Sim-O

Mark Steel:

Because someone who routinely lies like she [Hillary Clinton] does, then dismisses it as a consequence of the number of words she says has severe psychological problems. Perhaps her disorder is a result of the sort of politician she is. Like Blair, neither she nor Bill stand for anything – priding themselves in being tied to no “ideology”. So a normal politician might set out with a set of principles, then lie as they compromise and betray them. But a Blair or Clinton is a politician with no purpose but their own standing, like celebrities who are nothing but celebrities. So they say whatever they feel will make them look best to the audience they’re with, regardless of whether it’s true, until they probably don’t know themselves what’s real and what’s not.

A lot of politicians seem just like that, except they don’t tell such whoppers in one go. They tell lots and lots of little one.

Here we go again.
From Spyblog.

Part 6
FINAL PROVISION
43 Power to make consequential provision
(1) A Minister o the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make such provision as the Minister or Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of this Act.

(2) An order under subsection (1) may —

(a) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or an Act;
(b) include transitional or saving provision.

(3) An order under subsection (1) is to be made by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which amends or repeals a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which does not amend or repeal a provision of an Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Repealing any Sections of any Acts of Parliament i.e. Primary Legislation, will only require the “affirmative resolution procedure”.

Revoking any Sections of any Acts of Parliament i.e. Primary Legislation, will only require the “negative resolution procedure”.

Amending any Sections of any Acts of Parliament i.e. Primary Legislation, seems to require both the “affirmative resolution procedure” and the “negative resolution procedure”.

What happened to the supposed “super-affirmative procedure” and the whole of the debate in Parliament and in the UK political blogosphere over the wretched and controversial Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 then ?

The abuse of the catch all, excessively broad wording “amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or an Act” means that even the Constitutional Acts like Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, Habeas Corpus, the European Communities Act, the Human Rights Act, the Civil Contingencies Act etc. can all be repealed or amended without the need for a full debate, or for new Primary Legislation, simply by Order of a Minister.

Go visit Save Parliament.

I am pretty happy with the BBC on the whole. I think it does a good job, usually, is, for the price of it, good value for money when compared to the likes of sky where you pay , £15 a month and get American shit thrown at you.
But why do they keep getting on the breakfast news fucking idiots like the twat that got fired from the apprentice?

OK, maybe doing a bit of an article on whatever subject Panorama is doing that night is OK, as it’s a current affairs programme, but The Apprentice? (I am aware that it also does it to the dancing programmes too, but they don’t promote the trampling of everything and everybody that gets in the way of making money.)

The news is not for plugging any old programme. Who got ‘voted’ off by the public who have nothing better to do or fired by Mr Big is not fucking news.

The presenter (well, they ain’t newsreaders anymore, are they?) introduced it like this, to paraphrase: “Sir Alan Sugar fired his first apprentice, last night, and we’ll be speaking the unlucky person in a few minutes. And don’t worry, I won’t say who it is.”
You can say his name all you want, love. No fuckers heard of him. He had less than an hour of TV last night. He fucked up by not being able to price up fish, ffs. He reckons failure is a GCSE grade B. His closing quote at the end of the programme was ‘If it was down to me, I wouldn’t have failed’ (or got fired, i can’t remember properly, but you get the drift). Oh, fuck off.

I think the reason this has got my goat this morning is that what the apprentice does bring more real wankers (as apposed to fictional ones) onto the screen, when there’s enough of them on the screen anyway, running countries and stuff. We don’t need Joe ‘Wanker’ Public on the telly too.

One of the fuckers said that he would loss everything for this job, family, friends, he didn’t care. Well I’d say you’ve done that bit quite well already then. Another said she was probably the best salesperson in Britain (or was it Europe)! If you’re that good, why are you on this fucking programme about to make a cunt of yourself? Why aren’t you already making a fuck load of cash with no need to embarrass yourself and you family chasing the capitalists’ dream?

Get a proper fucking life.

Free our Bills!

The Nice Polite Campaign to Gently Encourage Parliament to Publish Bills in a 21st Century Way, Please. Now.
What the…?

Writing, discussing and voting on bills is what we employ our MPs to do. If enough MPs vote on bills they become the law, meaning you or I can get locked up if they pass a bad one.

Bills are, like, so much more important than what MPs spend on furniture.

The problem is that the way in which Bills are put out is completely incompatible with the Internet era, so nobody out there ever knows what the heck people are actually voting for or against. We need to free our Bills in order for most people to be able to understand what matters about them.

If we can’t get the MPs to write them in plain English, we can at least get the buggers to put them somewhere where we can struggle through them whilst sat on a nice comfy sofa with a nice cup of tea.

Via Tim

I’ve just done a big long post and it was just waffle, so here is the abridged version:

What has been the result of this war so far?

Iraq has a different leader, this one sits in the White House, and fuck more people are dying and being killed everyday than happened whilst Saddam was in power.

And the people responsible? They lied, they profiteered, they covered their own arses they looked the other way, they broke, and continue to break, international and their own domestic laws and they have the blood of countless people on their hands.

The worst part is not that they haven’t been put on trial, there is still time and I do not expect them to be charged so soon after the fact, but they both got voted back in for another term after all the lies and such came out.

Shame on them and shame on us.

Hot on the heels of Ben Griffins silencing comes an attempt by the govt. to make sure coroners record the right verdict.

The Guardian:

The defence secretary, Des Browne, has gone to the high court in an attempt to prevent coroners criticising the Ministry of Defence during military inquests.

Government lawyers yesterday presented papers to the Royal Courts of Justice asking for a court order banning coroners from accusing the MoD of “serious failings” when recording verdicts on service personnel deaths

Where the fuck do we live? The USSR?
Mr Fucking Browne, YOU CANNOT DECIDE WHAT THE FAULT OF SOMEONES DEATH IS! That’s the job of the coroner. If he finds that a flak jacket the proper vehicle to go on patrol in would’ve save a soldiers life but he didn’t have one because you never gave hime one when you should’ve, then it’s YOUR fault.

The defence secretary claimed the phrase was tantamount to blaming the government for the deaths of servicemen and could be seen as deciding civil liability, potentially being used by families seeking to sue for compensation.

The phrase isn’t tantamount to blaming the government, it IS blaming the government.

Stop wriggling, you shit and take responsibility.

Via Jherad

Sunny:

LOLcat, if you don’t know, has become a popular internet phenomena where pictures of cats are given speech bubbles with funny messages in pidgin English. Sometimes, pictures of cats are super-imposed on random pictures too. See: Icanhascheezburger

I have a new suggestion. LOL-blair. In this game we find pictures of Tony Blair from his latest new and exciting plan to change the world, write funny captions, and then speculate on what he’s going on move on to next.

This is my effort:

via Justin

Update: Back on my computer so more lol-blairs:

or more accurately, fuck off.

The Guardian:

More than 1,400 rejected Iraqi asylum seekers are to be told they must go home or face destitution in Britain as the government considers Iraq safe enough to return them, according to leaked Home Office correspondence seen by the Guardian.

Hooray! Job done. Iraq is safe. Nice. Great.
Sorry? what’s that?

The Iraqis involved are to be told that unless they sign up for a voluntary return programme to Iraq within three weeks, they face being made homeless and losing state support.

Oh, right. Sounds harsh and not really making it voluntary but it shouldn’t be a problem, cos Iraq is now safe.

They will also be asked to sign a waiver agreeing the government will take no responsibility for what happens to them or their families once they return to Iraqi territory.

Oh. That kind of safe. Not the kind of safe that ordinary people mean when they say ‘safe’.

As BD in Justins’ comments suggests, maybe the Foreign and Commonwealth Office just haven’t got round to updating their travel advice yet:

The security situation in Iraq remains highly dangerous with a continuing high threat of terrorism throughout Iraq, violence and kidnapping targeting foreign nationals, including individuals of non-western appearance. You are strongly advised to seek professional security advice and make arrangements for your security throughout your visit.

Nadine Dorries:

I had no idea that England was far more important to the Islamists than America – following on from 9/11, I thought it would be the other way round.

Where do you get that idea? Is the UK called ‘Great Satan‘? Not as far as I’m aware. More like Satans’ Little Helper.

Nadine:

I suppose it stands to reason that here is the home, the mother country of the English language, of world finance, of law and innovation, and some of the most famous universities in the world.

Because Islamists are offended by English and business and education? Nothing to do with going to war with them, having troops in what they see as occupying their holy land, and generally the ruling elites of the UK and USA having sod all respect for Islamic tradition and culture.

Nadine:

Symbolism is everything to the Islamist in the midst of a Jihad, the holy war we are silently engaged in.

I’ve no idea about the symbolism, so moving on…

Nadine:

Apparently, the minaret of a mosque, which will be built in Oxford, will stand taller than the dreamy spires.

So what? If It’s had proper planning permission, just like every other building.

Nadine:

Standing taller is all that matters, it’s the most important thing. Symbolic.

As in most cultures. Places are always pleased to have the tallest this or largest that.

Nadine:

To the Islamist, America is a Johnny come lately, it’s England that matters.

Delusion. Of. Grandeur.

Nadine:

Whereas anyone walking by may not even notice the towering height, casting a shadow over a dreamy spire, to the Islamist it represents a triumphant call to arms.

And the passer-by will think it’s just another innocent call to prayer.

Oh, fuck off. It’s a church spire that might be not be quite the tallest thing in Oxford anymore. And the call to prayer doesn’t sound very triumphant to me. It just sounds like a call to prayer, really. It’s not going to be five times a day, as the doommongerers reckon, yes I’m looking at you Verity, it’ll be once on the most important prayer on the most important day, Friday.
And why not, churches broadcast their call to prayer once a week.

And it’s ‘dreaming‘ you bint.

Chicken Yoghurt did a post about this crap about swearing an oath of allegiance to the queen, and this morning on Radio 4 John Humphreys asked Lord Goldsmith (to paraphrase):
Humphreys:

What about republicans? Don’t you think they might have a problem with swearing allegiance to an institution they want to see abolished

Goldsmith:

No.

In the background you could hear the other guest cough and choke in astonishment.

How do these fuckwits that are either so lacking in either morals, common sense, intelligence or are liars get into these positions?