Australia And Their Stirling University Problem

This story from upside-down land will seem strangely familiar to regular readers here.

THE Federal health department is considering taking action against big tobacco for lodging "vexatious" Freedom of Information (FOI) claims as part of the industry's fight against Labor's plain-packaging push.

Health department secretary Jane Halton says the department is being "swamped" with FOI requests as part of a deliberate campaign by cigarette manufacturers.

The 'vexatious' part being their wish to find out what government has planned which affects their legal business selling products to willing customers. The bastards!

British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) argues it's been forced to rely on freedom of information applications because Health Minister Nicola Roxon refuses to consult industry.

Eminently believable, I'd say. Perhaps, Nicola, you should have expected such requests when you first set out down the road of excluding an industry from discussions about how they conduct business. Or, with all the bullying you've been doing, had you forgotten that tobacco companies aren't actually cowering lily-livers, after all?

The amount the department can charge for processing requests "goes nowhere near meeting our costs", Ms Halton said.

It can only charge $15 per hour for search and retrieval and $20 an hour for decision-making time. The staff doing the work can earn up to $50 an hour.

Sounds like the federal government has been rather inept then, doesn't it? Are we meant to be surprised by this?

"Documents (already obtained) from the government show they have concerns about the need to pay compensation to the tobacco industry for removing our intellectual property, the growth in illegal tobacco once all packs look the same and an increase in smoking rates due to cheaper cigarettes," BATA spokesman Scott McIntyre told AAP in a statement.

Well, that would go some way to explaining the government's squealing, wouldn't it? How embarrassing if the released documents reveal that, privately, Roxon and her chums are fully expecting the serious problems that, in public bravado, they declare are not going to happen, eh?

We know a Scottish university which is similarly currently in a bit of a cleft stick over FOI requests potentially exposing them as duplicitous, don't we boys and girls?

H/T Cherie, the Aussie informer

Stop Accepting Tax Cash, Stirling, And Your Problem Is Solved

Patsy has highlighted an article by Donna Edmunds at The Commentator which is well worth a read.

It concerns Stirling University's illegal refusal to abide by the Information Commissioner's decision - which I quote here - that they should release data to Philip Morris International.

So desperate are Stirling that, as Edmunds has discovered, they have set up a Facebook group specifically to create the illusion of some upsurge of popular revulsion at the very idea. Sadly, of the first five entries, four are paid to comment since they work in public health, and only one is not from Australia. From that unpromising start, it just goes downhill once the call to action alert drags in vested public sector interests from across the net to spout how outrageous it is that a University should be made to observe the law.

Some of the comments are hilarious:

Elaine Rodger - I was surprised and appalled in equal measure to know that it was even possible to try to use the FOI legislation in this way.

Surprised and appalled that Freedom of Information legislation should make information - paid for by taxes that we, and companies, are forced to hand over - available to those who fund it, so she is. A law doing exactly what it says on the tin? How ridiculous!

Carole Furlong - They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the data. if they want to do thier (sic) own research on the best way to get young people addicted to a lethal product, they should fund it themselves.

Great idea Carole, love, except that your piercing logic has been somewhat destroyed by ... Stirling University.

[Professor Gerard Hastings, of the uni's Institute for Social Marketing] said: "If Philip Morris ran focus groups asking 14-year-olds what they thought about smoking, there'd be uproar.

Hmm, we'll take that as a non-starter then.

Vicki Snelgrove - [...] if there was an agreement not to share data beyond the study then surely the uni is bound over to their participants...

This is the most wibblingly arrogant of the lot. A University, according to Vicki, is bound more by the people it chooses to canvass than it is by the law of the land. Despite the fact that - in accepting funding - the University would have been well aware of their obligations to satisfy the terms of the FOIA 2000. In fact, it would have been stated categorically in the document they signed before being given the cash. It's a standard clause when dealing with any public sector organisation.

If they want to offer promises to their subjects, perhaps they should have refused the funding in the first place. They quite simply - under the law - can't have both.

Just a quick aside, but doesn't this hint at the increasing sense of independence from accountability that all public health bodies now seem to operate by?

ASH (at least, this time, the English version) slung their oar in too.

Martin Dockrell - Our Government is supposed to be protecting health policy from the tobacco industry lobby machine. Handing over this information is putting our universtities (Freudian sic?) at the service of Britain's biggest killer.

No, Martin. It puts our Universities at the service of those who pay for them. Remember us taxpayers? You know, the poor saps who pay your mortgage - and, indeed, that comment you just wrote on our time - you hideous tax-sponging creep?

Sam Warren - assurances were made to the participants in this study on how their data would be used and this data should NOT be shared.

As above. Such assurances were arrogant, misguided, and illegal.

Claire Valentin - They should read the published research like everybody else. This FOI request clearly has wider implications for anyone doing research, in a number of respects.

Yes it does, Claire. It means that if you want to keep research hidden, pay for it your bloody self.

Becky Freeman - Absolutely not. Sharing confidential research data with an industry that will surely exploit it for its own financial gain cannot be permitted. How could the public ever trust public health researchers again?

You're making a wild assumption that any of us trust you as far as we could throw you, Becky. Of course, I can't throw you very far because you live in Australia, so what the fuck has it to do with you?

Robert West - It takes courage and determination to stand up to this kind of bullying.

Join the club, Robert West of CRUK. It is government legislation which is the 'bully' here. You don't seem too concerned when you use such a thing to your own advantage, do you?

But the best of the lot comes from Australia's undisputed Champion of anti-smoker hatred..

Simon Chapman - The day Stirling should share its data, is the day that the tobacco industry shares its data on how much it now earns from underage smoking and its forward projections on what today's and future generations of child smokers will mean to its bottom line.

I had so much to say about why Philip Morris have no obligation to reveal data in the same way as Stirling University definitely do. Fortunately, Tim Worstall has already articulated it wonderfully on the tangential subject of think tank funding.

I’m entirely happy with entirely voluntary disclosure on such matters: what individuals do with their money is up to them, just as what brand or style of bread you buy is private to you. What the money which has been raised from us at gunpoint gets spent on is rightly a matter of public record.

That Friends of the Earth Europe gets more than 50% of its funding from the EU, funding supplied so that it can lobby the EU, is important information. That Alcohol Concern gains some 90% (these numbers are from memory, do check them at Fake Charities if you wish) of its money from government, that the salt puritans, the smoking bansturbators, are similarly funded is equally important.

And I’ll even make a deal. When Deborah Arnott’s screen and radio appearances, public utterances, are accompanied by a “this wanker is paid for out of your taxes” warning then I’ll make sure that my income, and thus my funding, is similarly disclosed. Until then you’re all cordially invited to fornicate and travel.

And this is the problem Stirling face. Once they accepted tax-funded cash, they were legally obliged to abide by The Freedom of Information Act and, consequentially, the Information Commissioner's decisions. They knew this when they took the money, they will have signed a document to register acceptance of that fact. Stirling registered their objections to the ICO and they were roundly rejected. End of. Game over.

Philip Morris, however, accept only money freely given to them by consumers, so are under no such obligation ... however much Chapman would like to fantasise about it. The difference could not be more stark.

Here's my advice to Stirling University, in Chapman's parlance for easy comprehension.

The day Stirling should be able to hide its data, is the day that they refuse all funding from the taxpayer for all of their activities. That means no more research grants; no more government subsidies; no more tax-funded salaries; nothing. Then, and only then, can they withhold information which is covered by the law.

To quote Martin Dockrell's ASH after the jailing of Nick Hogan.

A spokesman for anti-smoking lobby group ASH said: “The smoking legislation is very clear."

As is Freedom of Information legislation. Rules is rules. Go private and leave our taxes alone, or cough up the info and stop bleating.

Your choice.

Do Unto Others ...

Oh joy!

Reports from Westminster that some MPs were so strapped for cash under the new expenses regime that they were dossing down in their offices were, I assumed, apocryphal. Not a bit of it. The Clerk of the House, Michael Jack, has been forced to issue an edict warning that sleeping on the premises is strictly verboten.

And the best bit? To stop the poor, innocent, destitute, borassic souls from dossing in their offices, Jack is invoking the nation's catch-all precautionary leviathan for anything that isn't strictly illegal but which someone, somewhere, doesn't particularly approve of. Yep ... health and safety.

the Clerk if the House has seized on health and safety, pointing out that the Palace of Westminster has no overnight fire marshal cover [...]. He adds: “So, in the event of a fire in the quiet hours, we could not ensure building evacuation, nor could we tell search and rescue teams from the emergency services of anyone trapped in a building

Such a small story, so much schadenfreude.

1) £65k salary, extra living allowance if you're a London MP, a second home if you're not, subsidised food and drink, but you need to sleep in your office? You've got to be shitting me?
2) How are those overweening health and safety regs - which you fuckers inflicted on us - working for ya', boys and girls?

and, of course ...

3) Remember that you're not being banned from a legal activity ... you are merely required to step outside the building to do so. Not much to ask, is it?

The other foot bloody enjoys wearing the boot occasionally.

Cluedo: The David Laws Edition

A commenter at Pickled Politics yesterday asked a very intriguing question.

“when I worked in Parliament it was an open secret that Laws was gay.”

This is about the fourth time I’ve heard this today.

If it was known, then surely it must have been known by Nick Clegg, and surely it would have been discussed by the coalition leaders, along the lines of the MI5 briefings about potentially difficult potential ministers, but from a gaffe perspective, no?

If it was known was it not also known who David Laws’ partner was, and that their arrangement contravened the 2006 rules on accommodation expense claims?

And if it was known in Parliament does that include press correspondents and lobbyists?

What initiated the timing of the release of the story by the Telegraph?

Iain Dale suggests a motive or two, but stops tantalisingly short of naming his suspect(s).

[...] through his stellar performance as Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the first three weeks of the coalition, Laws made himself a target.

Firstly, he made public the private note left on his desk by his predecessor, Liam Byrne, which said: ‘I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left.’

And secondly, he pulled out of Question Time last week after Labour refused to withdraw Alastair Campbell as its spokesman on the programme.

This accusation may be way off beam, but it wouldn’t at all surprise me if somebody’s tricks department had tipped off The Daily Telegraph about the nature of his relationship with James Lundie and it was that which provoked them to trawl through their expenses files again.

Food for thought there, but one presumes that Dale, being a partisan chap, was hinting at a party-affiliated whistle-blower.

However, a recent article in New Scientist pointed out that there would be many in the civil service who take umbrage at coalition policies, and may do their damnedest to block moves which threaten their cosy empire-building existence.

"Labour is not the opposition," agrees [Privacy International's Policy Director, Gus] Hosein. "The civil service is."

It's interesting, then, that the day before the Telegraph's revelations, the Department of Health was reported to be reeling at proposed cuts to their 'hectoring and lecturing' budget.

Health to bear brunt of first COI cuts

LONDON - The Change4Life, anti-smoking and alcohol abuse campaigns could be permanently scrapped as part of the Government's planned curbs on advertising, according to Westminster sources.

Drives such as the £50 million-a-year spend on public health, including Change4-Life (which spent £7.7 million in 2008-09), anti-smoking (£26.2 million), alcohol abuse (£4.8 million) and stroke prevention (£4.5 million), are likely to be affected by Government plans to cut "preachy, nanny state" campaigns aimed at changing behaviours.

An immediate freeze on new advertising and marketing spend in the current financial year was announced by the Treasury Chief Secretary, David Laws, as part of the coalition Government's £6.2 billion package of spending cuts.

Laws said ad campaigns were "not priorities", saying: "We are being very draconian in these areas and inflexible over the next year".

Oooh, that's gotta hurt. Especially for a department which has had its own way for far too long, and been a law unto itself at times.

As far as timing goes, it fits the bill perfectly, and what better motivation for someone with mud to sling than a pretty unequivocal statement of intent to curtail their wasteful spending?

I love a good 'whodunnit', me. The game's afoot!

Smoke Signals

Now we've finally stopped laughing at Gillian Merron being booted out, it's time for some more comedy.

So here's a list of Labour MPs who voted enthusiastically for the smoking ban but would probably have cried out for smoker support last Thursday.

Roger Berry (Kingswood) -10.6% LOST
Dawn Butler (Brent South) -8.9% LOST
Paul Clark (Gillingham) -13.1% LOST
Charles Clarke (Norwich South) -8.7% LOST
Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) -12.4% LOST
Andrew Dismore (Hendon) -3% LOST
David Drew (Stroud) -1.5% LOST
Michael Foster (Hastings & Rye) -3.5% LOST
Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North) -15.7% LOST
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth Sutton) -9% LOST
Patrick Hall (Bedford) -5.7% LOST
Phil Hope (Corby) -4.5% LOST
Sally Keeble (Northampton North) -9.4% LOST
Ann Keen (Feltham & Heston) -5.4% LOST
David Kidney (Stafford) -10.2% LOST
Jim Knight (Dorset South) -11.4% LOST
Stephen Ladyman (Thanet South) -8.1% LOST
David Lepper (Brighton Pavilion) -7.5% LOST
Martin Linton (Battersea) -5.6% LOST
Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Portsmouth North) -10.8% LOST
Tony McNulty (Harrow East) -7.9% LOST
Shahid Malik (Dewsbury) -8.4% LOST
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley) -9% LOST
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) -4.5% LOST
Eric Martlew (Carlisle) -9.6% LOST
Chris Mole (Ipswich) -8.2% LOST
Julie Morgan (Cardiff North) -1.9% LOST
Dan Norris (Wansdyke) -7% LOST
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) -3.4% LOST
Gordon Prentice (Pendle) -6.2% LOST
Gwyn Prosser (Dover) -11.8% LOST
Bill Rammell (Harlow) -7.7% LOST
Andy Reed (Loughborough) -6.7% LOST
Terry Rooney (Bradford North) -11.3% LOST
Martin Salter (Reading West) -14.5% LOST
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham & Aylesford) -12.7% LOST
Angela Smith (Basildon) -9.7% LOST
Jacqui Smith (Redditch) -13.4% LOST
Anne Snelgrove (Swindon South) -6.2% LOST
Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West) -8.6% LOST
Howard Stoate (Dartford) -15.5% LOST
Dari Taylor (Stockton South) -9.4% LOST
Desmond Turner (Brighton Kemptown) -4.1% LOST
Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge) -10.4% LOST
Anthony Wright (Great Yarmouth) -12.7% LOST

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahaha.

Good riddance to the stinking lot of them.

Interestingly, in Scotland where there was already a ban imposed by Holyrood not Westminster (but Scottish MPs were allowed to vote on an English ban nonetheless), the trend was reversed. Of the 26 Scottish Labour MPs who voted for the Health Act 2006, only Jim Devine (-2.6) and Ann Begg (-0.2) experienced a reduction in their share of the vote. The average increase between them all was 3.4%.

Funny, that.

Hung Or Balanced? Same Difference

If only there were still adverts boasting of things made in Wales, they could add 'balanced parliament' to the list.

It seemed odd when Plaid's Wyn Jones talked of it at their manifesto launch.

With a balanced parliament Plaid’s duty will be to negotiate the best deal for Wales and the best deal for our communities.

Isn'it? Look you. Down y'eare.

It's hung, boyo. A hung parliament. Baarlanced? What's that?

Then the yellow jockish kipper started saying it too.

Mr Salmond said: "Far from a balanced parliament being something to fear, it must be something to welcome."

As if the Welsh don't mess us up enough with that odd language which is English but not quite, along with the Scots who can say 'I love you' in an accent which makes you think they are really issuing a threat to scoop your eyeballs out with a rusty spoon, the Welsh give us 'baarlanced' and the Scots weigh in with 'Ah'm gonnae cut yooz oppen lak a tin o bekked beans yer bassa' (or balanced as my interpreter tells me he meant).

Is this a celtic thing?

Well, no. It would seem the Lib Dems are in on this new fad.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has talked of a "balanced" parliament in a bid to make the prospect of a Commons without any party holding an overall majority more attractive.

What's so avoidable about the term 'hung parliament'?

A prurient distancing of porn terminology, perhaps? As in "John Holmes was a hung actor", or "Linford Christie gained fame in the 1992 Olympics for his hung lunchbox"?

Or has the expenses issue resulted in so much releasing of damp, heated fear from their collars that, in their imagination, the mental image of a parliament being hung would come across as too appealing a prospect to the electorate?

If so, they're not too confident in the ability of the public to distinguish between objects and people. As Nick the Cat Counter points out.

Hung Parliament? Who cares?

Anyone up for a hanged Parliament?

Well, it's all off the agenda now. The new term is 'balanced'. It's more cuddly and less reminiscent of mass political slaughter. Yep, balanced it is going to have to be from now on.

Like this.

Do you know what? I like that much better. Thank you Wales.

Now, which of the post-election intake is first for the different type of rope?

Pic nicked from this story about a complete nutter

Nick Hogan Released

Pop over to Anna Raccoon or Old Holborn for the lowdown.

Doesn't it feel good sticking two fingers up at the state? It should become a regular occurrence.

[Hogan] said: “I am going to have a fag and a bottle of Budweiser tonight. I was put in prison for smoking and the first thing that the authorities gave me was a roll of tobacco, matches and papers. You can smoke in your own cell here.” Manchester Evening News

Time To Start Bullying The Bully State

One can only hope that the [officially] recently-launched Big Brother Watch increases its influence in coming years if this is a taster of policy.

... media criticism is all our masters care about. Well, I accept their terms. Using those tools, we can and must turn that fear around – so that in a few years' time, when the jobsworth is on the verge of handing out that illiberal fine, he feels the chilling effect himself.

Donning the uniform of office doesn't – or shouldn't – entail unlimited power to exact petty bureaucracy. It ought to come with discretion, with common sense. Failing that, let's try to bully them back.

Of course, this requires a hand-in-hand reduction in government adherence to fake charities and well-funded righteous groups, but it's a line of attack which should be adopted enthusiastically nonetheless.

It is a skill which we seem to have lost in recent years. The proud refusal to bow in front of bullies and unfair authoritarianism. Instead, we have a largely indolent nation who wish to keep out of it and hope they aren't next for the chop (hello CAMRA).

Years ago, I worked in the public sector, and you should have seen the terrified scampering that went on if even the local paper got wind of a story which reflected badly on the local authority who paid me. Councillors would soil themselves at the thought of lost votes and bawl officers out at the earliest opportunity - and with the threat of livelihoods being curtailed, they acted instantly. That was 20+ years ago but public sector leeches have since become wise to the fact that 1) they can shift blame around until the storm dies down, 2) that the public are not as ferocious as they used to be, and 3) they can back down without any hint of apology.

The spirit of stubborn refusal to put up with their shit badly needs rekindling.

Complain. Annoy. Object. Irritate. Pester ... constantly.

Don't give them a fucking inch. Bully them as they are bullying us.

Perhaps one day they might get the message.

We Are Not Alone

Captain Ranty's blog has been gaining a huge amount of momentum of late. He has almost installed himself as a guest contributor at Old Holborn's place.

For one good reason. He writes superb stuff, and (shhh, secret) I knew this before he started blogging. In fact, I knew it before I started this blog, which is why the moment he began writing in earnest, he was instantly added to my blogroll. I didn't need to know what he would be writing about as I didn't care. His pedigree was unquestionable, his prose a dream, and boy has he delivered in spades.

The Captain recently posted an article on how to severely piss off authority in our country. We're not allowed to be involved in government decision-making anymore so the last resort is to just make it very irritating to implement whichever rot law they force upon us. The Captain suggested 198 different ways to do so which has been widely disseminated.

Now, that's all well and good, but in case you believed Captain, or anyone else who believes in real freedoms instead of those that this government deigns to allow us, was over-reacting, may I point out a simple truth here.

This is not a little Englander mentality. It is a worldwide phenomenon. Here, for example, is the same sentiment being expressed from the US, via an applauding libertarian from New Zealand (emphasis mine).

In my opinion the best way to change the laws, in practical terms, is through counter-institution building and through counter-economic activity outside the state’s control: in other words, to render the laws so irrelevant and unenforceable, by our efforts outside the state, that even the state must make concessions to reality.

Yes.

It seems to me that statism will ultimately end, not as the result of any sudden and dramatic failure, but as the cumulative effect of a long series of little things. The costs of enculturing individuals to the state’s view of the world, and of dissuading a large enough majority of people from disobeying when they’re pretty sure they’re not being watched, will result in a death of a thousand cuts. More and more of the state’s activities, from the perspective of those running things, will just cost more (in terms not only of money but of just plain mental aggravation) than they’re worth. IOW, the decay of ideological hegemony and the decreased feasibility of enforcement will do to the state what file-sharing is doing to the RIAA.

Yes!

The most cost-effective “political” effort is simply making people understand that they don’t need anyone’s permission to be free. Start telling them right now that the law is unenforceable, and disseminating knowledge as widely as possible on the most effective ways of breaking it. Publicize examples of ways we can live our lives the way we want, with institutions of our own making, under the radar of the state’s enforcement apparatus.

We're not alone here. And what's more, the US and NZ generally look on the UK as a nanny state to end all nanny states.

The rest of the world laugh at us. No, I'm serious. Go look at global news aggregator sites such as Reddit, Digg or Fark and you will see the ridicule that this country suffers because of our government.

These states are nowhere near as dictatorial as ours yet their libertarian movement has kicked in strongly already. We are well beyond what other countries would accept as palatable. It really is time that something was done.

Our government won't listen to us, so why on earth should we meekly follow their absurd rules? Join in the global rejection of overarching authoritarianism and annoy some clipboard-wielding prodnose today. Then do it again tomorrow. In fact, make it a way of life.

Our politicians don't deserve respect anymore. They have forgotten who should be in charge in a democracy and need reminding.

Boo Fucking Hoo, Ryanair**

"Foul", cries Ryanair. It's just not fair.

Ryanair, the World’s favourite and Britain’s largest airline, today (9th Oct) accused BBC Panorama of bias and censorship as it purports to ‘investigate’ Ryanair but REFUSES Ryanair’s offer of a live or unedited pre-recorded interview in order to fully reply to Panorama’s false claims.

"Ryanair calls on the BBC to explain why Panorama refuses to provide balance in its programming and why licence payers are funding such rubbish filled investigations which don’t stand up to scrutiny, which is why Panorama wouldn’t agree to an unedited interview with Ryanair.”

Ain't it a bitch being bullied by a more influential aggressor with an agenda?

Rather like a company that spends €500,000 on flying EU officials around in contravention of EU rules, to secure a 'yes' vote for personal gain, perhaps?

Interested in travelling to Dublin to work for the Lisbon Treaty? Ryanair have offered us some free seats for people who volunteer to canvass for the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.

In the interests of 'providing balance', Ryanair were, of course, committed to employing valid arguments to debate with those who disagreed with the views of CEO, Michael O'Leary, weren't they.

During six hours of flights on Tuesday, the commissioner was served chicken Bellenaise and wild rice as Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's boss, taunted the "No" campaign.

Mr Tajani stood silently by during a press conferences in which Mr O'Leary mocked Lisbon Treaty opponents as "numpties", "numb nuts" and "clowns".

So where was this concern for 'providing balance' when Irish broadcasters refused the same to their voters prior to the Irish vote?

A GROUP campaigning for a No vote in the October 2nd referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has expressed concern over guidelines issued to broadcasters that remove any requirement for them to give equal airtime to the Yes and No sides in the debate.

You did speak up about that, didn't you, Michael?

Considering the fact that the Irish referendum was skewed by an avalanche of funding from the yes side which dwarfed that of the noes, it's not surprising that it was termed ... err ... bullying.

"This referendum is a decisive victory for the bully boys, big money and bureaucrats." [...] said Mr Farage.

And we are now supposed to feel sorry for poor auld Ryanair when the scurrilous Beeb turn their big guns on them?

Per-lease.

** Damn! A better headline would have been 'Ryanair whine louder than one of their jets leaving Stansted'.

Today I Shall Mostly Be Imagining ...

I've tried to be reasonable, but the time is now right to cash this in. I'm booked for lunchtime.

A release of pent up anger or a potential solution? Who knows?

Wild, huh?

You Fucking What?

Having been rather busy of late, I've not been keeping up to speed with much of the post-Sun pronouncement Labour meltdown, but a quick skim tonight sent my red-mist-o-meter to an apoplectic blood scarlet, and I might break the limit for post tags, on reading this from Hugo Rifkind.

Shan is what we are being to Gordon Brown. We’re bullying him. It bothers me.

In terms of the things I write (and, indeed, the thing I’m planning to write tomorrow) I’m probably on dodgy ground here. But mockery and bullying, I’ve always thought, are different things. I worry that we, the British press, bloggers, ultimately the British public, are moving from one to the other.

I started thinking it last weekend when Andrew Marr asked the PM, effectively, if he was on antidepressants. Setting aside the curious assumption in the question (that if we did have a depressed PM, it would somehow be better if he wasn’t taking anything), you have to wonder what Marr hoped to gain by asking it. It wasn’t as if Mr Brown was going to break down there and then, Nixon-style, and confess everything. It wasn’t even as if Marr was after an answer at all. He just wanted to ask the question. He just wanted to land a kick on the fat kid because all the other kids were kicking the fat kid and he wanted to be the one to make him fall over.

Al Jahom has kindly pissed all over this plea for mercy in customary style.

Boo Hoo Gordo.

Bullying has been the M.O. of this government certainly since 2001, if not before.

We have to report annually to the state that nothing has changed. On pain of fines or other penalties.

We can’t smoke. We’re hectored about drinking and diet. Recycling, speeding, seat belts, pollution, flying, composting. We are denormalised. We are harassed and fined by ignorant power-crazed zealots, in uniforms that didn’t exist 10 years ago. Everywhere we go, we face directives framed in bullying terms; signs, announcements, admonishments.

Indeed.

This is the way of life that Labour have ushered in. A nation where the population is routinely bullied by the government.

Even in the death throes of a discredited and widely despised administration, the clunking fist of state threats continue, and even extend further, as they plead with other countries to join in the bullying of the British public if the particular freedom is out of their direct control.

What's more, this attitude has created a disease amongst the previously quiet bitterness-peddlers whereby every arrogant cunt with a superiority complex is now heavily encouraged to treat their fellow citizens with contempt and mistrust.

This Labour government has become evil beyond compare, and still can't see the lasting damage to society that they have created.

Empowered by an administration which has lorded the playground and singled out groups for insults and condescension, every small-minded curtain-twitcher and selfish, holier-than-thou cunt has crawled out from under their particular rock and spilt forth their bile on those that Labour have deemed as unworthy.

Message boards seethe with hatred and division, and vile abuse is thrown at the Labour-labelled untermensch without a hint of compassion.

Even health professionals are allowed to advocate death sentences, on those Labour have condemned, without being held to account.

I am writing to tell you that the investigating committee panel has considered this referral and has decided there is no case to answer.

The innocent are considered guilty, the victimised are told to just accept it or be prosecuted, while those who created this country of ire and misery refuse to accept any kind of criticism.

And we're meant to feel sorry for Gordon fucking Brown?

Fuck you, Brown. At any time since you took office in Downing Street, you could have stopped all this. You could have ceased the bullying of your countrymen with a single well-aimed Nokia, yet you chose not only to allow it to continue, but also presided over a massive escalation of the marginalisation of significant minorities, and you actively encouraged the rapid growth of the bully state.

All the while, using our money to do it, and also putting us all in debt for the next half century without a single day of mercy or pity for those whose lives you were destroying.

When faced with a bully and his weasel cohorts in a playground, the best way of disabling them is to hit back hard against the bully-in-chief.

You ARE that head bully, Brown. The only thing that would make me think you didn't deserve to have your life utterly destroyed would be if you were to admit that you and your disgusting, vindictive, spiteful party have institutionalised hate and that you are abjectly sorry for it.

You not only won't do that, you actually still perpetuate the myth that you are somehow respectable members of society. Your congratulation of your fellow bullies in your Labour Conference speech was staggering and nauseating at the same time. You have no remorse, which is why the justified payback you are now receiving is perfectly fair.

You talk of tackling anti-social behaviour? There is only one group which should be tackled in this respect. That is the Labour party and their destruction of morals, respect for others, and tolerance.

What goes around, comes around. Live with it.

About Time Too

Thanks to the Pub Curmudgeon for pointing out a very important new blog.

Unelected, a puritan who is given your tax money to put across his pet message. Don needs to be stopped.

Bravo!

It's just surprising that someone hasn't thought of it before.

Excuses, Excuses

Viewing some of last night's Euro election coverage from the building site that is my home at the moment, it was amusing to see one delusional Labourite after another trotting out their own interpretations of why their support deserted them.

They have seemingly convinced themselves firstly that it was the expenses issue which has slayed them, and secondly that the BNP success was bad but ... err ... not their fault. They really don't get it, do they?

Andy Burnham, yet again appearing to possess the personality of a piece of cardboard, with political dynamism to match, reacted to the public's brutal arse-fucking of his party by blathering on about how sad it was for democracy that the BNP had managed to get two MEPs elected.

Pardon me, but it's the exact opposite. I'm not a politics graduate, but I always believed that the votes of the people were the driving force behind democracy. Burnham (and assorted other knob-cheeses wheeled out for the MSM today) seem to think that democracy is only such when the public vote for who the righteous consider acceptable.

I'm certainly no fan of the BNP, but surely the fact that just shy of a million voters supported them, despite the widespread warnings from all major parties, would suggest that the Lib/Lab/Con powerhouse have got something very badly wrong.

It's not a failure of democracy, you wibbling fool, it's proof that posturing twats like you have pitifully failed to address the concerns of a large proportion of your electorate.

Harriet Harman was also spouting drivel this morning on 5 live, blaming it all on the expenses scandal. Her reasoning for the effect only being felt in extremis by Labour, was bizarre. Apparently, it's because Labour voters expect Tories to cheat, but are disgusted when Labour politicians do so. She mentioned hard-working families (natch) and how they are struggling to pay their bills while MPs appear to be taking the proverbial.

I suppose she may be partly correct, but how does she square her fantasy view of Labour as the party which looks after the poor, with the fact that her government have introduced hundreds of new laws, backed by RIPA and other instruments, which all seem to end with crippling fines for the most minor of trangressions?

Is it just rich people who get stung for £80 when they drop a cigarette butt, Harriet? Do those on minimum wage get a discount when the council use Labour's guidelines to charge them for putting the wrong thing in the wrong bin? Who will be most affected by being caught by one of your soon-to-be-rolled-out-everywhere-except-the-Isle-of-Lundy average speed cameras, a stockbroker or a bin man?

Labour failed dismally simply because they have completely forgotten which type of person has always voted for them. The higher echelons of Labour may now be champagne socialists, but the guys who finish their day with bitumen-covered overalls aren't.

It is quite fitting that Labour should have suffered their worst poll result for 100 years as it was probably that long ago since working class people have been as contemptuously ignored, derided and demonised.

Armies of wardens and state-paid snoopers roam the streets looking to inflict a hefty sum for innocuous and irrelevant misdeeds, Labour have mooted taxing chocolate, banning happy hours, increasing alcohol prices, and have condemned 12 million smokers as undesirable and not worthy of a voice. You may notice that all the aforementioned are disproportionately enjoyed by the less well-off ... who are more inclined, usually, to vote Labour.

They have cheated on consultations, lied as to the reasoning for legislation, forced through authoritarian rules which hit the poorest hardest, and not even bothered to try to find out what their core vote think about it all.

As for racism, Labour can idealise as much as they like, but tribalism, being a human frailty, will never be entirely eradicated and, in my experience, it is discernibly more prevalent the further down the social scale you go.

Lastly, after a Euro election in which voters sent a massive hint that we really don't want to be in the EU, not one Labour politician (that I have heard) mentioned the fact that Labour reneged on their promise of a referendum.

This is the first time since 2005 that the mass of disaffected voters have had a chance to say what they think of Labour. They are fed up with being hectored, they are angry at being lied to, and incensed that the economy is hurting them yet there is no let up to the all-encompassing dictatorial nature of this administration. They probably might like to go to the pub to forget it all, but if it hasn't closed already (thanks to another Labour manifesto lie from 2005), it's no doubt been turned from a working man's local into a gastro-bar or a wacky warehouse to try to stay afloat.

Labour have only themselves to blame for their predicament. Not the expenses, not the BNP, just pure unadulterated arrogance on their part in marginalising their natural support.

Fortunately for a Labour-hater, they don't seem to have spotted the problem, so let's keep it under our hats, eh? With any luck, this lot of self-regarding cock-sockets will spend the time till the general election further disenfranchising those on whom they would normally rely, and be unelectable for a generation or more.

UPDATE: Thanks to Mrs R in the comments for this.

A teacher claims he was removed from a bus by police after he stubbed a cigarette out on the pavement.

Stephen Cook, 49, from Finsbury Park, was outside Archway Tube station when he threw his cigarette on to the pavement. He said five wardens appeared to issue him with a £50 fine. Mr Cook, who said there were no ashtrays outside the station, refused to accept it and walked away to catch a bus.

He said Islington wardens called the police and minutes later they arrived with sirens sounding to tell him to get off the bus and accept the fine.

Just to recap. This is Labour, who are striving for the very best conditions for those tasked with providing education (education, education) in our country ... unless it contravenes their authoritarianism and money-spunking.

Yep, it's the expenses stuff that stole their votes, without doubt (Shhhh!).

White Noise

Via OH, Michael White in the Guardian, makes an impassioned plea for voters to ignore the calamity of Labour and just vote for them again - on the basis that the alternative might not be better.

Very amusing partisan desperation, of course, but this small section raised a particularly wide smile.

Even those who have been given a clean bill of health by the Daily Telegraph know they are all tarred with the same brush – as the BBC's attitude survey (at least half of all MPs are corrupt, voters believe) confirms this morning.

That's not quite true. Reading West's Martin Salter, who never claimed a second-home allowance – he commutes, like many of his constituents – had previously decided to stand down. Now supporters are urging him to change his mind.

Michael White may well have chosen a different MP as a virtuous example if he'd seen this from Salter's former Labour PLP neighbour, Jane Griffiths.

Anyway, I am given to understand that although I named Martin Salter MP [on Radio 4] as having claimed Additional Costs Allowance for an non-existent London property between 1997 and 2001, they edited out his name.

So White's straw-clutching is the best he can come up with to advocate voting Labour, using as a preamble an apparently squeaky clean MP who has stepped down, but who has been accused of dodginess by a former Labour MP ... who herself was deselected prior to filing for bankruptcy.

It's all falling apart for Labour, isn't it? Superb.

In A Nutshell

And then we have the fools and madmen in the Labour Party.

Does Gordon Brown, for instance, think that in the clubs of South Yorkshire, where I grew up, people want a smoking ban?

Does he believe that White Van Man sits down to watch Top Gear and thinks: "You know, this would be a whole lot better if Richard Hammond had a vagina"?

Does he think, even for a small moment, that the people who put a cross in his box give even a small toss about "the environment"?

Or that the foundry worker wants to finish his shift and "drink responsibly"?

Yeah, I was going to say that too Jeremy, give us a chance eh?

Loving This

Saturday. Time to object.

Double-Take Radio

It was one of those times when you wish you could rewind the radio, but yes, he really did say it.

Lord Tebbit told Today: "What I am advising people is to show the major parties that it is the electors who are masters and the electors are extremely upset with their employees in the House of Commons and I said don't vote for the major parties."

Sage advice, mind.

Gordon Brown "More Piñata Than Politician" Says New York Times

Oh dear, Gordon Brown's deficiencies have been noticed across the pond. The New York Times have picked up on his woeful PMQs on Wednesday and are, quite frankly, laughing at him.

LONDON — Prime Minister Gordon Brown is spectacularly unpopular these days. He is presiding over one of the weakest economies in Western Europe. His government is widely seen as weary, porous and flailing. His own party members spend their time plotting, spreading nasty gossip and openly defying his policies.

But it was still shocking to see the mauling Mr. Brown suffered in the House of Commons on Wednesday, when he had to appear during this week’s installment of the half-hour grilling called Prime Minister’s Questions. So mercilessly and brazenly did his Conservative opponents mock, taunt and ridicule Mr. Brown that at times he seemed more piñata than politician.

Note the 'one of the weakest economies in Western Europe' bit? There's no appended possibly, or allegedly. It's common global knowledge.

It's not the only transatlantic giggling going on either. Via Swiss Bob, it seems French speaking Canadians are also splitting their sides at his ineptitude.

Whips being openly ridiculed during the Ghurka vote. Brown being destroyed live on TV for the world to see. Lies and spin unravelling by the day. YouTube experiencing some of their biggest political hits ever with Dan Hannan, the grin video, nose-picking, and this (in case you hadn't seen it).



It's embarrassing, yes, but personally I hope he clings on for as long as possible to make sure Labour are unelectable for as long as I live. One more year is nothing if it means we never have to endure such a mealy-mouthed, bullying, dictatorial, offensive, mendacious, anti-democratic collection of corrupt control freaks ever again.

Then we can tackle why the Tories aren't speaking up against the assaults on our liberties like they should be doing.

UPDATE: As Swiss Bob points out in the comments, the hilarity at Brown has spread to the Austrians.

The laughter in the meeting room was getting louder, and at the end of Question Time Brown was no longer willing to give answers

No longer just a devalued Prime Minister (© Dan Hannan), a contemptuously derided one too.

Pubs: Labour Hate Them

I see the green shoots of realisation, from representatives of the pub industry, that Labour don't really give a shit about them after slug-eyes's budget.

A statement from [the British Beer and Pub Association] said: “In imposing these additional beer taxes, the government has wilfully ignored the views of the public, landlords, consumer groups, industry representatives and MPs from all parties who have been calling for action to save the British pub."

That would be because Labour don't give a shit about you.

The Campaign for Real Ale's chief executive Mike Benner said: "It is disappointing that the Chancellor has ignored widespread public concern about the plight of Britain’s pubs and decided to press ahead with an increase which will result in yet more valued community pubs closing down."

Hey, Mike, I've told you before, it's because Labour don't give a shit about you.

Maybe the scales are beginning to be lifted from their eyes. They might even start fighting properly sometime soon, instead of rolling over and begging for a biscuit like they did when the last major threat to their trade was passing through parliament.

Just a reminder, Benner et al. It's Friday, it's gone 9:00pm, and I'm at home with a cheeky Shiraz from Sainsburys, Fanny Puddlecote at my side, and a fresh pouch of Belgian bought tobacco. My local will only accommodate two of the above. It's not just the tax on beer causing your problems, OK?