Friday, April 02, 2010

Struck off

I see that Bob Crow and his merry men have been forced to cancel their rail strike because of dodgy balloting.
A High Court judge rescued the travel plans of millions of Easter holidaymakers and commuters returning to work next week by granting an emergency injunction against a national rail strike that threatened to halt 80 per cent of trains.

Superficially, there's only one thing that I can add to this news...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Ahahahahahaha...

There is, unfortunately, a downside to this news.
Mrs Justice Sharp also spared the Prime Minister untold political damage by halting the four-day strike, which was to begin on Tuesday — the day on which Gordon Brown is expected to call a general election.


Oh well: at least one can say that—strike or no strike—Gordon Brown is still an absolute cunt.

And so is Bob Crow.


Shug Niggurath said...

Can you imagine the level of backroom horsetrading these cunts have been doing to save the election?

Fair enough BA; their core vote is probably not disturbed by that - the swing voters maybe. But stop people from getting to work? That's gonna lose votes you can count on.

But that's the teachers starting to squeal and more in the pipeline.

I think what is really happening here is that the unions can smell the looming disaster and are reacting in the only way they know how to - all out!

It's not as bad as last time (79) because the unions are just not there anymore, they are massively reduced in numbers.

But the last few months have screamed that labour are about to lose to me. Not as badly as the cunts deserve, but that is only because we're fully two generations away from the 70's and the floating voters are now reduced in number - that 50% turnout is mostly tribal.

I rarely say my wv, but: cysts. I shit you not.

Ian E said...

The closer to the election the strikes come, the more damage to Brown (IMHO). Sure, this spares him a bad headline this coming week but the half-life of the average elector's memory is probably 1 to 2 weeks at most. Hence my conclusion!

Ronan said...

Ok, but if not thru the unions how do you expect rail staff to address safety concerns?

Shug Niggurath said...

Oh for fuck's sake Ronan. If you a credulous enough to believe that the union are concerned about safety then where do we start?

JuliaM said...

Well, it looks like the teachers are going to pick up where they left off...

Northampton Saint said...

Beat me to it Julia. Add in that 80's / Gene Hunt Labour poster, and it's already been a shit Easter for Labour...Deep Joy

Mick Turatian said...

My impression is that Bob Crow is determined to have his strike and the impact of this will be greater the closer we get to the election.

I wouldn't want to sully your blog with inelegant language but it's probably admissable to say that Gordon Brown IS an amatory receptor and Bob Crow likewise.

Ronan said...

Shug, I'm credulous enough to believe the rail staff care about safety, given they work on the rails. Again I ask, how do expect these employees to address safety concerns if not through the unions? What other mechanism exists?

Devil's Kitchen said...


"What other mechanism exists?"

Er... How about the railway bosses' instinct for profit-making? If you kill your customers, then they aren't going to use your service—and nor are their friends.

Now, admittedly, this is slightly distorted, I'll admit, by the fact that the railways are not run by private business, but by franchisees.

However, whilst the unions might care about the safety of their workers, they couldn't give two shits about the safety of the passengers...


Self employed handcuffed cunt said...

"Again I ask, how do expect these employees to address safety concerns if not through the unions? What other mechanism exists?"

Have'nt you heard of the health and safety executive , you know, the cunts that make it impossible to do the most basic of job. SEE THEM and complain CUNT.

Self employed handcuffed twat

Ronan said...

Devil, like Shug you're talking about 'the unions' when I'm asking what *rail workers* are supposed to do to address safety concerns, if unions aren't an option.

Am I right in thinking you're a bigwig in the Libertarian Party? What are you, some kind of comedy politician? 'The profit motive will ensure safety'!? What kind of answer is that? Fortunately, voters' ability to see you're a nutcase will ensure you never get an appreciable proportion of the vote. You would place adherence to your theoretical principals above the safety of flesh and blood human beings. Railways need to be safe NOW, not when the lack of safety cuts into the profit margins. Because no other mechanism exists, railworkers have no choice but to use the blunt instrument of unions to address safety concerns. If you were a serious politician, you and your political programme would offer them something better than 'wait til the next major crash kills loads of people, then the bosses might give a shit'.

Ronan said...

Devil, your self-employed reader gave a better answer than you did.

Devil's Kitchen said...

No, he didn't, Ronan: he believes that the Health and Safety Executive makes people safe. That is, demonstrably, bullshit. Or did the HSE not exist at the time of, say, Hatfield?

Further, the safety of the rails is in the hands of the government—for Network Rail (and its predecessors) were all, effectively, government companies.

(In fact, since Network Rail runs the track only, it has an incentive to make crashes happen, since it will save money in wear and tear on the rail.)

And your answer, even after the spate of crashes, is more government?

And you call me a comedy politician.

"If you were a serious politician, you and your political programme would offer them something better than 'wait til the next major crash kills loads of people, then the bosses might give a shit'."

It isn't. My argument would be "if you, the rail bosses, allow the degradation of rail, you will get crashes and people will not give you money to use your service and you will lose profits and bonuses".

Unfortunately, since the railways aren't privately run, this incentive is distorted.

Make the railways properly private, and make sure that those running the services are responsible for the track, and you will see a significant improvement is safety and services.


Ronan said...


His answer was better than your nothing. And from his tone, I don't believe he is a great fan of the HSE either.

My answer isn't more government. I don't have any answers. You're the union basher with the political aspirations, you're meant to give me the answers! I don't like unions, either, but you still haven't presented a realistic alternative for rail workers concerned with safety. Of coure, we could play around with ownership issues, in the hope that might make a difference, but that reeks of superstition to me. I think rail safety has more to do with actually, y'know, checking and maintaining the railway properly, which is why rail staff went to their union.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Ah, yes: the rail strike is aaaaaaaaaaall about safety, isn't it, just like the BA strike, eh?

And of course it's about safety: that's why a massive 54% of ballots returned—a majority of 113 out of some thousands balloted—elected to strike.

You poor sap.

And my answer is not nothing. And I am happy to support unions that are voluntary workers collectives.

But I don't support state-sanctioned thuggery. And the unions, right now, are state-sanctioned thugs.

But it's really simple: if union workers can go on strike, companies should be free to fire those workers.



Ronan said...


Enough to know that you haven't got any realistic alternatives, and that you wouldn't get my vote.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I haven't got your vote?

Colour me gutted, you statist moron.


Mick Turatian said...

I wouldn't want to interfere in a private squabble but reading this made me recall the less than sturdy construction of Ronan Point

Ronan said...

If you're going to insult someone, you ought to at least do it accurately. A moron? Perhaps. But am I really a statist? Here's a clue.

Anonymous said...


I'm afraid you made a fundamental error: you imagined that DK wishes to engage in reasoned debate on this blog. He doesn't, so don't waste your time.

stephen said...

So the power of the state is A-OK when it stops workers from organising themselves to strike. Gotcha. I guess the coercive state has its plus points, after all.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Fucking hell, it's stupid stephen again...

"So the power of the state is A-OK when it stops workers from organising themselves to strike. Gotcha. I guess the coercive state has its plus points, after all."

The state makes the law. The judges interpret the law. Those organising the strike broke the law governing strikes, and thus may not strike.

Actually, of course, they are allowed to strike but they would be doing so without the protection of the law.

As such, the strikers could all be sacked, which they cannot be when they hold the strike according to the law.

As such, the power of the "coercive state" is not actually stopping them from striking; however, if they strike under the law, the "power of the state" will protect their jobs from the employers who pay for those jobs.

Do you see?


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...