Question Time and the BNP

September 6th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

You might possibly have seen this in todays’ Times…

THE BBC has provoked controversy by giving the British National party a platform for the first time on Question Time, its top current affairs programme.

This development, I think, is inevitable. Now that the BNP has gone and got itself a couple of elected representatives to a higher office than a local government position I don’t see how the BBC can refuse to have either Fat Nick or Andrew Brons it’s flagship political discussion programme without being accused of taking sides, of being political.

Forget what the BNP actually stands for for a minute and just compare them to UKIP in terms of their representation.

UKIP only has MEPs’. They do not have an elected representative in the House of Commons. UKIP appear on Question Time. The BNP only have MEPs’. They do not have anyone in the House, either. They will now appear on Question Time, but just like UKIP, only occassionally.

“They got across a threshold that has given them national representation and that fact will be reflected in the level of coverage they will be given,” said Ric Bailey, the BBC’s chief adviser on politics. “This is not a policy about the BNP. It’s a policy about impartiality.”

Whether we like it or not, the BBC cannot do ‘No Platform’.

Downfall meta parody

September 4th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

via Ration Geekery

The hypocrasy of drinkaware.co.uk

September 4th, 2009 § 3 comments § permalink

You probably all knew it anyway, but here is a fine example of the hypocrasy of capitalism [click to enlarge]

drinkaware

£5 for 15 cans of cider. 34 pence a can.
£5 for 18 bottles of lager. 28 pence a bottle.

A pack of 10 cans of Coke will cost, from Tesco, £3.65. 37 pence a can.

The drinkaware.co.uk website says about themselves…

Drinkaware aims to change the UK’s drinking habits for the better. We promote responsible drinking and find innovative ways to challenge the national drinking culture to help reduce alcohol misuse and minimise alcohol-related harm.

Wow. Now that really is innovative. Selling alcohol cheaper than non-alcohol. I see, minimize the impact of drinking on the wallet. Very good.

N.B.
It’s not the selling of cheap beer that’s irked me, it’s the hypocrasy of pretending to care, saying one thing and doing the opposite.

back to reality

September 2nd, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

Erm. Just a quick post.

Can all these people making and watching these fucking reality TV programmes just stop it. Just fucking stop it.

Enough if enough. I don’t give two shits about someone trying to move house or renovate a house. It’s been done to death.

That bloody dinner party programme on channel four or wife swap. Fuck off. you were interesting for about two programmes and then you ran out of different types of people to put together that would annoy the crap out of each other.

Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum. Never mind programme makers, or the kids that are featured on the bloody thing, it’s the parents! “Oh, yes dear. Lets go on a programme that takes the piss out of you and shows what a useless spoilt turd you are.” It’s you, parents, that is showing that you should’ve been sterilised with a fence post! You made the little cunts like they are. Stop it!

If you’re married or are a partner to someone who makes these programmes or wants to appear on one of these freak shows, have a word. If that doesn’t work I’ve got a shiney sword you can borrow to push in brain via their ear. That should stop them.

And another thing. Just because you start running out of ordinary attention seeking fuckwits doesn’t mean that putting the word ‘celebrity’ in the title doesn’t make the programme ‘fresh again. Someone who was in a paper once because she snogged someone that was in a soap opera for ten minutes or an old cunt that was on the telly all the time in the seventies for an unfathamable reason and the overvoice needs to remind us how they are famous every time their name is mentioned and don’t know when to give it up are not famous. Their wankers.

And those cretins that are only known for being on other reality shows are not celebrities. They’re, they’re… they’re lucky no cunt’s punched them in the face with a Scania.

Then there’s the police ones. They wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t any moralising in them. We know it’s wrong to steal cars. We know that riding a scooter without a helmet while of your box on extasy with your prostitute mother hanging on the back trying to jack up is going to end in a big heap with blood everywhere.
Shut the fuck up and show the fucking car chases. And not the shitty one of a drunk bloke riding a bloody pedal bike at 2 miles an hour, either.

Cunts.

Nadine Dorries and gay babies

September 1st, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Nadine Dorries gets it wrong concerning the new law regarding names on birth certificates…

A function to attend mid morning and then the rest of the day peppered with interviews regarding the new law about to come into effect with allows lesbian couples to name who they wish on the birth certificate of a child they may have conceived and given birth to via fertility treatment.

A child with two mothers, neither of whom may have any DNA connection with the child.

So, lesbian couples are now allowed to name who they want on the birth certificate. That’s fucking great. If I was a lesbian couple, I would put on it put Batman and Marge Simpson. That’ll be something for the nipper to talk about later in life, wouldn’t it?

Seriously though, if two women are having fertility treatment, then there are two lots of egg, two uterii (*shrugs* I don’t know) and it’s gonna be highly unlikely that the treatment will involve nothing from the couple themselves, is it?

What is the difference between the women and a male and female couple having no DNA connection to their eventual offspring? Sorry, did you say something? No? Wouldn’t that make adoption for any kind of couple undesirable, regardless of sexual orientation?

…until this week was the strong and legal requirement issued by government that a birth certificate required the names of a child’s mother and father, a man and a woman.

To rephrase, until this week was the strong (wtf?) and legal requirement issued by government (it’s the law, yes?) that a birth certificate has the names of a childs’ mother and a male name. That male name could be Fred Fucking Flintstone for all the law cares, if it does actually care.

The evidence to prove that the traditional family structure, of mum, dad and children is the one which works best for a strong society is overwhelming.

The evidence may *prove* that the traditional family that Nadine suggests works best, but then it would’ve been not long ago that the traditional family structure of mum, dad, children and grandparents works best. Before that, the evidence would probably suggest that ot would be better to have lots of uncles and aunties living in the family too.
The evidence may suggest that mum, dad and the kids works best because of the lack of evidence of other family structures. What does the evidence say about kids with two mums or two dads? Does it say they grow up ok, mentally balanced and productive members of society or would the kids be turned into Teh Gays? Or is it growing up with homosexual parents going to make the young ‘un a axe wielding maniac or compulsive shoplifter?

I support civil partnership. I voted for it and I think it is fantastic that gay couples can be afforded the legal protection they were once denied and lived without. I also believe that those relationships deserved the protection, status and emotional support and comfort all marriages benefit from and enjoy.

Isn’t it nice how those gays can play at happy families now. They can even have a ceremony where they get a certificate at the end of it and everything.

However, when it comes to the nurturing and rearing of a child, that is a decision that has to be selfless.

But kids… whoa! That’s taking things toooooo far! Cos straight people never do things selfishly. Never have kids to try and save a doomed marriage and condemn a kid to an environment of backbiting and sniping, at best, in the family home. Those gays, all they think about is bumming each other and marching about the place dressed up, or down, to the nines in one of those Gay Proud marches.

The legislation about to come into effect delivers the message that the family unit which has underpinned a functioning society for thousands of years is de-valued in the eyes of the government.

Thousands of years? Hahaha! Twat.
How about looking at it the other way…it’s not de-valuing regular, straight-up marraige but saying other types of unions between two people that love each other are ok. How about we introduce a Love Test for teh Gays, just to make sure they don’t just selfishly want a fashion accessory that’s a little different from the usual toy dog hanging off their arm?
Nadine’s not usually a ‘glass is empty’ person, is she?

There is no evidence that lesbian couples stay together longer than heterosexual couples.

Do homosexual couples need to stay together *longer* than heterosexual couples? How long is long enough? I was under the impression hetero couples stayed together for 30, 40, 50 even 60 years, but I also understand that hetero couples also break up after 6 months, 12months, 2, 3, 4 years and all the years in between, too.

No evidence to show they make better parents…

There was no evidence Nadine would make a good MP either. Oh, hang on. That’s not helping my point is it?

We have many kinds of family today. I’m a single mum. We have families which consist of step-parents and children and lots of people working hard to make their new families work.

I bet Nadine really hates it when people suggest that she is a crap mother or she’s not bringing up her kids properly because she is a single mother. Is there a difference?

Some of those people wanting to work hard to make their family work just happen to love someone of the same sex as themselves. Is that wrong?

Groucho Club vs Tyrone D Murphy

August 28th, 2009 § 6 comments § permalink

After a few days of trying to find out anything concrete from an independent source, it is here, by Judith Townend…

The Groucho Club is to take libel action against an author of a book not yet published to prevent publication of allegations about the famous media haunt, Index on Censorship and Journalism.co.uk can report.

In October, a case management conference will take place at the Queen’s Bench division of the UK High Court to decide future progress of the case, Kapital Ventures and the Groucho Club London v Tyrone D Murphy and Classic Media Entertainment. The claimants expect to recover in excess of £15,000, it is stated in the claim form.

Previous to this, and the same on Index on Censorship, all that turned up in searches were comments almost exactly like the one left on my blog, press releases on free-press-release websites and a small blog by the author of the comments. Nothing authoritative or independent. Matt Wardman, who also had a comment left on his blog, tried contacting the Groucho Club directly, but they didn’t feel too chatty.

As Matt points out in his more comprehensive post on the matter, there is a precedent for this, Where solicitors Schillings acting on behalf of mercenary Colonel Tim Spicer tried to get an injunction on one of Craig Murrays’ books.

I was wary about this when brought to my attention as the manner of it looked like either a scam (that I hadn’t worked out the hook) or a ham-fisted attempt at promoting a book by an internet naive PR company. There may be an element of the latter, but it doesn’t seem that way now. At least not a scam anyway.

It seems, once again, that thanks to our archaic libel laws mean free speech is going to be either suppressed without proper chance of being proved correct or come at an enormous price, where the lawyers win.

We await more details.

For more information see:

——————————

Postscript:

  1. I don’t doubt that this libel case is real, not for a minute, but there are a couple of things that play on my mind:

    The author. On g-book.co.uk it states…

    The authors are currently seeking information to include in the book

    but then further down lists Tyrone D Murphy as the sole author. That’s a pretty basic mistake that isn’t just a spelling mistake but makes the statement inaccurate.
    In a post on his blog EF Orwell states that he is the author. Although he doesn’t mention the book or club by name, it is obvious that that is what he is talking about with the other information that we know. That’s not the usual thing to do is it? Would that get more help?

  2. g-book.co.uk has the registrant recorded as ‘g-book’. The registrant of a domain has to be a proper, real person. Who is this site really registered to? Why have they obscured themselves? What have they to hide?
  3. Who’s the anonymous Wikipedia editor

Some answers are needed, even if only to clear things up.

The Sun on Afghanistan and Gordon Brown

August 28th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

As an Editor of the Sun Lies blog I get to bask in the reflected glory of this post from Scepticisle…

it [The Sun] seems a little hazy on history as well, as this passage from the editorial makes plain:

Mr Brown has taken the country to war but is ducking responsibility for the conduct of it. The tradition of our country is that in wartime, the Prime Minister takes charge.

Lloyd George led us in World War One and Winston Churchill in World War Two.

Margaret Thatcher led from the front in the triumphant Falklands War in 1982.

John Major took charge in the first Gulf War of 1991. Tony Blair assumed full responsibility when we invaded Iraq to topple Saddam. And he did the same over the liberation of Kosovo.

Except Gordon Brown hasn’t taken the country in Afghanistan; Tony Blair did, in 2001. We’ve been there ever since. Brown as chancellor provided the funds for the war, it’s quite true, but was not personally responsible for taking us there. He also wasn’t prime minister when we entered Helmand in 2006: the defence secretary then was John Reid, who famously said he hoped that we would leave without firing a single shot. Then there’s the fact that we’re there in the country, not just on our own, but as part of the ISAF NATO coalition. Additionally, if we’re going to split hairs, Winston Churchill didn’t lead us into WW2; Neville Chamberlain did. The war in Afghanistan is also not, in any meaningful sense, a war with specific aims like all of those the Sun lists. It’s far more comparable to what we were doing in Iraq from the fall of Saddam up until our exit this year: peacekeeping, reconstruction and providing security. Missions, like Operation Panther’s Claw, which had the specific aim of clearing out Taliban so that people could vote in the presidential election, have been few and far between. As also argued above, we are quite clearly not in “wartime”.

I would like to post the lot, but that would be a little too much, I think. So, go and read the rest

Three times normal

August 26th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Three times the normal level of testosterone would be why this girl has masculine features, then. He her level is higher than, does it make her abnormal? No, of course not. Shouldn’t the word they’re looking for be ‘usual’? After all, wouldn’t they sciencey people take offence if they were described as having abnormally thick glasses because of their abnormally rubbish eyes. Not a very good example, but you get the idea. Apologies for rubbish formatting, but I had to type this out on a train like a txt message.

Posted via email from Sim-O

NotW: BNP Festival report

August 24th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

I know, I know. It’s the News of the World and the News of the World does have it’s own parking place at the Old Bailey car park.

Wouldn’t it be nice, though? To have see John Coombes and Dick Hamilton refute the claim…

A 12-year-old girl there with her dad (we are protecting her identity) held a golly called Winston over the fire as Coombes “charged” him with “mugging, rape, drug dealing”.

He sneered: “Right Winston, you’re about to get cooked. Anything else to say?

“Says he ain’t a drug dealer. He thinks he’s not black. He’s charged with being black. Now get on there.”

Skinhead Hamilton chipped in: “If he jumps off he’s innocent.” Coombes went on: “He’s guilty, guilty as charged.

“Let’s get a real one – in the town we’ll find one or two. They’ll also be guilty of the heinous crimes I charged him with – may God forgive your horrible soul.” Coombes repeated the charges then added: “He may have appeared innocent to you lot but I’m sure he done lots of things wrong.”

or for Andrew Brons to deny ever saying…

I’m less concerned about the presence of mosques than the presence of the people that use them. Being worried about the presence of a particular mosque is almost like looking at a disease like smallpox and saying it’s a problem with spots.

It would make a fantastic spectacle. These fuckers trying to deny their racist, fascist roots and all their rhetorical acrobatics to try and show how they’ve changed.

They won’t though. Because they can’t. Because underneath their carefully chosen words, they are exactly what we see them as. Racist, fascist cunts.

[screen capture including 91 comments is here. I doubt the page will change, but you never know]

Good old-fashioned values

August 21st, 2009 § 6 comments § permalink

Lancaster Unity has shown why the BNP, unlike every other well known political party, has a closed party conference.

If I was presented with the following as a policy propsal, I wouldn’t want anyone else to know either…

Teenage mothers – the problem and the solution

Any amount of sexual health education is not going to reduce Britain’s high teen pregnancy rates, whilst the ‘rewards’ for becoming an unmarried teen mother remain so [relatively] attractive. The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP. It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles.

Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.

So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.

This is not a short-term remedy, but a long-term solution. Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant – as the consequences will be positively unattractive. Of course, teenage pregnancies will never be completely eradicated, and the homes will allow for the girls who do still become teen mothers to learn how to be good parents, whilst not being fast-tracked to the top of the housing queue.

If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.

*If* you need to have what’s wrong with it explaining, go have a squint at the Lancaster Unity post.

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »