Conservative MP Anthony Steen is a cock-munch.
He’s a fucking moron.
He should be bum-raped by an angry donkey.
You have to listen to this. You have to. Seriously.
Grrrrr! I’m fucking livid. I hope his thieving hands fall off.
And his dick. I hope that drops off too.
Sphere: Related ContentI’m sorry, but… I’m not interested in politicians cleaning up their act.
I want them to be held accountable - as criminals, where necessary. If the general public dodge tax, or try to fiddle benefits, they get hammered (this government even screened ads demanding we turn each other in, if we suspect wrongdoing).
And please, don’t allow them to hide behind technicalities. These are our elected leaders. They, supposedly, serve at our pleasure.
Why should politicians be allowed to say sorry, promise to do better, and keep their ill-gotten loot? If they do, why shouldn’t future politicians not be allowed to wet their beak? No, no, NO! Every claim that can’t be justified as wholly legitimate should be paid back. I don’t give a runny shit whether it costs £10m to investigate and claim back £500,000 - I WANT IT BACK.
Why are they so special, and why are their proposals so clearly designed to allow much of this to continue?
It’s not just Labour. Our politics - all of it - is broken.
Sphere: Related ContentSunny has a post over at LC commenting on the McBride/Draper affair. Sunny asserts that, surely, Derek Draper’s scandalous and counterproductive foray into the blogosphere is over. Done. Finished. Kaputt.
I hope so. Draper is not only “poisonous for the Labour party”, he has become a toxic presence that is soiling the entire medium. It’s almost as if Dolly’s a MSM agent, planted within the blogosphere to undermine the medium and bring it down from within.
He is a virus. A horrid bacterium that has spread, uncontrolled, through the online community. It’s time he slithered away.
But the thing is… there… just now… I fed the goat. That’s what Dolly wants. That’s what Guido wants. These wankers are HUGE ego-whores. They want you talking about them. Good or bad. They’re like the vacuous coked-up clothes horses that populate the celeb rags, they’re obsessed with publicity.
And you, I, we’re all just doing exactly what they fucking want. We’re talking about them. Aggghhhh!!!
I could write a hugely informed post about how Paul “Guido” Staines is a hypocrite for slating McBride/Draper, when he’s a pioneer of mud-slinging hate politics (chicken and egg?), but I’d be FEEDING THE FUCKING GOAT!
So please, I beg you, let’s stop waxing their egos and ignore these two self-seving wankers.
I repeat…
The controversial Barclays memos, which the bank has blocked The Guardian from publishing, have been submitted to WikiLeaks - the anonymous online document database.
The documents expose Barclays “tax-avoidance” measures - scamming tax-payers out of over £1bn.
Today Barclays secured the continuation of the gag order, including a provision which stops the paper from pointing its readers in the direction of the Wikileaks page.
Sunny is requesting that bloggers step and in and link to the memos, making a mockery of Barclays’ attempts to block public knowledge of their alleged deception. Click here to view.
Sphere: Related ContentFrom Craig’s blog ::
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has agreed to hear my evidence on torture on Tuesday 28 April at 1.45pm. Many thanks to everyone who helped lobby for this.
I am delighted, as I have been trying for over four years to lay the truth about British torture policy before Parliament. I will testify that as British Ambassador I was told there is a very definite policy to accept intelligence from torture abroad, and that the policy was instituted and approved by Jack Straw when Foreign Secretary. I will tell them that as Ambassador I protested formally three times in writing to Jack Straw, and that the Foreign Office told me in reply to my protests that this was perfectly legal.
I will prove my evidence with documentation….
Hat-tip Jennie (email), who wonders whether the MSM will run with this significant story? We’ll see. If the blogosphere makes a big deal, then I would imagine The Guardian will pick it up.
Sphere: Related ContentCraig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, is need of your assistance ::
On Tuesday 10 March the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will discuss whether or not to hear my evidence on the UK government’s policy of using intelligence from torture. They discussed whether to hear my evidence on 3 March but failed to reach a conclusion.
The government is lobbying hard for my exclusion. I need everybody to send an email to jchr@parliament.uk to urge that I should be allowed to give evidence. Just a one-liner would be fine. If you are able to add some comment on the import of my evidence, or indicate that you have heard me speak or read my work, that may help. Please copy your email to craigjmurray@tiscali.co.uk.
Please also pass on this plea to anyone you can and urge them to act. Help from other bloggers in posting this appeal would be much appreciated.
The evidence I am trying to give the parliamentary committee is this:
I wish to offer myself as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.
I appeared as a witness in person before both the European Parliament and European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition. My evidence was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.
Murray goes on to outline the key points he wishes to make to the JCHR.
Craig Murray has a history of fighting for universal human rights. As a result of his outspoken criticisms of Islam Karimov’s brutal regime in Uzbekistan, Murray was withdrawn as an ambassador. Since leaving this post, Murray has continued to campaign for the rights of those suffering at the hands of “friendly” governments, and to question the UK government’s complicity in torture.
Now is the time for you to do your part.
Please send an email and let’s get Craig’s voice heard.
Sphere: Related ContentSunder has published an open letter to Paul Dacre, the fabulously remunerated editor of The Daily Mail.
Reproduced in full.
Dear Mr Dacre,
I was disappointed to read reported in today’s Daily Mail that the newspaper regards it as a mistake to consider that the children or grandchildren of immigrants are British, but rather would classify us as “second or third generation immigrants”.
although the figures from the Government’s Office for National Statistics show an increase in numbers of foreign born people they still fail to record the true impact of immigration because they record their children as British rather than second or third generation immigrants.
I hope that your proposed reclassification of Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry as not British, as second and third generation immigrants descended from the foreign-born Phillip, will not distress them too much.
But it does seem most ungrateful, when Winston Churchill was voted ‘greatest Briton’, to now strip him of that status because he had an American mother. (However strongly your newspaper disagreed with Churchill’s criticisms of appeasement in the 1930s, isn’t it now time to let bygones be bygones?)
Perhaps you could let us know who the Daily Mail thinks is truly British. I can see you probably think it is too late for my children - as “third generation immigrants”, currently aged under 3 - but perhaps there might be a tip or two they could pass on to their descendants.
So, given our shared interests in integration and citizenship, it would be terribly kind if you might let us know whether there is anything that those of us who were born here as British citizens could ever do so as to become British in your eyes.
Yours sincerely,
Sunder Katwala
Well, I always presumed my kids were British. Oooops!
Sorry, my bad.
I’ll turn in their passports in the morning. Now, Mr. Dacre, are they also required to wear some kind of identifying clothing? An armband maybe?
Sphere: Related ContentA few sites are hosting Craig Murray’s latest book The Catholic Orangemen of Togo and Other Conflicts I Have Known, and tygerland is one of them (we’re published in Utah, doncha know?).
Anyway… the controversial back-story, as to why the book was pulled by Craig’s publishers, can be found here. It’s seems those pesky buggers at Schillings are at it again. Craig is keen for his story to be told, and is releasing the book FOC.
The book is in three parts.
*** Front_Cover *** Intro_pages *** main_body ***
Craig has self-published a few copies, and if you want a hard copy, go here.
Update: John Hirst has posted the document using iPaper (good idea). I have reproduced it after the break.
Sphere: Related ContentFrom the Indi ::
Opposition parties believe Mr Brown is keen to ensure the full investigation does not report until after the next general election, which must be held by June 2010. Although the controversial 2003 invasion was seen as “Tony Blair’s war”, Mr Brown has backed it and said he would not have acted differently.
David Cameron demanded a “robust, independent inquiry”, saying it is vital to learn lessons which could help during the campaign in Afghanistan. With up to 400 troops remaining in Iraq, there is a chance the investigation could be delayed for “many, many years”, he said.
Does it bother anyone else that Cameron is pushing this? He strongly supported the war, and he’s got known neconservatives, such as Michael Gove, Edward Vaizey, Stephen Hammond and David Willetts, among his inner circle.
I hope publications such as the Indi, which have been so easy on Slippery Dave in the past, don’t allow the Tories to re-write history so easily.
Only the Lib Dems (and a few backbenches on both sides) have any credibility on this issue. Only they questioned the bullshit. Cameron and his cronies have none.
Sphere: Related ContentBBC: Brown rejects early Iraq inquiry
I have no doubt that if a full and thorough enquiry was held into how we got embroiled in the Iraq War, we’d find that indeed evidence was cooked and we (by which I mean Parliament) were bullshitted into war.
I do have doubts, however, that’ll any enquiry will be “allowed” to expose a sitting government’s lies. (That said, American law enforcement agencies - especially empowered by a change in leadership - have freedoms that could blow the lid off any smothering of facts. I fancy that an institutional whitewash over here may be exposed by our friends over the pond.)
Nick Clegg and David Cameron are now playing games requesting that the promised enquiry be undertaken now - as a planned date for withdrawal has been announced.
I’m sorry boys, but that was never the deal. Brown agreed to an enquiry when troops were OUT of the country. So that’s sometime after June - not now, 6-months before the draw-down has even begun.
While I think Brown is as slippery as the rest of the New Labour snakes, I do think he has a genuine case to sit on an enquiry.
Most of us suspect that the whole blanket of lies will unravel given half-an-hour of serious scrutiny, this would leave many soldiers questioning the chain of command that has put them in harm’s way (although going by the average squaddie online forum, they sussed this out long ago).
If we’ve waited this long, I can’t see a problem waiting until late Summer for an enquiry.
Of course what these two little scallies are up to, is trying to derail the PM’s recent semi-revival. They know the dire economic news, which should be suffocating the former chancellor, is actually oxygenating his premiership.
That the economic crisis is improving Brown’s poll numbers is incredibly unjust, but that fact that it annoys the Tories so much, certainly makes it easier to digest.
Clegg and Cameron know that bringing up Iraq will only hurt Brown. So rather than waiting patiently for the enquiry, and allowing the army an orderly withdrawal, they’re pushing for it now. It’s merely the usual party politics.
A pox on all their houses.
Sphere: Related ContentYou’ve gotta love this Johanna Kaschke character.
Once a member of Galloway’s Respect Party, and - care of Labour and some communist outfit - Kaschke is now a Kool-Aid drinking Conservative ideologue.
That’s some journey, eh? In only a year too. Such gymnastics should be admirable. But in politics? Not so much.
It seems like she’d climb aboard any old ship, if she thought it would ferry her to political stardom beyond the modest chairmanship, sorry chairpersonship, of her local Neighbourhood Watch Scheme (yeah, you know the sort). May I respectfully suggest one of the many exciting opportunities available within your local PTA?
Now it appears to me that political conviction isn’t the only thing in short supply here, as Ms. Kaschke is suing a few bloggers over pieces they have either written (see Dave Olser and John Gray) or “hosted” (as in the case of Alex Hilton). Kaschke is also, apparently, desperately in need of a little political savvy (not to mention some thicker skin).
Now here is free piece of advice, Johanna (I’m feeling festive today, you’re in luck)…
Taking on the blogosphere is rather like upsetting a beehive. Yeah you’ll probably get over the one sting soon enough, but then the colony turns up and its collective toxin can be fatal to a fledgling political career (one thing that can be guaranteed, is that your name will soon be mud across teh interwebs).
Seriously, you even try and get elected if we’re energised in opposition.
Now it seems to me that you’re not cut out for the cut-and-thrust of politics. Yeah you probably rule over your committee of curtain-twitching crime fighters with Teutonic efficiency, but you really should find another hobby if you’re going to sue everyone who has the temerity to challenge you. You’re just going to become a nuisance and an embarrassment.
This is big-girl politics, Johanna. And I think it’s waaaaaay out of your league.
Pssst! Johanna! Any legal challenges to this article should be made in the State of Utah, where this blog is hosted. Not that taking the piss is actionable, of course. :-p
Sphere: Related ContentI really don’t want to pile in on this bullshit.
But..
If Damian Green did ‘groom’ a mole, then he’s accountable. Full stop.
Leaks are par the course. Journalists and politicians alike are guilty of enjoying the fodder provided by leaks, but like all aspects of Westminster and the wider world, journos and politicians are governed by law.
The investigation is paramount. Let’s wait until it concludes, huh?
Sphere: Related ContentFor the record.
It will surprise no-one that I’m not on the BNP list. As someone who’s liberal to a fault, I think it’s fair to say that the party is run by a group of hateful fucktards. That said, whoever leaked the list online, should be arrested for incitement to violence - or whatever else the police can pin on them.
One’s politics, however hateful and vindictive, should never be reason for violence. Whoever leaked this list must know of the damage it would do to the people featured on this list - many of whom, I’m sure, are frustrated with British politics, rather than being conscious racists or bigots.
I do hope this story will fizzle out without incident.
Sphere: Related ContentOn the 3rd of this month I wrote about how “Jon Gaunt is the most appalling hypocrite”. I pointed out that even though Gaunty had spent years railing against New Labour’s “nanny state”, his own moral politics demand even greater state control over our lives.
In this week’s column, Gaunt’s confused and duplicitous idea of state intervention was evident, as he tackles the tricky subject of Baby P - a story that has dominated the news cycle ::
A child needs a mum and a dad if possible.
[...]
The doctrine of always trying to keep the “family” together is garbage.
Jon walks his carefully constructed nuance with the words “if possible” and “always”. He carefully checks the box marked “golden rule of rightwing social populism: the traditional family unit is best”, and qualifies it by claiming that in fact this premise is “garbage”. So which is it, Jon?
Also, this “doctrine” you speak of?
Social services remove children from their unfit parents all the time, usually to the righteous indignation of rightwing populists like as Gaunt. That the nuclear family is best, and that social services merely meddle in people’s lives, has always been The Sun’s default position.
Never has there been a doctrine of keeping kids with abusive parents. As one of our writers wrote this week, working in the Social Services is a thankless career. You’re criticised for interfering in family life, yet you’re crucified in the national press if you’re too cautious in breaking up a family and a case turns into a criminal one.
Indeed, without even the slightest awareness of his own inconsistency, Gaunt for the second time in as many columns, refers to the Social Services (who he’s arguing weren’t strict or interventionist enough) as the “SS” - unsubtly comparing the department to Hitler’s Schutzstaffel (this was also, no doubt, a little dig at his current personal woes).
You can’t, in all seriousness, allude to the SS and then accuse the Social Service system of being wishy washy.
Now Jon Gaunt grew up in the care system. So he should be forgiven for having a complex view of the role of social services in our lives - but let’s be frank, a careful and informed opinion hardly fits Gaunt’s bombastic populism, does it?
This is the problem with this brand of lazy commentary: Gaunt and others are allowed to flit between attacking the nanny state for its social excess and demanding that heads roll when they’re accused of not interfering enough.
Commentators never adhere to the same consistency they demand from politicians: a blatant disregard for the privileged position they hold in our society.
Bringing politics into the debate
Also in the same column; Jon Gaunt condemns Gordon Brown for accusing David Cameron of trying to score political points, during a PMQ session that featured a heated exchange over failures in the case of Baby P.
There was no party politics. But Labour have been playing at social engineering for the past 11 years. I believe the ultimate responsibility lies with them and the Guardianistas that they have created in every section of public life.
So in the very same paragraph where he argues that Cameron wasn’t attempting to bring party politics into the debate, Gaunt launches into a partisan tirade against who he blames for the baby’s death.
Hypocrisy? Gaunty? Never!
So it’s not with the abusive mother and boyfriend, where the “the ultimate responsibility lies”, or indeed the Haringey social services, but with the government and those loathsome Guardian readers [meme alert!].
Of course everyone directly involved in Baby P’s case must be sacked.
How very big of you Jon. Without knowing the outcome of either the police or government investigations, Lord Gaunty feels qualified to demand the immediate termination of everyone involved.
Is this not lynch mob journalism at its very worst?
Originally written for The Sun - Tabloid Lies.
Sphere: Related ContentSo yesterday there was a rather distasteful kafuffle at PMQ’s over the political fallout over the sad story of Baby P.
I just said over at Justin’s that this is a case of shame on both their houses. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder…
Cameron must be getting pissed off with Brown’s constant and blunt refusal to answer a straight question. And it is the duty of the LOHMLO to hold the government to account. I can understand if Cameron becomes annoyed if the PM continues to belittle his questioning by his avoidance techniques, but then Cameron should have risen above the fray once it was clear Brown wasn’t going to retract the accusation of playing party politics.
Had he made his feelings clear and moved on, he would have been the Statesman to Brown’s partisan beast.
In truth Cameron probably did see capital in this line of question. It’s in his nature. Anyone who watches Cameron closely could say he is anything more than a political animal. He’s never convinced me of any hidden intellectual or ideological vigour. He’s a careerist and a prominently placed spin-doctor.
That said, Brown was a fool to challenge Cameron - as the questioning itself didn’t provide clear political malice. It was a reasonable line of questioning (even if it was probably tinged with a deliberate intent to show Labour in a bad light - not that this is necessarily a bad thing, as Labour do have serious questions to answer).
Had he any real class though, Cameron would have called Brown on his slur, and moved on. We don’t pay Cameron to be overly sensitive.
For a brilliant analysis of a terrible day for Westminster, try Septicisle’s article at LC. (update) I did start reading the comments on Iain’s predictably hyperbolic outrage post, but really many of these people are so partisan and reactionary, it’s a waste of my time. I think Iain is a very talented writer and I can’t say I dislike the guy, but his penchant for exaggerated outrage is tiresome. I really wish he could return to his more independent musing.
Neither of two party leaders excelled yesterday.
Sphere: Related Content
Liberal Conspiracy
Comments