Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Hoots, mon! #indyref

OK, let me get my cards on the table: I want a fully independent Scotland. I don't have any emotional attachment to a Union that was created to benefit one group of poshos and bail out another. Smaller territories, genuine community concerns, etc., lead to more relevant politics.

There's plenty of reason why an independent Scotland really appeals to me, not the least of which is that the endless Scottish whingeing about Westminster can finally fuck the fuck off. Labour destroyed for the foreseeable future? Well, suck my cock. David Cameron in a lose-lose situation? Cry me a river.

But the truth of it is that the Scots are going to bottle it. It's going to be a narrow No vote. Narrow enough that Alex Salmond is going to claim vindication and carry on banging on to acquire more powers for Alex Salmond.

Useless, desperate Westminster politicians will throw money and power without consequences at Holyrood in a desperate attempt to hang on to their own power.

The hated and despised English will continue to fork out for every fucking thing.

Alex Salmond isn't really interested in independence for Scotland, the hope thereof is his gimmick, his schtick for more power without any responsibility. If the Scots do vote Yes, what's going to be his unique selling point? People may start to look at his policies and start to question them.

He's not prepared fully for the consequences of independence, that's because he doesn't really want it. He's in a powerful position, pandering to the nationalist elements of the Scots, with massive power over what happens but equally no responsibilities and a handy scapegoat if shit goes wrong.

Which politician would want that happy gravy train to reach a destination?

Proof that democracy is a terrible thing shows in the fact that 97% of Scottish people think that the outcome this referendum is going to make their lives better. It's as stupid as people believing that UKIP will be any different to the existing political structure if they get any power.

The worst possible outcome (and therefore the most likely one) is that the No vote squeaks in. The Yes camp will be outraged, calling it a fix. Westminster will be fully cowed, aware that unless they accede to Salmond they will be only one referendum away from losing the thing that will cost them their own power. Everybody else's money will be thrown at the Scots to keep them quiet and Salmond will negotiate himself even more powers with even less accountability.

Ordinary Scots will be no better off than they are now, but the political elite in Holyrood will be much better off and may trumpet their "achievements" to appease the nationalist vote, to keep them on side.

Ultimately, the only true independence is the one where we walk away from the states that control and shepherd us. That will never happen because people are afraid of the responsibility that comes with that.

A small taste of that fear is what will keep Scotland in check. All the No campaign has offered is fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's much more powerful than hope and opportunity.

Friday, 6 December 2013

Thoughts on #Mandela (for @kevin_maguire and others)

So, he's gone. Predictably, the sanctimonious bullshit has been dialled up to 11.

One of the most depressing things about it has been the preponderance of left-wing political animals (if not MPs) like Alastair Campbell and Charlie Whelan banging on about meeting him.

Look at mmmeeeeeeEEEEEEE!! Look at me! I met him! I touched him! Behold, he cured my leprosy!

From utter cunts who would mock the shit out of someone saying the Pope had done that.

Equally annoying has been the whitewashing of his history. He was given a fair trial and a fair sentence, even Amnesty fucking International said so. He WAS a terrorist.

He was also a politician upon release, who had some good ideas and equally, some fucking insane ones. Ironically, he replaced a notionally democratic but really one party state with another notionally democratic but really one party state, although to be fair, this was hardly his fault.

He did keep a lid on the widely-expected violent backlash, but today there are more murders of white farmers in SA than there ever were in Zimbabwe.

He did, for a very brief time, largely unite the nation (apart from lunatic neo-nazis and equally lunatic black consciousness marxists, but nothing's going to make those fuckers talk to anyone else!) Ultimately that was down to the cult around his person - he did not make this a lasting legacy.

He did drag South Africa out of the Stone Age in terms of some social liberties, but ultimately the economic policies he introduced replaced the handful of white oligarchs with a handful of black ones while leaving the overwhelming majority of South Africans even worse off than they'd been under the Apartheid regime.

He fucked up royally on crime and let's face it, the corruption of other politicians did not start after he left power.

So his legacy can basically summed as a mixed bag - hardly the amazing result he seems to be associated with.

But really, the worst whole thing about the grief whoring is that people who hold him up as some sort of role-model-y godlike figure display none of the values that they claim to admire in Mandela: that people can change and that you should forgive.

As an example of this: a load of bollocks has been spouted about Dishface wanting to hang Mandela in the 80's. Even if he did (and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case), the whole fucking point about lionising Mandela is that he is the model of change for the good, of humility and of reconciliation and forgiveness. We venerate Mandela, an ex-terrorist, because when he got to power he didn't use that power to victimise the people who branded him a terrorist. He changed. He forgave.

Unlike the tolerant, always-correct left. Using the death of a man they claim to admire to score some cheap, political points. Nice one, Kev!

I wish that people who are venerating Mandela would display some of the fucking qualities they claim to admire in him.

Thursday, 8 August 2013

Hypocritical Lefty Luvvie Twitter Talibanistas

I shan't go on about Caitlin Moron, who apparently can make all the violent threats, homophobic and ableist jokes or other trolling comments because "context", apparently.

Today I saw someone tweet about Graham Lineham blocking them while he (Graham Lineham) was dishing out abuse. I read the tweets in question and there was no fucking "context" there at all. Lineham was just calling people cunts. Tonight I saw him concur with Frankie "I can dish it out but I'm a big frit girl's blouse when I get it" Boyle saying that if his block button killed people, it would be a nicer place.

(Just revel in the fact there for a moment that the man who made his career out of being offensive wants to kill people who he finds offensive. Jaw-dropping, isn't it?)

I'm sure I could go on (and on and ON) finding other examples of hypocritical lefty luvvie twitter talibanistas if I wanted to, but you get the point.

I'm not really sure how different this is from me calling for the heads of hypocritical lefty luvvie twitter talibanistas (HLLTT's) on pikes, but apparently, when I dish abuse out, it's vile, when HLLTT's do it, it's funny and, y'know, "context".

From my perspective, I don't have a problem with Lineham or Moran or anyone else being abusive in the name of being funny. What I do find unbearable is them smugly pontificating about "abuse" and "politeness" while they do exactly the same things they're describing as being unacceptable and even worse, their armies of cock-sucking windowlickers actually having the temerity to justify it.

Either it's acceptable or it's not, if Moron or Lineham or Boyle can do it, why can't I?

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Don't feed the trolls

I know a bit about trolling, I used to be one. I also spent a lot of time on the receiving end of possibly the best troll the internet has ever seen (anyone heard from pneawf lately?)

I was but an amateur, more of a wind-up artist than anything else, and I still am, online and in real life. My favourite TV show is The Mentalist, especially the early ones, because the character is a massive cunt and a wind-up merchant.

But I did learn from some awe-inspiring trolls, which is why I can spot one so easily.

And it annoys the fuck out of me that mongoloid fucktards with IQs of 7 and one track minds spouting mindless abuse get called trolls. They aren't. They are stupid, pointless bullies who don't put the slightest effort into winding people up, they just make shouty threats of violence when they see someone that they think can easily be bullied.

They are no different to Liverpudlians who perceive a slight on Liverpool; like wibbling leftards; like Terminators: they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bargained with and they will absolutely not stop until they've hounded you off the internet and shut down your voice.

But what they are not, are trolls.

Trolls will put a bit of effort in, will wind you up in several different ways, often without saying an unkind or improper word and leave you raging while chuckling to themselves.

Trolls do not shout mindless abuse.

However, the psychology of dealing with abuse and dealing with trolls is very much the same, and unfortunately it is not in the nature of those being trolled or abused to respond correctly. But it is simple to deal with a troll and probably equally simple to deal with an abuser:

Do not rise to the bait. If you suspect you're being trolled, or you have a shouty abuser on the line: DO NOT RESPOND.
If you don't respond to a troll, it frustrates the fuck out of them and they move on looking for a new target. If someone shouts abuse at you and you don't respond, they will get bored and look for someone who does.

Speaking as someone who has been on the end, ironically, of both the Scouse hate mob AND Old Holborn's pack of windowlickers, I'm quite certain that someone who actually wants you dead, assaulted or raped is not going to warn you - they're just going to do it. All they're trying to do is make you feel scared.

It's simple, it works and it pisses them they hell off. What's not to like?

Thursday, 27 June 2013

Can someone please enlighten me?

Right, so as far as I can ascertain, lefties are frothing about the expulsion of Trenton Oldfield, while being horrified that the EDL's Tommy Robinson remains in the country.

Trenton Oldfield is apparently proud of the fact that 500,000 people googled "elitism" after his fucking up something that two teams of people had trained pretty much their whole lives for.

I can therefor only assume that as soon as Tommy Robinson starts drawing attention to Islamic "religious elitism", lefties will be queueing up to beg him to bomb mosques.

Seriously, what is this fucking bullshit? Why is it OK for Trenton Oldfield to "draw attention" to the "damage" that "elitism" is doing to the country, while Tommy Robinson is hated for "drawing attention" to the "damage" that "Islam" is doing to the country?

It's perfectly feasible to argue that both have benefits and both have drawbacks. But picking on one is fine, picking on the other is the ultimate thoughtcrime.

Arguably, you have less control about which social circle you're born into that which religion you choose to follow.

Picking on someone because they're born black is disgusting and shameful. Picking on someone because they were born gay is hateful and cruel. Picking on someone because they were born rich is ... fine?

Can someone please clarify for me why being born in the "person of colour" group is a reason for veneration, being born in the "alternate sexuality" group means you're great, but being born "rich" means you're an unspeakable cunt and there's no reason to give you the same respect you'd give anyone else?

And can someone please explain why people who are all fans of Richard Dawkins (or even Richard Dawkins himself) can rip the shit out of Christianity (which is a load of bollocks perpetuated by fallible misogynist cunts) but not Islam (which is a load of bollocks perpetuated by fallible misogynist cunts)?

Surely they're all deserving of respect or none of them are deserving of respect?

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

Nigella contretemps

Let me start this by saying that I don't know whether Nigella was assaulted by her husband. If he did, then I have absolutely no fucking time for him whatsoever and he deserves whatever's coming to him after due process.

I do not condone domestic violence, I despise anyone who picks on someone unable to defend themselves. I despise the mental abuse that accompanies the physical violence in these situations.

And yet, I have to say that I don't really think ANYONE has enough evidence based on the pictures to form an opinion.

Let me just say this: a Labour-supporting newspaper publishes a set of photos depicting someone who helped the Tories in an unflattering light. We don't know how many photos there are, the person who could have submitted only some of the photos or the paper could have chosen the photos to fit a certain narrative. The article is full of irrelevant bollocks, disparaging innuendo passing as comment and "onlookers said". The assaultee seems to have carried on living with the assaulter and seems perfectly happy. There have never even been rumours of marital

Based on the photos, the body language for an assault is entirely wrong. I've seen similar role-playing behaviour between consenting adults.

I'd have absolutely no trouble believing that Saatchi was a dom and that Nigella was a sub. And if you didn't know what goes on in the world of BDSM, you would quite likely freak out if you saw it being enacted in public. But the key difference between kink and domestic violence is the issue of consent. And if two consenting adults choose to do things that you or I find incomprehensible, does this mean that the police need to be involved?

So I'm not going to say that it's not assault, but I'm not immediately convinced that it is. I'm certainly not going to rush to judgment on the basis of those photos.

If it was a bit of hanky-panky, I'm bloody sure they both regret it; if it was assault, it's surely her decision to make something of it, or not.

I'm unsurprised that feminists have been jumping up and down about this, immediately calling it domestic violence, demanding police action and making snarky remarks about anybody with a contrary opinion.

However, I've been fucking horrified by "anarchists" calling for the police to get involved in the private affairs of a successful, powerful, adult woman. It's almost like they don't think she's capable of cutting his balls off with a deft twitch of a kitchen knife or, you know, going to the police herself.

The whole thing is profoundly depressing to me.

Update: I spoke to a professional domme about this. She says that the body language is not fully the language of someone who's enjoying it. But even she isn't sure that it's not a bit of roleplay. She thinks that Mr Saatchi may be a bit unpleasant. The jury is still out on what happened, but no matter what the truth is, it's none of our fucking business unless they choose to make it public.

Second update: Apparently Mr Saatchi is a cunt who has accepted a police caution for assault. So that's me told.

Third update: I believe a divorce is in the offing. So I was completely wrong.

No change there, then.

Monday, 17 June 2013

@OwenJones84 is a shameless hypocrite and a knave

I'm sure that it will come as absolutely NO surprise that I disagree with Owen Jones on matters political. But his latest heap of festering faeces unequivocally demonstrates the destructive nature of his argument.

What do I mean about abolishing the Oxbridge system? I don’t mean bulldozing the universities – and their beautiful quads – into rubble. There is an argument about transforming the universities into purely postgraduate institutions, and I am sympathetic to that.

But, to begin with, I would dispense with the interview system, which is biased towards the more articulate – and the more articulate are those who tend to be more middle-class and have benefited from “cultural capital” passed on from their parents. They are not, necessarily, automatically brighter than those who have benefited from far fewer resources.

Then I would completely overhaul the admissions system. George Monbiot suggests offering a place to the top one or two every school in the country. That’s a good start to the debate. I remember one privately educated fellow Oxford student (who had been rejected the first time he applied) suggesting that comprehensive school students like myself only got in because of quotas. In actual fact research has shown that students from comprehensives do better at Oxford than those from public schools. More widely, research has shown state students do better at university than those who were privately educated.

But, as well as redressing the balance with the types of schools, admissions needs to take account of class. The top percentage of those who were once eligible for Educational Maintenance Allowance or on free school meals should be offered automatic admissions, for a start.

It’s not just Oxford and Cambridge this should apply to: all the top Russell Group universities should be made to follow suit.

Above all, Oxford and Cambridge should be normalised as universities. The best tutors should be encouraged to disperse across the university system – perhaps with incentives. It is right to have a top tier of universities catering to the brightest students – particularly when they are forced to reflect society as a whole, rather than the brightest rich kids: and that is the model that should be promoted.

But Oxford and Cambridge should no longer be regarded as the nation’s top universities. It’s time to leave the Oxbridge era behind us.

I can see lefties nodding their heads like Churchill the insurance dog at these wise words. But you're ALL entirely wrong.

If you want to know why you're wrong, let me ask some simple questions: given the unlimited financial muscle of the state (with our money), the fact that comprehensive teachers are heavily unionized and largely toe the left's line and given that we had 13 years of Labour paradise with Gordon Brown pissing our money away at the left's tropes du jour:

  • why the fuck ARE public schools still so much better?
  • why DO the top teachers and top tutors flock to public schools and Russell Group universities?
  • why does Oxbridge retain any cachet?

And more importantly, why does someone who would have been a complete and utter non-entity but for his Oxbridge education want to deny other people the same thing?

At no point in his tedious, right-on cockwaffle does the dreadful scumbag attack the heavily unionized teaching profession and the overwrought polytechnics for not getting better so that public schools don't have an advantage or raising the standard of "David Beckham Studies" to compete with a PPE.

It's all about destroying the great to make everyone a nice anodyne shade of beige, with a smug side helping of "I'm alright, Jack, I've been and got all the perks, but heaven forbid anyone else should get a look in."

Unlike Owen Jones, I don't have the advantage of an Oxbridge education. But I don't begrudge anyone else the right to it.

If I was going to bitch about education, I'd be asking why the people who absolutely love sucking Owen's cock are not asking why state education should not be made better, rather than why public school and Russell Group universities should be torn down to the mediocrity that Owen seems to think the rest of us should be moulded to.

Friday, 14 June 2013

Tax is theft

This is a guest post from @VendettaBeretta

Tax is theft.

Don't believe me? Read on....

The following is taken from an email sent to me by a poster on Twitter.

I first took an interest due to a tweet that read

"grrrrr now I will go for a cold shower, as the Inland Revenue have taken my bathtub (really)"

Now, you can probably see what caught my attention. The Inland Revenue wouldn't actually remove someone's bathtub, surely? Guess again. And her underwear. Not sure what the resale value is in worn pants these days, but I'm sure there's probably a market for it in the office of HMRC anyway.

Anyway, to the email.

"they suddenly gave me a tax bill of £125.000.00 - yes £125k and it was outrageous given that I mormally paid about £10-12k a year. my accountant told me to ignore it as it was wrong - so I did but I telephoned them to say so. they changed the bill from 125k down to 88k then 55k then 35k but all the while they had my bank accounts frozen and they had out liens on my property - i had 2 properties, they took one property and i went ballistic - then 18 months later they took my mnain business property - I owned both these buildings with no mortgage. I am now living in a flat with a mortgage but since they bankrupted me I have been on the dole and now the mortgage company are repossesing this flat - and they have kindly agreed to wait till after I have had 2 knee operations. but my time is running out I will be evicted soon - god help me - I have lived here for 10 years. the main reason why they took all my property is that they kept me bankrupt for over 3 years and (you might not know this but) every single week the IR keep you bankrupt they charge you (or me) £1000.00 administration costs - so I didnt have a leg to stand on. every time I filled in forms or went for an interview - they told me they would have to look into in it - it took them 6 months to get my bank statements (they would not asccept them off my accountant or me) so in that 6 months - I was billed for 26k in admin costs - thats the way trhey play and its DIRTY and very very unfair - i fought like hell but i had no credit cards and no cheque books and - after 3 years they had accunilated almost £200k in administration costs -thats when the bill was brought down to 33k but with the admin costs - they seized my property and contents - and left me with nothing - not even any clothes - its a bad story. I NEVER thought my country could do this to me."

The highlights are mine.

The point I'm raising is not just against the clearly incompetent accountant, who should have advised against ignoring HMRC demands, but of the conduct of HMRC throughout this affair.

How does a demand for £125 grand turn into £35 grand? On what formula is this based? Does this sound like a professional government agency, or gangsters demanding protection money? The taking of two properties? The admin charges of £1000 per week would make Wonga blush.

Tax is theft. You can keep your bullshit about fair shares and tax avoidance. You can claim it to be part of a social contract if you like that sort of statist newspeak. You try not paying the tax man, and he'll be riflling through your knicker drawer like your babysitters 15 year old boyfriend.

Here's a little addition to this story.

The lady in question employed 21 members of staff. All of whom lost their jobs. She is about to be evicted from her flat. She's also now unemployed. The irony in the state stealing from her, and making her reliant upon the welfare system hasn't been lost on me. This is the new way comrades. Turnips for all.

Thursday, 25 April 2013

Why would anybody need an automatic rifle?

A lot of fuss has been made about the apparent insanity of Americans with regard to gun control. There is no reason, people argue, that private individuals should have automatic firearms with clips that can fire off tens or hundreds of rounds.

Well, here are a couple of reasons:

  • Why should I, a sane, balanced individual who has never harmed anyone in my life, not have such a weapon for my defence or indeed my pleasure, if that is how I want to spend my time? I mean, people collect stamps or do morris dancing or watch cookery programs for fun. I can't understand doing any of those things for fun, but it doesn't mean I think they should be banned.
  • "Nobody needs more than 30 rounds to defend themselves." Perhaps if you're John Rambo, or Ethan Hunt; but in the real world, things are very different. It's surprisingly difficult to shoot a moving target, even for trained professionals like soldiers and the police. I was once involved in someone running a road block with a car, where around 80 rounds were fired and only 3 hit the car, none hit any of the occupants. (I wasn't shooting mind, if I had been, no rounds would have hit the car!)
  • "There is no need for anyone but the government to have such powerful weapons." This fundamentally misunderstands the skeptical view that the Founding Fathers had of government. It is precisely because the government has such powerful weapons that the common man should have them too, to be able to bear equivalent arms against the state. You need to keep the state's monopoly on violence as weak and counterbalanced as possible.

So there.