Donald Trump submits dodgy expenses claim

April 19th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Donald Trump is gonna run for president of the USA, as far as I can tell. He may not do and just be fucking with our minds. If he does though, Iraq had better watch out

Trump: George, let me explain something to you. We go into Iraq. We have spent thus far, $1.5 trillion. We could have rebuilt half of the United States. $1.5 trillion. And we’re going to then leave. So, in the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils. You go in. You win the war and you take it.

Stephanopoulos: It would take hundreds of thousands of troops to secure the oil fields.

Trump: Excuse me. No, it wouldn’t at all.

Stephanopoulos: So, we steal an oil field?

Trump: Excuse me. You’re not stealing. Excuse me. You’re not stealing anything. You’re taking– we’re reimbursing ourselves– at least, at a minimum, and I say more. We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves.

In the old days, you went to war because someone invaded you. If you won the war, you got reparations. In otherwords, the losing aggressor paid the winner compensation for the inconvenience, damage and effort needed to stave off the invasion. OK, it is a little more complicated than that and the victor usually took the piss, but basically, that’s it.

If the aggressor won, then the loser was occupied, taken control of and general fucked over even more.

What happened in Iraq was the aggressor won but, being generous, hasn’t tried to occupy the Iraq and has tried to get Iraq up and running again, albeit in a cack-handed, bloody way. The US doesn’t deserve any reparations. The people of Iraq didn’t ask the US to go in a fuck them over. Saddam was no direct threat to the US and had no connection to the big bogieman of Al Qaeda (however you want to spell it).

You don’t get reimbursed for expense paid to fuck over another country that a) didn’t ask for shit and b) was going to fuck you over.

This reimbursement Trump is on about is theft. Pure and simple. Just because the people of the US don’t want to give up their 4 litre engined cars and pick-ups.

Donald Trump even puts our own MPs to shame when it comes to claiming expenses.

Oh no! Another christian being fucked over

April 18th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Here we go again (istyosty link)…

An electrician facing the sack for displaying a small cross in his company van was backed last night by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey.
He said it was ‘outrageous’ that Colin Atkinson had been told by the housing association he works for that he cannot show the Christian symbol of his faith on the dashboard.

Oh, just fuck the fuck off you doddery old cunt. Time for the previous head fantasist to wheel out the ‘christians are marginalised’ speil.

Devout Mr Atkinson says he is prepared to lose his job at Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), where he has worked for 15 years, and has accused bosses of marginalising Christians in the name of political correctness.
‘The 64-year-old grandfather from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, said: ‘It’s a scandal that we live in a Christian nation and yet Christians are not allowed to practise their religion.
‘I expect to be sacked but I have no fear of man, just a fear of God.’

And there it is. We don’t live in a christian nation, it may be filled predominantly with christians, or at least out of those that actually believe rather than the population as whole, but we are not a christian nation as say, Iran is an islamic nation, or The Vatican is a catholic nation. Britain is a secular nation. Twat.

And that’s some kind caring god you’ve got that you have tobe scared of him/her/it.

Mr Atkinson’s battle, revealed by The Mail on Sunday, follows a series of similar cases involving Christians who claim their freedoms have been infringed by controversial equality laws.

These equality laws are only contraversial for deluded fucknuts like these wankers.

Lord Carey said last night: ‘It’s outrageous that anyone cannot display a small palm cross. This is political correctness gone mad once more.

I’ll tell you what is outragous. It’s outrageous that cunts like the Daily fucking Mail keep giving these shit stirrers a fucking platform.

‘I salute Mr Atkinson for his bravery and all Christians who quietly stand up for their faith

Hahahaha! Bravery? That’s not fucking brave. Go to fucking Afghanistan and try to convert some fucking muslims to christianity, then we’ll talk about who’s fucking brave.

Former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe, a devout Christian, said: ‘It’s one rule for Christians and another rule for followers of any other religion.’
WDH promotes its inclusive policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols – including burkas – at work.

Jesus snapping arseholes! They would drag that shrivelled old bag out for quote, wouldn’t they?

If you read through the whole fucking article, you’ll see that the Mail contradicts Widdie and pokes a big fucking whole right through her chuffing statement.

‘It is permissible for WDH employees to display, within the spirit of the Act, religious artefacts and other personal possessions on their desks and themselves.’

Now, even someone as dense as me can see that this cunt doesn’t have a desk. He has a van. As such he is not able to display anything personal on or in his van. But, he, just like sihks and their turbans, and muslims and whatever the fuck their head gear is called can wear these religious displays because they are wearing them.

If this cunt really wants to display the fact that he believes fairy stories then get a fucking necklace or a ring. If a muslim employee started filling his van with islamic paraphanalia he would be told to get to fuck too.

It also looks like this electrician hasn’t just thought of kicking up such a fuss by himself either.

Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Christian Legal Centre, which is backing the electrician, said: ‘This smacks of something deeply illiberal and remarkably intolerant.’

The infamous Andrea from the Christian Legal Centre, of Nadine Dorries failed abortion reform fame, is pushing another load of shit.

The puppetmaster

April 13th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

The New Statesman

So I was sent to do a feature on Moulin Rouge! at Cannes, which was a great send anyway. Basically my brief was to see who Nicole Kidman was shagging – what she was doing, poking through her bins and get some stuff on her. So Murdoch’s paying her five million quid to big up the French and at the same time paying me £5.50 to fuck her up . . . So all hail the master. We’re just pawns in his game. How perverse is that?

Unexpected political graffiti

April 12th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

I came across some graffiti yesterday, underneath a road bridge whilst out cycling, so I went back and photographed it today. (click the images to enlarge)

'make millionaires history' graffiti

We all know Indymedia.org, don’t we? On the other side of bridge is

'migration is not a crime' graffiti

with a close-up of dear old Paddington Bear

Paddington Bear graffiti

The URL next to Paddington is noii.org.uk.

I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen overtly political graffiti around here (although I do have an appalling memory) and it’s hidden under this bridge.

distancing

April 10th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Seeing as Nadine Dorries is so keen on keeping the record straight about who she associates herself with, you would’ve thought she would be just as worried about who is claiming to be doing things in her name as who she is claimed to be working with, too.

Nadine Dorries and the Right to Know

April 7th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Ministry of Truth is having a few technical issues at the moment and as a result, a post Unity has published is not showing on his site.

I have found it on Googles’ cache, here, and also mirrored it at my old place because well, you know Unity, it is rather long.

Here is the preamble:

A document obtained yesterday by the Ministry of Truth exposes the full but hitherto hidden agenda behind Nadine Dorries’ ‘Right to know’ campaign, which has recently put forward two abortion-related amendments to the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill.

The document, a Powerpoint presentation produced by Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship for the Lawyers Christian Fellowship in 2007, indicates that Dorries’ current campaign and amendments are part of long-term strategy put together by an alliance of prominent anti-abortion organisations with the overall objective of securing the complete prohibition of abortion in the UK on any grounds, including rape, serious foetal abnormality and even serious risk to the life of mother.

Clear and verifiable links exist between Dorries and at least three of the organisations involved in the development of this campaign strategy, one of which – the Lawyers Christian Fellowship – was intimately involved in the running of Dorries’ earlier ’20 reasons for 20 weeks’ campaign.

Another member of this alliance – CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) would, in all likelihood, be the major beneficiary of the first of Dorries’ new amendments, which seeks to prevent established abortion service providers, including the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes International, from providing pre-abortion counselling, forcing women into the independent sector which has been heavily infiltrated by anti-abortion organisations. CARE has well documented links with a number of other current MPs, to whom it provides bursaries and/or interns, and with the influential Conservative Christian Fellowship, which was co-founded in 1990 by Tim Montgomerie, who is also the co-founded of Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice and the editor of ConservativeHome website.

Go and read the rest, as I say, either here in Googles cache, or here or if MoT is running properly here.

Getting fleeced

April 7th, 2011 § 1 comment § permalink

Immigration detention centres. Not the nicest of places. The people in there are generally pennyless and have a big need to talk to solicitors and stuff.

So what does the ever so intelligent people who run the private companies think up for their detention centres? A new telephone system

The trial at Tinsley House detention centre, near Gatwick airport, is run by Global Comms & Consulting Ltd (GCC), which specialises in secure telecommunications services to major government agencies and multinational companies. As a result, detainees will not be able to call free numbers and will pay significantly higher rates to call their family and solicitors. All calls will also be recorded, monitored and disrupted when necessary by the immigration authorities and/or the immigration prison’s management.

When a detainee arrives at the centre, they have their own phone taken from them and issued with one from the centre. These phones are described as ‘crap’ and cut out ‘after a few seconds’.

Along with the phone the detainee is also given a phone card…

Detainees will be given a Call4Five card when they are admitted in to detention. Call4Five, owned and operated by GCC, allows users to dial any UK or international number from any phone for “five precious minutes,” using a special code provided on a scratch voucher.

GCC claims its Call4Five cards are “a good deal.” However, a voucher of five minutes for international calls (10 for UK calls) costs £2.50 plus VAT. This works out at 60p and 30p per minute respectively, which is significantly more expensive than using pre-paid phone cards or even normal mobile phones.

The new system also means that detainees will be charged higher rates for dialling 0845 numbers and will not be able to call free 0800 numbers without buying credit, for example to use pre-paid phone cards provided by visitors groups or to call their solicitors and other support organisations that provide a free phone service for those who do not have credit on their phones.

What a lovely bunch of people run these services, eh?

Does Resolution 1973 mean the importation of arms to Libyan rebels is legal?

March 30th, 2011 § 1 comment § permalink

Hilary Clinton and William Hague have expressed the view that UN Resolution 1973, the one that makes the bombing of Libya legal, rolls back the arms embargo.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are open for business!

The Guardian

The US and Britain have raised the prospect of arming Libya’s rebels if air strikes fail to force Muammar Gaddafi from power[*].

At the end of a conference on Libya in London, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said for the first time that she believed arming rebel groups was legal under UN security council resolution 1973, passed two weeks ago, which also provided the legal justification for air strikes.

America’s envoy to the UN, Susan Rice, said earlier the US had “not ruled out” channelling arms to the rebels.

The British foreign secretary, William Hague, agreed that the resolution made it legal “to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances”.

[*] Just quick, before we go on, I thought the air strikes and no fly zone weren’t meant to get rid of Gaddafi. I thought it was just to help the rebels get rid of him. So what is this? All the big grown up nations kick Gaddaffi to the ground and let the rebels try to finish him, if they take to long we push them out the way and stamp on his head? I didn’t think we did that sort of intervention anymore.

Clinton and Hague, in my opinion, are wrong. I am quite prepared to be wrong about this myself as I’m not a politician or lawyer so my definition of the words ‘arms embargo’ might not be the same as international statesmens’ definitions.

UN Resolution 1973 (.pdf) states…

Enforcement of the arms embargo

13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : “Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections”;

This paragraph replaces one in UN Resolution 1970 (.pdf)…

11. Calls upon all States, in particular States neighbouring the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, all cargo to and from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of this resolution for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;

They say the same thing except the amended paragraph in UN/Res/1973 is a bit tidier. They both in essence say do not allow the transportation/sale of anything in paragraphs 9 and 10 of UN/Res/1970.

So what is and isn’t allowed under that arms embargo? Paragraph 10 of UN/Res/1970 states that Libya can not export arms. Paragraph 9 is the one all about selling and exporting to Libya…

9. Decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance, related to military activities or the provision, maintenance or use of any arms and related materiel, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel whether or not originating in their territories

That’s pretty unambiguous and clear. Even under paragraph 4 on UN/Res/1973, ‘Protection of Civilains’ there is no room for the movement of arms in to Libya…

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported tothe Security Council;

Nations acting under the UN can go in and bomb Libya, to protect civilians, but they cannot use ground forces and cannot supply arms to anybody in Libya.

But, and there is always a ‘but’, there are some exceptions to this rule in taking arms into Libya…

(a) Supplies of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and related technical assistance or training, as approved in advance by the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 below;

‘No lethal’. Not very good if you want to get rid of a dictator, really. Could be handy for putting down any protests the local population might want to hold though.

(b) Protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only;

Military style safety equipment that actually belongs to someone rather than for distribution once inside Libya. Still no good for overthrowing megalomaniac leaders.

(c) Other sales or supply of arms and related materiel, or provision of assistance or personnel, as approved in advance by the Committee;

This subclause of the arms embargo is important. It is the get out clause for supplying arms to Libya. This is the little bit of text that will open the door to the possibility of legally supplying arms to the rebels. All a nation has to do is persuade the rest of the UN Security Council committee to agree. How hard can that be? The majority voted in favour of intervening in Libya so they’re half way there already, and if they can give guns to someone else to do it a) they’ll make a bit of money and b) they’re one step removed if/when the shit hits the fan.

I know what you’re thinking, too. I’ve just proved myself wrong. But, no. This get out clause is in UN/Res/1970. Clinton and Hague said UN/Res/1973 allowed them to go arm the rebels. There was always the option of removing the arms embargo but it is in resolution 1970 and would need the agreement of the Security Council committee. Resolution 1973 does not automatically mean the importation of arms to anybody in Libya is legal or sanctioned by the UN.

(link: UN Resolutions 2011)

The danger of protesting

March 29th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Septicisle

There’s always the danger when protesting of coming across as sanctimonious, patronising and just plain wrong, and UK Uncut fit the bill in so many ways that it’s difficult to count. Direct action and civil disobedience will have always have a role to play in protest; getting a criminal record however for aggravated trespass for occupying Fortnum and Mason, as many seem likely to, will rank up there as probably the most stupid misstep of the entire anti-cuts movement. Every single occasion on which a representative, or at least someone who’s taken part in the protests has appeared on television, such as on Newsnight tonight, they’ve come across as the kind of pretentious, self-satisfied, smug and thoroughly gittish middle-class wankers you would normally cross the street to avoid, repeatedly refusing to answer a straight question and taking no responsibility whatsoever for what some might do under their banner. Only with the advent of Twatter could so many utter cunts make common cause.

Myth & Magic

March 27th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

For those of you that might be interested for some reason, This is the route we cycled this morning (.pdf).

It’s a route called Myth and Magic presumably because the first half is along the Ridgeway which has some ancient mystical places along it, such as the Uffington White Horse and castle and Waylands’ Smithy. It took us 2 hours 7 mins which is, according to my riding buddies, a very good time for the 23 miles. They’d previously done it in about 2 hrs 40-ish.

Anyway, as we’re officially entered in the Polaris Challenge in the Peak District in June, there will be lots more of this, as well as 20 miles a day round trip to work most days, weather permitting.