Rot in hell…

Bob Crow, leader of the RMT union died today, aged 52.

Twitter is awash with the usual guff and hypocrisy from people who were calling him a cunt a week ago.

It’s true that he was a cunt a week ago, and for some time before that. Now he’s dead and I’m not at all minded to revise my opinion of him.

I think he would respect that. After all,


Union leader Bob Crow has said Margaret Thatcher can "rot in hell" for what she did to the country during her time as prime minister.

Crow, the general secretary of the RMT union, told BBC Radio London on Wednesday evening that Thatcher
"created an ideological argument to attack working people" during her time in office and that there were "loads of loads of people who lost their houses, jobs and committed suicide because of what she did".

So as tempted as I am to retort that Bob can rot in hell, I don’t want him to go to hell. I certainly don’t want to have to share hell with that disgusting communist yobbo when I get there.


Climate Agenda Exposed in its Naked Glory…

Okay, it’s the Grauniad and the Grauniad has forever been the home of loopers and wingnuts.

This, however, deserves special mention.


Read and weep, and be in no further doubt about the bizarre aims of lefty environmentalist types. They want to abolish the system that may not produce fairness as they understand it in their blinkered world, but has lifted billions out of actual poverty in the last 100 years.

But that’s the left for you. They’d rather we were all scratching around in the mud, eating moss and living to be 35. Because THAT would be a fairer system.


Deluge II…

As if to illustrate some of the points I made in my last post, and for a very useful insight into what’s gone on to apparently precipitate the floods on the Somerset Levels, see this excellent blog post from EUReferendum:


Gradually, the message on the EU’s involvement in the flood debacle is leaking out via the internet , so much so that about the only place you won’t get any details is the UKIP website.

But even if the EU-supporting Mail can’t avoid talking about the role of the EU (unlike UKIP), pride of place now goes to the Spectator, which gives over its lead to Booker, who explains what has been going on – unlike UKIP.

It has taken six long weeks, Booker writes, to uncover the real hidden reasons why, from the West Country to the Thames Valley, the flooding caused by the wettest January on record has led to such an immense national disaster.

Read on…


The deluge…

Prompted by various tweets, not least this one:

I’ve been thinking about the floods that have blighted many parts of the south and south-west of England.

Whose fault it it? Well, I think it’s the government’s fault. A combination of incompetence and misdirected funding seems to be at the bottom of it all.

But what about the householders? As Billy points out above, these people moved into a flood plain, so what do they expect?

Well there are a number of things here, particularly with respect to the floods in Berkshire, along the Thames.

1) There is massive pressure on housing in the south*. The ratio of earnings to house-prices has gone utterly crazy due to various factors, but not least planning laws. Successive governments – with their stranglehold on planning, and the revenue benefits they gained from an overheated property market – failed to enable sufficient levels of house-building. While some may claim that the government did everything they could, they actually tied developers up in masses of costly red-tape relating to a chimera of sustainability, environmentalism, conservation and allocations of ‘affordable’ and ‘key worker’ properties. The fall out of the banking crisis (unwittingly architected by the government) caused credit problems for buyers and builders alike, which also stalled things.

2) Where a property is on a flood plain, there clearly is some risk from flooding, and it’s reasonable to suppose that information is priced in. I.e. an equivalent property in a place not at risk of floods would be more expensive. This prices those people not at the top-end of the salary scale out of the market for ‘safe’ properties, and makes the riskier propositions their only option. While it’s true that some buyers may not consider the risk, or may ignore it, the fact is the information is in the price, and the price is the indicator to which the buyer responds.

3) There are many activities that are no business of the state. Nevertheless, the state in the UK sticks its nose into many of them. Equally, if the state is to exist at all, its core obligations are those are national defence, and protection of common property and infrastructure. As above, the state circumscribes the places where property can be built. It therefore mandatorily relieves individuals and businesses of the right to make those decisions freely and therefore from taking responsibility for the consequences. Ultimately, it is the state who has granted planning permission to build on flood plains so the obligation on the state is to do everything reasonable to ensure those pieces of land are fit for purpose now and in the future.

So in effect, while the state cannot be held responsible for the weather, it can be responsible for creating a situation where thousands of homes are on flood plains, and the inhabitants have little choice but to live where they can best afford to, considering income and the need to be proximate to employment, services, transport links, family etc. It can also be held responsible for failing to take reasonable steps to protect those compelled to live is places at risk from flooding.

Tempting as it is for the lazy intellect, it’s decidedly unfair to reduce the problem to one of “you moved to a flood plain, WTF did you expect? *no sympathy*”

It is FAR more reasonable to reduce the problem to one of “The government should have done more to provide suitable infrastructure and maintenance to protect the land it zoned for development, and importantly the money should have come from not doing something else that is a lower priority (or none of its damned business).”

It is, again, the state that has failed here. No point blaming the rats trapped in the sinking ship.


*I’m not touching on immigration here, but population density and demand for property are clearly influenced by this as well.

Smoking ban extended up your arse…

I am an inveterate smoker.

I’m still angry about the smoking ban 8 years after it entered the statute book for England. The letter of the law to be implemented was peevish beyond all adult reasoning.

Actually legislating that ‘smoking shelters’ must be engineered specifically to prevent smokers being sheltered from the elements. Resisting every call for business owners to be able to make their own decisions about smoking on their premises, or even to be allowed to provide a ventilated segregated indoor space for smokers.

That every public building must legally carry – even now – a very specific sign indicating that this particular activity is against the law. The way the railway companies were able to demarcate their entire premises – even the outdoors – non-smoking, such that you couldn’t have a fag at the far end of a platform at a remote station that is entirely in the open air.

It’s with glee that I read every year that the pub trade has been decimated again, thanks greatly to the brewers, owners and CAMRA who all acted like idiot lickspittles, bedevilled by denial of what was about to hit them like a steam train.

I think all those who endorsed the smoking ban then, and those who endorse it today, are massive despicable cunts. Which is mild and non-committal compared to how I felt – and still feel – about those who brought this into law.

But strangely, I don’t feel in the slightest bit upset about the latest ratcheting up of this law. Today, MPs voted themselves the right to make it illegal to smoke in a vehicle that contains children.


In fact, I’ve been chuckling about it for weeks. I’m not glad the MPs finally voted in the affirmative, but now they have I’m grinning like a Cheshire Cat.


Well for a start, I don’t have children. In the 20+ years of my driving career, I think I’ve had someone’s kids in my car about twice, and I hated every minute of it. Put your seatbelt on, sit down, and fucking shut up you little bastards. So it doesn’t affect me.

Secondly, it’s just absurd isn’t it? How can it possibly be enforced? Does it apply to convertible cars with the roof down? How about sunroofs? How about cars with blacked out rear windows and an absence of ‘princess on board’ pendants? A law that cannot be enforced is at best pointless, and at worst a lever for all kinds of arbitrary and random enforcement by our nation’s burgeoning army of shiny jacketed simian enforcement mongs, and the serried ranks of pucker-faced citizen informers with their welfare-funded iPhones. Again, however, it doesn’t affect me.

Thirdly, buses, vans, lorries, taxis and an increasing proportion of cars are diesel powered. Diesel engines produce massively carcinogenic soot particles in the 10-100 micron range, which get breathed in by children in cars that are behind said vehicles, where their parents aren’t smoking. Still, doesn’t affect me.

I think I’m just smiling because for once the government have done something cuntish – which they do frequently – that doesn’t affect me. I’m not laughing at you so much as I’m elated with relief that for once I don’t have to take the big rusty unlubed cock of government up my arse. It’s someone else’s turn.

So, forgive me but.. Hahahahahahaaa fuck YOU for a change.

The child benefit changes made me smile too. Perhaps the tide is turning against this mindless vomit-inducing vote-chasing veneration of hard-working families, most of whom should probably have been sterilised in the first place.

Anyway, off to Malta for a month, nice and cheap,  before you plebs are allowed to take your children away on holiday and the prices all quadruple.

Chin chin.



I won’t bother to rehash the goings-on in #Plebgate, whereby some coppers stitched up a Tory cabinet minister, forcing his resignation.

The copper at the centre of the investigation about this matter has been sent to prison.


While I was busy laughing that this idiot’s ‘misfortune’, a Twitter type (@MoodySlayerUK) pointed this out which Ibelieve was put out on Twitter by @UKLabour (The Labour Party’s official Twitter account):

Embedded image permalink

Well, chaps. I think we know the answer to that one now, don’t we.

Related, this doesn’t exactly show Cameron in a particularly good light either – he failed to give Mitchell sufficent benefit of the doubt or support, and effectively had the final say on Mitchell’s resignation.

Stupid Labour twats. Stupid Tory twats. Stupid police twats. Be gone, the bloody lot of you.


A Sledgehammer to Crack a Numpty

Today, a 23 year old woman was remanded in custody pending sentencing, after pleading guilty to writing ‘words in a box’ on Twitter that were deemed by the CPS to be menacing. She was one of two people charged under section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 – a rotten piece of legislation about which much has been written over the past few years, all kicked off by the ordeal that Paul Chambers went through when charged under this legislation prior to the CPS issuing guidelines on its application to social media.


So, type some words, go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not cash your giro. Pretty disgusting, really. And whatever words were typed, this is more disgusting.

There is also the suggestion that the law targeted this pair because the ‘hardcore trolls’ who work under cover of anonymity are too hard to find. They had to be seen to be doing something.

"These are just two people – there are many others who said the most awful, graphic things to me and they are not even under investigation. It feels very much like a pyrrhic victory."

Criado-Perez said other threats had described mutilating her genitalia, stalking her outside her house, beating and gang-raping her. "It doesn’t feel like justice has been done when those people are just going to get away with it. The two people who pleaded guilty today are just the ones the police could track – the others are walking free."

The actual words in a box written by Isabella Sorley have not been published at this time (I’m sure you could find them if you Googled hard enough), but I think we can be certain there’s nothing to commend them.

It seems, though, that they must somehow have been deemed more serious than those of John Nimmo who was bailed rather than remanded in custody.

Or perhaps other considerations were in play. Does she have a longer rap sheet than him? History of absconding or not answering bail? It’ll be interesting to know more about this.

What’s certain is that a woman who is a first class internet attention seeker, whose Twitter bio says “Feminism is here to liberate women – all women. Including the ones you don’t like” made a complaint about words posted to her on Twitter, resulting in a woman being imprisoned.


Script that, Linehan!


UPDATE: The plot thickens, and my wonderings about Sorley’s criminal record weren’t far off the mark.

She also sent the message: "I’ve only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!(sic) #tenfeetunder not scared at what you will do!"

The article linked also has more details of what the two offenders posted:

In a separate set of messages sent to Criado-Perez, John Nimmo, 25, told her "shut up bitch" and "Ya not that gd looking to rape u be fine" followed by "I will find you (smiley face)" and then the message "rape her nice ass", the court was told.

I have to say, while I don’t think these tweets are particularly pleasant, I don’t see them as particularly menacing – more like ill-advised idle nonsense.

It’s a real shame that Nimmo pleaded guilty, because it’d have been interesting to see the charges against him tested in court.

I don’t know whether the recipient of the messages is genuine or hamming it up in her victim impact statement, but I’m shaking my head either way:

"Caroline Criado-Perez has suffered life-changing psychological effects from the abuse which she received on Twitter," she told the court.

"In particular, the menacing nature of the tweets sent by both defendants caused her significant fear that they would find her and carry out their threats," she said.

Life changing psychological effects from the abuse she received on Twitter? *Sigh* If only there was some way to block or mute unpleasant people on Twitter.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: