squint at it over the next couple of weeks: I might get an idea or two...

It will, at least, be a stick to beat the politicians with; especially as the Tories had the temerity to send me an email not only encouraging me to "wish the NHS a happy 60th birthday", but also to read their Health green paper.
David Cameron has launched a Green Paper which sets out how a Conservative Government will create a health service that is "truly the envy of the world."

Oh, great! Yet another bit of buggering about with the NHS, yet another reorganisation and yet another set of fucking targets.

When will these cunts learn that the biggest problem in the NHS is the fact that the government keep buggering about with it? It's like the NHS is a particularly itchy, pus-filled spot on the face of the body politic and they just can't resist scratching it. But they never make it better: it just discharges a whole load of putrid chyme, swells some more and hurts until it gets scratched again.

Tosspots, the lot of 'em...

Compare and contrast: innovation edition

Ooh, look! Found on the IEC Fusion blog, isn't this a pretty picture?

It's the discharge glow from the Polywell Fusor fusion reactor built by students at Penninsula College, in the US.
Over the summer break of 2007, I came across the following article in an edition of Popular Science: Teen Builds Basement Nuclear Reactor! This article intrigued me. If a teenager in Michigan could build one of these in his parents basement, why couldn't a group of science students build one of these in a classroom?

I started thinking seriously about this idea, and couldn't come up with any negative consequences for this project. Think about it: students do the research, design the reactor, order the parts, put them together, and hopefully achieve fusion. Along the way, they are learning about atomic physics, energy levels, binding energy, types of radiation, safety concerns and remediation, metal fabrication, machining tolerances, operations manuals, vacuum technologies, high voltage electronics, gases, plasmas, arc discharge, cross sections, the list just goes on and on.

The project cost a massive $3,000. No, that's not a misprint: that is three thousand dollars.

Meanwhile, over here in Britain, our students barely know what the fuck an atom is and our government is preparing to spunk £100 billion of our money up the wall on sodding windmills.

Fucking hellski.

Nicholas Sarkozy: French cunt

Via The Nameless One, here's a quote [PDF] from Nicholas Sarkozy, on the subject of Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.
"They [the Irish] are bloody fools. They have been stuffing their faces at Europe's expense for years and now they dump us in the shit."

Well, quite right, Nick. I mean, can you imagine Nick's anger if another country did something similar?

Seriously, can you imagine a country like... oh... France, taking massive amounts of EU money and then rejecting a major EU Treaty in a referendum?

Oh, wait...

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Paul Flynn MP: criminally ignorant moron

The Cynical Dragon pointed me towards this rather unpleasant post from idiot Labour MP, Paul Flynn.
Global warming deniers have undermined well-founded public alarm on Global Warming. Panic is our only hope. Channel Four and Nigel Lawson have pushed the seductive message of comfort and reassurance that Global warming is not happening.

It’s bunkum, but the weak long for happy delusions that will ease their worries. Confronted by the loud-mouthed environmental ignoramus brigade of fuel gluttons and macho poseurs, British politicians' green convictions are wilting. Today's Observer poll suggests that six out ten
Britons are not convinced that global warming is the supremely vital issue.

The public fear must be cranked up again.

When challenged in the comments, little Mr Flynn was pathetically dismissive. Given that the man is a pig-ignorant fuckwit with an over-weening arrogance (have he and Polly Toynbee ever been seen in the same room together? Just saying...), I decided to fisk his reply...
The global-warming deniers do not have science on their side.


I know that you are a politician, but do try not to lie. Let us have a look at two pillars of the AGW: the Mann et al. "hockey-stick graph", and arch-climate loony, James Hansen.

The hockey-stick graph was thoroughly debunked—it was shown, by MacIntyre and McKitrick (try Google, Paul), that whatever data you put in the result was always a hockey-stick. Which is why, of course, the IPCC no longer relies on it. There is an example of the science being on the side of the "deniers".

And James Hansen... Well, where to start? I know, let's start with his speech of twenty years ago to the US senate, shall we? This gentleman has helpfully shown how accurate Hansen was.

Further, we have been told recently that the current cooling trend is due to cold currents in the Pacific and that this will mask the catastrophic warming. Really.

It is strange, is it not, that not one of the climate models predicted this cold shift. One might almost conclude that the models were not terribly accurate and that their predictions should be taken with a sack of salt. Especially since these "scientists" have all been using a set of equations that assume that the Earth has an infinitely thick atmosphere.

You might also like to observe that the only significant warming in the land temperature record is added after the figures are collected.

There are, of course, also significant problems with the way in which land temperature figures are collected (urban heat island effects and suchlike) which leads one to wonder why NASA, for instance, does not use the far more wide-ranging and accurate satellite data (clue: because the satellite data shows insignificant warming as compared to the land measurements).

But I doubt that you will be interested in actual data, eh, Paul? You'll just take what you're fed, like the good little bit of lobby-fodder that you are. I can imagine you now, which your fingers pressed tightly into your ears, shrieking, "la la la la! I can't hear you!"
Over 90% of the best scientists in the world are demanding immediate action from Governments.

Who says that they are "the best", Paul? You? What qualifications do you have to judge that?

And since when was consensus of any use in science? A couple of hundred years ago, the consensus was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

More recently, the consensus was that thousands, if not tens of thousands, were going to die of vCJD (remember that, Paul?). We're still waiting...

But what should we do? Well, why don't you have a look at the IPCC SRES A1 family of scenarios? They are the scenarios based on technological advancement, greater international trade and cooperation, and people around the world getting richer. Go on, have a read: you never know, you might like the idea.

Oh, and just while we are on the subject, the Stern Review made absolutely no mention of the A1 scenarios. At all. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Which is just one of the reasons why those of us who actually know about the subject and who read his report dismissed it as useless scare-mongering.

Oh, and the scientific consensus supports us there, by the way. The only people who still quote the Stern Review without getting actively embarrassed are politicians, because they, as usual, know no better.
Some, but not all of the deniers, are in the pay of the oil industry.

Oh, yawn. Nearly every single one of the AGW scientists is in the pay of governments and the state is hardly a disinterested party. These scientists also know that if they mention AGW in their reports or proposals, they are more likely to get funding.

And do tell, what motivates those people who, you admit above, are not in the pay of the oil industry?
My description of them is a little too restrained.

Paul, my description of mental fascists such as yourself is never so polite and yet I too am still far too restrained.
There was a gobal warming denial vote in the Commons recently. 5 out of the 650 were found.

Sorry, Paul; how is that in any way significant? How many MPs have any scientific qualifications at all? How many of them have actually read any original reports or studied raw data?

For god's sake, the vast majority of you could not even be bothered to read the Maastricht Treaty, or the Lisbon Treaty and I bet there are more lawyers in the Commons than there are scientists.

Most of you vote on issues of which you have little or no understanding and base that vote on little but your own prejudices, petty squabbles and party affiliations.

The only thing that we can rely on is that you MPs will, at every turn, vote for more money and more power.

No wonder the general public holds you all in utter contempt: you are, in the very clearest sense of the word, contemptible.


Paul Flynn, ladies and gentlemen: arrogant arsehat of the day and a wonderful ambassador for our elected representatives. Well, excellent for those of us that maintain that they are all stupid, corrupt, self-serving simpletons, anyway.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Dirty European Socialist: fulfilling my prejudices

It is always rather satisfying when one is proved to be correct and so it is with great delight that I remind you all that I called the Dirty European Socialist "a barking mad nutter who should only be approached when wearing full anti-loon protection gear".

Luckily, he has turned up in the comments to verify his lunacy, the fucking nutjob.
Hitler said in Meein Kampf that
"Should one State preserve its national strength and its national greatness the empire of the Jewish satrapy, like every other tyranny, would have to succumb to the force of the national idea.". So he agreed with euro skeptics in extreme nationalism.

The founder of the EU Robert Schuman was nearly exectued by the NAZIs.
So anyone who is a euroskeptic is a neo nazi who is contuing Hitler's dream.

Now, just in case you were unable to decipher DES's message through the fuzz of abysmal spelling and general mangling of the English language, what he said was this: if you are a Eurosceptic, then you are a neo-NAZI intent on continuing Hitler's dream.

Laughable, quite laughable. As I said before, "he must be about thirteen years old and an idiot to boot."

But it is joyous too: the more EU-philes like him who pop up with their insane NAZI epithets the better, frankly...

Climate Skeptic: Great Moments in Alarmism

Naturally, there is an explanation for the fact that the forecasts were wrong; I just can't think what they might be other than the fact that... well... forecasts just aren't very accurate and they are no more accurate now than they were twenty years ago...
Apparently a number of papers are "commemorating" today the 20th anniversary of James Hansen's speech before Congress warning of catastrophic man-made global warming. So let's indeed commemorate it. Here is the chart from the appendices of Hansen's speech showing his predictions for man-made global warming:

I have helpfully added in red the actual temperature history, as measured by satellite, over the last 20 years (and scale-shifted to match the base anomaly in Hansens graph). Yes, 2008 has been far colder than 1988. We have seen no warming trend in the last 10 years, and temperatures have undershot every one of Hansen's forecasts. He thought the world would be a degree C warmer in 20 years, and it is not. Of course, today, he says the world will warm a degree in the next 20 years -- the apocalypse never goes away, it just recesses into the future.

Oh yes, I am sure that there have been refinements here and there but, seriously, it cannot help that these alarmists are still doing stupid things like assuming an infinitely thick atmosphere...

What do you want to bet that, in twenty years' time, today's predictions are going to look equally fucking stupid? Me: I'll bet a lot.

And in the meantime, these alarmists want us to beggar the world and keep the darkies poor so that they can indulge their little fantasy. Well, fuck them: fuck them all.

I say, plough ahead with making everyone richer and thus saving millions of lives.

UPDATE: now it seems that James Hansen is determined to shore up his credibility by curbing free speech, because he is a total fucking cunt who doesn't like to be told that he is wrong, wrong, wrong (even when we have documentary evidence showing that this is the case).
But now, the spirit of Savonarola has returned, in the guise of James Hansen, a man who incredibly calls himself a scientist. Mr. Hansen has decided that he is the secular Savonarola, complete with apocalyptic predictions and a righteousness that allows no dissent:
“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress—in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the “perfect storm” of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.”

It will be interesting to see if any champions of free speech on the left can work up the energy to criticize Hansen here. What we have is a government official threatening prosecution and jail time for Americans who exercise their free speech rights. GWB, rightly, would never get a pass on this. Why does Hansen?

Because for those who believe in the AGW scenarios—and let us remember that theirs is a perverted religion because they will not even accept all of the IPCC scenarios: only those predicting catastrophe—this is a problem so huge that all of the liberties that we hold dear should be immediately repealed because, guys, this is the big one!

They are wrong. They are morons. And I will continue to deride them as morons.

If they want to believe Hansen, then may I humbly point out that Hansen has never been right; if you want to trust the track record of a man who has never been right, that's fine: who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?

Me, I'll continue looking at the actual science, rather than listening to alarmist nutjobs like Hansen.

UPDATE 2: Bishop HIll has more in edition 15 of his Climate Cuttings series...

EU Commission to the European people: "fuck you."

Feel the contempt that the EU elite have for us, with this video from England Expects...

Key quote from Margot Wallstrom,
"Don't forget the European leaders have invested a lot of political capital into this whole procedure".

Ah, well, if the "leaders have invested a lot of political capital" into this project, who gives a fuck what the people actually want, eh?

Heed the signs...

Over at The Grauniad, Phil Hall wonders if Britain is moving towards a dictatorship.
But there is also evidence around us that the British government is engaging in repression. And not just in Iraq or Afghanistan, but here in Britain. Perhaps those of us who have lived for a time under dictatorships can spot some of the warning signs:
  • Inconvenient elections are avoided in the name of getting on with the job.

  • Leaders of the opposition are character-assassinated by the state media.

  • Institutions like the legislature begin to lose their independence and traditional role.

  • Citizens are increasingly afraid to speak openly on certain issues.

  • Citizens are observed and monitored on cameras and the government can tap into their conversations at will.

  • Governments can snatch anyone from their homes or off the street and detain them without trial on charges of treason or terrorism.

  • Ethnic and religious minorities are persecuted and are made into scapegoats.

  • The state increasingly intervenes in family and community life in an attempt to control citizens' behaviour.

  • The focus of discussion moves away from the issues and into a narrative of political rivalries and gossip spreads.

  • Governments use bread and circuses to shut people up and distract attention away from their increasing political impotence.

  • Public spaces for demonstrations are closed down and restricted.

  • Large and ridiculous monuments are built to impress the citizens.

  • Individuals have to carry ID with them at all times and the government holds large amounts of information on every citizen.

How does the British government rate on the dictatorship scale?

But it's all OK, isn't it? Even if we are moving towards a dictatorship, it is absolutely fine because that is what the people voted for, is it not?

Via Bishop Hill
, and quoted by the Adam Smith Institute, Gibbon showed us what happens when we get to such a state.
In the end, more than freedom, they [the ancient Athenians] wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all—security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.

Does that sound at all familiar? It should do...

Saturday, June 21, 2008

The Arcade Fire

I really like this band, and here's one of my favourite songs: Rebellion from the Funeral album...

The video's no great shakes, but the song rocks...

UPDATE: now, I like this video for Power Out. Does anyone other than me reckon that the person who did this animated Arcade Fire video...

... also did the animated video for Mogwai's Hunted By A Freak?

Bleak townscapes, contrasting movement speeds and bleak townscapes: it has to be the same person, doesn't it? Does anyone know for sure or, indeed, who it is?

Carnival of Souls at the Barfly tonight

Continuing the music theme from yesterday, and in the interests of plugging my brother (as usual), Carnival of Souls are playing the Camden Barfly tonight. They will be playing a new set and previewing some brand new tunes (which I have heard, and they are most excellent); they are always energetic and energising live and the Barfly, in terms of both space and technical expertise, is one of the best venues in which to see them play.

They are onstage from 9pm (supposedly) so I shall be wandering along there for about 8pm; details are on the website (which I am building slowly but it's getting there). As from midnight tonight, you will also be able to buy their new Burnt Offerings EP through the website too: four professionally recorded songs for £2.50—you can't say fairer than that...

The monarch is merely the passerby who let the murderer escape

Over at the LPUK Weblog, Patrick Vessey has written a piece seeking to explain the Queen's deplorable behaviour in giving Royal Assent to the European Union (Amendment) Bill, which enshrines adherence to the Lisbon Treaty into British Law.

It seems that the Queen simply isn't very interested in modern affairs or politics—a trait which is, at least, not shared by Prince Charles, for all that his views are idiotic. Thus, it is concluded, the Queen simply doesn't overly care about the liberty of the nation or the tradition which she represents.

The wonder in all of this is only in that Patrick thinks that she should care. Ultimately, as Adam Smith illustrated so fervently, we are all self-interested creatures. Were that not the case, we would have seen even more popular revolt against this Bill (and our lack of referendum): why should the monarchy, in their rarified existence, care for a Bill that will ultimately not affect them, when the people whom it will affect, it seems, couldn't give a shit?

Regular readers will recall that your humble Devil is a monarchist, but only because the monarchy can be used as both a marketing tool (for re-engaging with our Commonwealth partners) and as a political one—to curb Parliament.

But surely, you will say, the monarch could curb Parliament now, and she does not do so: how would you change that? It is easy: I would do so by means of engaging the monarch's self-interest.

My proposal, you might remember, was quite simple. The UK should have a codified Constitution or Bill of Rights; many have called for this, but a Constitution, in and of itself, is insufficient. Although it might be difficult to change, as we have seen in many countries—not least in the US—unscrupulous politicians can get together to change it. And our politicians are almost universally devoid of scruples, and they are not adverse to agreeing across political lines when it is in their interests to do so—take the state funding of political parties, for example, which all three main parties, unsurprisingly, support.

Now, I view the monarch as a potentially useful brake on the tyranny of Parliament; it is Parliament who are the enemy: after all, we would not be having this debate on the uselessness of the monarch had our Parliament not forced this Bill through in the first place. However, the monarch does need to be engaged and we cannot rely on the vagaries of an individual monarch's personality to do this.

So what I proposed was that, if the monarch gave Royal Assent to any Bill that contravened the Constitution, it would trigger an automatic referendum on whether to force the monarch to abdicate. We could weight it sufficiently that there would be a real chance of the monarch being forced out: two thirds, say, would have to vote to retain the monarch. In recent times, this would have occured with both the European Union (Amendment) Bill and the 42 Days' Detention Bill (both of which contravene our Constitution in different ways).

In this way, the monarch would be forced, through self-interest, to consider each and every piece of legislation put before them, lest they lose their position and their livelihood. If they thought that the Bill really was for the good of the country—if it was a suspension of liberties in a time of Total War, for instance, e.g. ID Cards and internment during WWII—then the people could allow it through by voting to support the monarch.

In order further to curb Parliament, and to punish them for passing such a Bill in the first place, if a piece of legislation was knocked back, Parliament would automatically be dissolved and a General Election immediately called.

We should not expect the monarch to be any more engaged than the rest of the population; or, rather, we might expect it, but we certainly should not pin our liberties on this being the case.

But, it must be emphasised again that what Patrick is doing here is the equivalent of blaming a death on the passerby who let a murderer escape from the crime scene. That passerby could have stopped the murderer, just as the Queen could have stopped this Bill: but it is no more fair to blame the Queen for Assenting to this Bill than it is to blame the passerby for said murder.

Whilst the Queen should have used Her powers, let us never forget that, were our Parliament not packed with evil, cowardly, corrupt and unprincipled swine, the monarch would not have to exercise Her powers.

It is our Parliament that is our enemy and we should never forget that.

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...