Random thoughts to put something fresh on the frontpage

October 25th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

This blogs old home was called Sim-O’s Random Thoughts. It hasn’t been too random for a while, although you might disagree, but here’s three random thoughts…

  1. Why the fuck do people put why they bought something on a review?
    Ok, sometimes it’s relevant, like with a camera, “I bought it to keep in my pocket, not for serious stuff’, but why for a freeview box?

    I bought it for my daughter because she works shifts.

    It’s a freeview box = you want to watch freeview TV.
    It’s got a hard disk drive = you want to record freeview TV.
    It doesn’t add anything to the review. We don’t need to know and frankly, don’t give a shit. Just stick to how fucking well the fucking thing works.

  2. Women. They won’t walk around the town centre in just their underwear but will wear on a beach in front of hundreds of people, for all intents and purposes, just that.
    Why? What’s the difference?
  3. You can drive at 17. Something that can so easily kill people if you’re not careful.
    You are legally allowed to have sex, and so create a whole new life, with all the responsibilities and ramifications that that brings with it, at 16.
    You are not allowed to drink or smoke, which is basically poisoning yourself, until you’re 18.
    Why?

Unfair!

October 23rd, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Todays’ cartoon in the Sun:

griffin_sun_23102009

Nice, eh?

(via BigGusDEcosse)

“I’m scum and I’m a racist”

October 22nd, 2009 § 3 comments § permalink

Operation Freedom: Proof reader needed

October 20th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

Operation Freedom, the new campaign for er, something by the BNP have just made another cock up.
The latest email update libelled Peter Hain with the headline…

FORMER BANK ROBBER ACCUSES THE BNP OF BREAKING THE LAW!

Peter Hain has stated he may (or he is?) take(ing) legal action to stop Fat Nick going on the BBC Question Time as the BNP may not be a legally constituted party.

Peter Hain was arrested in the past, apparently, but is not a bank robber, obviously.

The email with the libel was sent at 11:31am, with a follow up at 11:47 with the word ‘suspect’ added in the headline. Whether this correction will inhibit Peter from taking any action, I don’t know, but presume it does. Which is a shame.

Oh dear, BNP. You had better be more careful in future.

Operation Freedom: Operation Misrepresentation, more like

October 18th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Over the weekend something called ‘Operation Freedom’ was launched.

I have heard or seen no news over the weekend and being a lazy arse, I’m just gonna go straight into it.

Well, according to the BNP, for it is they who have sent it, Fat Nick and his ex-NF buddy (whatever his name is) are going to be banned from the House of Commons.

Under a headline, in big, bold red type, they procliam…

ELECTED BNP PARLIAMENTARIANS BANNED FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS!

…a bit like that, really, there is an awful lot of waffle about Marxist state and totalitarian experiment and a fucking big history lesson, which also includes Simon de Montfort, which according to my l33t Wikipedia skilz was either a French nobleman, a son of a French nobleman or the grandson of a French noble man.

Anyway, blah blah blah, EU, blah blah blah, dictatorship, waffle waffle waffle, only credible aternative, rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb.

And then… BLAM!

Just recently, crooked diabolical MP’s led by the arch-traitor Harriet Harman voted in favour to BAN the recently elected BNP MEPs, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, from the House of Parliament!

Hahahaha! Cunts.

Aw, fuck it. I wasn’t gonna swear in this post.

As far as I was aware, MEPs’ had traditionally had access to the Houses of Parliament, or at least the commons areas, as a favour. Y’know, they’re all working to the same ends, making Britain better etc, but never any formal right to go anywhere more than a normal prole does. I am prepared to be corrected on this point.

This effectively means they have banned 1 MILLION British voters and two democratically elected parliamentary representatives from the highest democratic institution in the country! They have banned YOU!

A little bit of confusion in the teeny-tiny minds of the racist fuckwits.

Because Fat Nick and his sicko side-kick are democratically elected representatives, but not to the House of Commons. Those one million voters already have someone that they can go to, representatives that were actually elected to the House of Commons in the last general election. Their MPs’. (Once again, lazy shit that I am, you’ll have to find out for yourself who them MPs’ are, but rest assured, each and every one of those one million voters will have an MP that they can got to.)

Fat Nicks’ and what’s-his-names’ arena is the EU parliament, not Westminster.

One little bit of success, that wasn’t even down to the them, and it’s gone right to their heads.

The comments under Jan Moirs’ Stephen Gately column

October 17th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Just in case anyone wants them, and the Mail decides they’re not needed, all 8 pages of comments on Jan Moirs Stephen Gately column are here as of the time of this post. There’s nearly 800 comments and the Mail splits them in to pages of 100. The .jpg files are still quite big.

Help yourself.

page one
page two
page three
page four
page five
page six
page seven
page eight

The original article, courtesy of Jamie is backed up here, too.

On the BNP and their constitutional changes to come

October 15th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Fat Nick caved in…

BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.

The UK’s equalities watchdog had argued the BNP broke the Race Relations Act by restricting members to “indigenous Caucasian” people.

The court heard Mr Griffin had agreed to use “all reasonable endeavours” to revise its constitution.

BNP members will be asked to agree to the changes at a meeting in November.

Either the begging letters didn’t raise enough or Fat Nick thought it would be better spent in the upcoming general election.

Will the disgruntled party faithful accept these changes? Who knows, but according to the current BNP consitution (pdf) says…

SECTION 14: REVISIONS TO THIS CONSTITUTION
1) Consideration will regularly be given to changes in this Constitution for the purpose of improving the functional efficiency of the party. Final authority to determine such changes, however, will rest with the elected National Chairman – saving those Sections protected by Section 13, Sub-section4.

So, the Chairman can change most of the constitution as he sees fit. What does Section 13, sub-section 4 say?

Any changes in Sections 1, 4, 5 or 13 of this constitution must be approved by a two thirds majority vote of members attending a General Members’ Meeting.

Follow the number. Follow the numbers.

Section 1 is Political Objectives

Section 4 is Elections to the Party Leadership

Section 5 is Advisory Council

Section 13 is General Members’ Meetings

All the above sections need a two third majority vote of the membership.

Section 2: Membership, doesn’t. Fat Nick, being the Chairman, has the authority to change that section of the constitution all by himself.

So where does that leave the BNP?

Fat Nick has no choice but to change the constitution because the law requires it to be changed and the Chairman has the authority to change it. The party faithful has no say in it. Either the constitution changes or the BNP stop being a legally* legitimate political party.

*Whatever, they will remain a morally illegitimate party.

All this though, will not change the party at all. Consider this, from a report of a public BNP meeting in Cleveleys (via)…

One member offers me a drink as he says: “We’re not intimidating are we? We get a lot of bad press but we’re not thugs.”
But I don’t like what I hear next as around six people put their hands up to request an application form to become a BNP member. One convert shouts: “I’ll have an application form, but not a coloured one!”
It was greeted with laughter by most in the audience, and was a deeply unpleasant reminder of where I was.
…
While inside the building the recruitment drive was in full flow, it was a different story outside as four people got turned away. All were either black or Asian. There were no members of the ethnic minorities inside.
As I left a security guard told me: “After a while it was getting full up so we decided it had to be members only.”
Strange that, as I was given a seat all to myself and I’m not a member. And I swear there was plenty of space.

The Steisand Effect: An analogy

October 13th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Mr Eugenides…

…this outbreak of blogospheric solidarity, to put it into context, is akin to the Russians and the Germans taking a time-out from slaughtering each other to erect a big sign in downtown Stalingrad telling everyone that Cary Grant was a poof.

(via Chicken Yoghurt, I think)

Trafigura, Carter Ruck and a sock stuffed in a mouth

October 13th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

The Guardian has had a legal sock stuff in their mouth by those champions of justice Carter-Fuck on behalf of Trafigura…

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations

I am absolutely staggered that a court would give such an order.

Alex Massie in the Spectator reckons he knows what the question is and the gagging order is to try and suppress this report.

This gagging order may not go right to the heart of Parliamentary privilige, which alllows an MP to speak in the house without fear of being prosecution or legal action, but it punctures a lung of an open parliament.

It may be the case that groups and individuals may be barred from being named, granted anonymity, in the reporting of parliament for reasons of national security, but to have that applied purely for commercial reasons is disgusting.

An open, freely reported parliament is essential for a smoothly run and corruption-free (as far as possible) democracy.

Something has gone very, very wrong.

I also found this at Sweeney* Maddison, the judge that approved/passed/whatever-it’s-called the order needs his arse kicking about this, too.

*apologies to Mr Justice Sweeney there.

On Gordon Brown and his eyesight

October 12th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

What the fucks all this fuss about Gordon Browns’ eyesight?

Ok, it’s unfortunate that someone has trouble with an eye, especially after losing sight in the other, but unless that person is a bus driver, lab technician or has a sight critical job, what does it matter with regard being able to effectively discharge his duties?

It would be different if Gordon was in hospital having a check on his heart because of palpatations, then it might be excusable, but fucking eyes?

The cabinet and opposition have defended Gordon, which is nice, but they shouldn’t have to. If they are defending Gordons physical ability to be PM, as apposed to his actual skills and experiences to do the job, then who is barking on about it being a problem? The press most likely.

Stuff like this the politicians should tell the press to fuck off with stupid fucking questions, and the press themselves should stop asking the fucking things in the first place. Any excuse to smear someone, even when it’s irrelevent.

By questioning Browns ability to do a job with any real power, the ability of blind and partially sighted people to work are being called into question.

Although Blunkett may be a cunt and was a fucking nightmare of a home secretary, would anyone have dared to question his right to hold the position of home secretary because a dog tells him where to stand when crossing the road?

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »