Archive for October, 2005

Place your bets please!

Monday, October 31st, 2005

Good old Blunkett's been caught out yet again with his swashbuckling style of ministerial sleaze. Another month, another broken rule, another shifty Labour minister becomes unstuck. So Blair wades in to save Blunkett's skin yet again, and starts by trying to dismiss the criticism as "tittle tattle". When this doesn't stick and the pressure mounts he uses his favourite trick, blame someone else. Step forward one Gus O'Donnell. He's going write a "report" on whether Blunkett breached ministerial code by accepting a directorship at a DNA testing company (obviously something very close to his heart…or maybe a bit lower). Despite Blunkett admitted that he breached the code, Blair is going ahead with his report anyway.

So when the report exonerates Blunkett – and I'd be gobsmacked if it didn't – Blair can lean on this and avoid having to make any personal judgement whatsoever. "The report finds Blunkett entirely innocent and so the matter is now closed", he'll bark. Anyone bet a fiver?

Censorship is state terrorism

Thursday, October 20th, 2005

Paul Gobbins is the Home Office Minister responsible for internet crime. In an interview with the [url=,16376,1595599,00.html]Guardian[/url] today, he attempts to justify his proposals for internet restrictions and monitoring. His vision of the internet is pretty terrifying – he says "We know we can't just say 'there's nothing we can do about it, it's the internet and it's just got to carry on'. We know we have to find ways of placing limitations on the use of the internet for criminal purposes, and then to be able to police it."

Let me repeat that last little gem "to be able to police it". Just as they do in China? Just as they do in North Korea? Burma? Once the legislative framework is in place to enable any specific type of monitoring, like "terrorism", it will only take a few keystrokes to broaden the remit to include everyone else. This means that eventually the state will record our every internet movement, our every email, shopping purchase, news preference, subscription, blog – every click, pop-up, banner, virus, spam will be recorded against our name. Once they are able to do this for "exceptional" circumstances, then they eventually will find more and more exceptions – it is a process that cannot be stopped.

My little blog is a perfect example of of how the internet works – it's a platform to have my say. I'm not imposing my views/rantings, I'm just offering what I have to say to anyone who chooses to read it. Those of you that do read it can fully trust that my views have not been censored or edited – you might not agree with my views but at least you know that they are my views. I am inviting discussion and an exchange of opinion so that we can collectively learn together what it is to live in a civilised society (though I doubt that the lack of comments is an indication of agreement!).

This is freedom of speech and if these publications become subject to restriction by an authority, then the freedom and trust is lost. You will have no way of knowing if what you are reading is complete and genuine.

The justification of this proposed internet policing is, yet again, "terrorism". All ministers have been made to repeat the same spin until we believe it. Paul Gobbins states "Freedom of speech is important. It's enshrined in our culture and is something we guard fiercely. But the right to life is the most fundamental human right". Blair uses this tactic very often: state how passionate you are about something so much that when you immediately and subtlety contradict yourself, your audience still has the initial plaudits echoing in their ears. If freedom of speech is so important, how come he's wanting to curtail it? History has shown that every state that restricts civil liberties are the states that abuse human rights. That is why communism was never successful because it removed accountability by the people. This leads to a broadening of the gap between the higher and lower classes – the rulers and the ruled. It is difficult to respect those with whom you are not in touch, and even harder to recify once you have removed their voice.

Yes, there are bad people out there wanting to infect us with filth, fraud and greed, but the police should use the internet to their advantage and restrict the perpetrators but not the medium itself.

If this government really beliefs in civil liberties, then stop pretending that terrorism will go away just by gagging people. They should try understanding what makes people want to blow themselves up in the first place – usually an overwhelming sense of frustration of having their views and beliefs repressed.

Damn animals

Saturday, October 15th, 2005

Every evening my small London garden is attacked by a troupe of incontinent foxes that leave the most disgusting turds in my flower bed. For once, I can't blame Tony Blair. Oh, hang on – yes I can!! Fox hunting's been banned!!
If anyone has a cunning plan to restore the colour of my garden from beige to green, then I'd be very, very grateful for your help.
Please, it's bad.

Is it a coincidence…

Tuesday, October 11th, 2005

…that when I read a news article that really makes my bloody boil, it's usually about the same person – Tony Bloody Blair! I'm sorry for ranting on (well, almost), but this cretin has done it again. Whilst defending his ludicrous anti-terror plans, he claims that it would be "irresponsible" to ignore police calls to let them hold terrorists for 90 days without charge. It sounds like he's trying to blame the police for this and that he is servant to their demands. Furthermore he states "That is what we need to make this country safe". I've never heard so much crap in all my life! He is saying that internment (which is exactly what it is) will stop terrorist attacks. Actually I agree, this would work – if we lock up every man and woman between the ages of 5 and 90 (which conveniently includes Walter Wolfgang).

Whenever he tries to make contentious policy, he always blames some other authority as justification for his actions. He's blamed the police here just as he blamed the JIC when excusing himself from taking us into an illegal war. The man appears incapable of taking responsibility for being Prime Minister because he has surrounded himself by 'yes' men and women. History has shown many times that this is never a good idea – the film Downfall show this very nicely indeed.

People seem to gloss over the content of the tripe that spouts out of his mouth because we have become so used to the effluent of political lies and spin. People seem hypnotised by his oration and charisma instead of hearing the dangerous agenda he is setting for our democracy. I honestly believe that he's even hypnotised himself and has started believing his own flawed reasoning.

Charles Clark, the Minister for Lies and Deception, was asked by the Commons home affairs committee whether people supporting Nelson Mandela's ANC would have fallen foul of his proposed legislation that outlaws the glorification of terrorism. His answer was "people would not have been guilty merely by not condemning the ANC". Yes folks, that really was his reply. Anyone else getting worried?