As reported all over the shop, Diane Abbott tweeted something last night that got a few people’s backs up:

I understand that the tweet was quite quickly deleted by Abbott, but not before it had been retweeted across the Twit-o-globe.

There have been myriad tweets of outrage and disgust at her outburst, and her attempt this morning to explain the comment away was feeble to say the least.

Whatever, Diane.

Toby Young thinks that her tweet was racist.

But the thing is this:

In and of itself, with or without context, the only thing that is wrong with Diane’s tweet is that it is logically fallacious.

I don’t care if it’s racist or not. Everyone’s a little bit racist, as the song goes.

I don’t even care that she is guilty of hypocrisy. We all are.

The problem is this. Diane Abbott has been a prominent member of a movement and a government that has lobbied and legislated for an environment in which people have to be careful what they say, for fear of being accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, sectarianism or some other bigotry.

Those who would seek offence have been empowered with the coercive force of the law.

Society and its discourse have been all the poorer for it in the last 10 years.

Those of us who hold forth views for discussion on the Internet, or in any other debating forum, are constantly walking on egg-shells around any number of ‘delicate’ subjects, lest the full force not just of opprobrium but of the law be brought down upon our heads.

So when someone like Diane Abbott breaks one of the eggshells, she has to be shown forcefully and mercilessly what the consequences of that are,  in the stifling and oppressive environment that she has helped to create.

I’m given to believe that she has now issued an apology. Of sorts. She does not believe that she was making generalisations about white people. Well look, Diane, I don’t care, frankly and I wish that we lived in a society where your tweet ne’er raised so much as an eyebrow.

But we don’t, and it’s your fault. Suck it up.

AJ

There’s a particularly stupid and facile blog post at the UK Uncut site, which is being retweeted to death, comme ci:

And it goes a bit like this:

Yesterday I was arrested inside Topshop on Oxford Street after just two minutes of protesting.

Hahahahhaa.. carry on.

For chanting “pay your tax”, two snarling beefcake thugs hired by Topshop bent my arms behind my back, shoved me in front of two coppers, who then frog marched me out to the back of the store

It’s probably not the whole truth to say that all this happened for ‘”chanting ‘pay your tax’”. More likely it happened for committing a breach of the peace, or disrupting the lawful right of the trader to trade, and the consumer to consume.

and onto the police station, where I remained for seven hours.

I think this is what parents would call, “sending you to your room, to think about what you have done"

Police station cells are barren concrete holes where the only signs of life come from the immortal carvings etched into the wooden bench by some previous guests of the State.

Yesterday’s police cell promoted two things things: 1)Walking in a circle 2)Thinking………

And yet. as is so often the case with recalcitrant children, this thinking time culminated in all the wrong conclusions.

Why on earth are the police protecting the likes of Topshop, Vodafone, Boots, and Barclays bank!!

Well… why on earth should they not protect lawful businesses from a disruptive rabble?

This is crucial, you see. As far as I am aware, while some of these organisations may have had favourable tax arrangements agreed by Dave Hartnett of HMRC, who we can agree is a common enemy, they have not broken any law.

The bosses of these companies take an active interest in reducing their contributions to public funds.

The ‘bosses’ – a telling expression – of publically listed companies have a legal obligation to do just that – minimise the amount of company funds they surrender in taxes and levies by all legal means – and to do otherwise would be a dereliction of their duties as company directors. FACT.

9 people got arrested yesterday, six in London, and three in Nottingham. Dozens of police heavys guarded the front of Vodafone, Boots, and Arcadia stores across the country.

I’m no fan of the police, and am always ready to point at them and shout “THUG”, but why would they not protect these businesses? #UKuncut had been vocal about their planned actions. Like it or not, these companies pay corporation tax and significant business rates, which entitle them to the protection of the police, when a threat against them has been published.

You might think that they should pay more tax and rates, but the law says they should not. They are observing the law as it lies. If you don’t like what they’re doing, campaign to change the law.

The political Right in this country like to talk about the horrors of a “something for nothing” culture.

First of all, let’s identify what this author considers to be “the political Right [sic] in this country” who “talk about the horrors of a ‘something for nothing’”.

The latest British Social Attitudes Survey is instructive in this respect. [Although their website is broken at the moment so I have to draw from press sources]

A MAJORITY of the British now believe unemployed benefits are too high, oppose extra taxes for public spending and are increasingly against higher charges to protect the environment, according to a major survey.

Let’s be honest, shall we? There are people on every (and no) wing of the political spectrum, whose belief in fairness is about getting out what you put in, and not expecting a free ride.

63 per cent of the 3,297 people questioned believed parents who "don’t want to work" were a reason why some children lived in poverty.

See? Can we thus suppose that anyone to the right of Dennis Skinner is considered to be on “the political Right”, in the mind of this author?

Well, Phillip Green pays no tax on his company dividends. He couldn’t give a monkeys about public funds, yet his stores are granted protection by the police force – a public service!

Unless I’m very much mistaken, Philip Green (I checked the spelling, unlike some), was not actually in the Oxford Street Top Shop store, and personally needed no protection from the Met Police.

So what and whom were the police protecting? Well, like I said up front, there are the people working in the store, in an effort to pay their way, paying tax in the process. These people don’t have an agenda other than to put food on their table, and presents in their kids’ stockings. And #UKuncut are fitfully making their working lives a misery.

And there are the consumers, 20% of whose every spend goes straight to HMRC in VAT, the remainder of which, before profits and corporation tax, pays for wages (jobs, taxed), services (jobs, taxed), goods (wages, taxed) and premises (jobs, taxes). The consumer doesn’t have an agenda other than to find something nice for themselves or a loved one. And #UKuncut want to disrupt their shopping experience and ‘make them think’.

#UKuncut hopes they’ll think “wow – I didn’t realise how corrupt and evil this corporation is. I shall go elsewhere"

But actually they think “I really want that black top, Why are these intimidating shouty yobbos stopping me and why haven’t the police moved them on?”

Companies like Topshop also make full use of waste disposal services, the Royal Mail, ambulances, fire service,and road maintenance.

In point of fact, most businesses have to use private waste contractors such as Biffa. They use Parcelforce and help to ensure that it’s the only part of Royal Mail which actually turns a profit, thus subsidising cheap mail for the rest of us.

Businesses do not use ambulances. People use ambulances. People whose hefty contribution in tax and national insurance entitles them to do so.

As for the rest, business rates, corporation taxes and VAT generation (to say nothing of hauliers tax overheads) mean that they are perfectly entitled to expect roads to be mended and fires to be put out.

How amazing would it be if the unions and the police federation organised to withdraw their labour from these companies. Binmen should refuse to pick up Vodafone’s garbage! The police should refuse to attend demonstrations or arrest shop lifters at Topshop and friends.

Based on the above, I agree – this would be very amazing indeed. Don’t you?

Philip Green, if you refute tax payments, then you should rely on your beefcake thugs to protect your profits, and not call in the cops. Yesterday you,and the rest of your ilk, proved that you really are filthy rich scroungers.

*Sigh*

AJ

Doubtless due to the pressure brought to bear by this blog yesterday, we now read that Cameron is preparing to do a volte-face on the disgraceful refusal to install a cat at Downing Street, in order to deal with the increasing problem of left-wing journalists scurrying around in the street.

The government says it is now considering bringing in a cat to deal with a rat spotted outside 10 Downing Street.

The prime minister’s spokesman said on Monday there would not be a replacement for Humphrey, the No 10 cat during much of the 1990s.

But after newspaper reports on Tuesday that the Cameron family might get a cat, the spokesman said there was a "pro-cat faction within the building".

No decisions have been taken, he added.

The Times, however, is reporting that the decision has indeed been taken.

One rat scuttling along Downing Street was a point of interest. A second looked like a public relations disaster.

So it was that the Prime Minister’s aides let it be known last night that David Cameron would be getting a cat.

…

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman, in between fielding questions about phone hacking, the Government’s alternative vote (AV) Bill and bank bonuses, was pressed to provide updates on rat developments.

Stoically, throughout the day, he stuck to the line that there were “no plans” for Mr Cameron to get a cat.

Then, in the evening, came a U-turn: the search was indeed on for a cat. A suitable rescue centre was being identified and living arrangements discussed. It would not be housed in the flat above No 11, where the Camerons live, but would be a “cat about the house”.

Victory is ours, my friends!

The Equality & Hoomin Rights Commission were not available for comment.

AJ

David Cameron has been responsible for some utterly disgraceful decisions since he took up residence in his new council house.

This, though, just tops the damned lot:

The government says it is not planning to bring in a cat to deal with a rat spotted running around Downing Street.

The prime minister’s spokesman said there would not be a replacement for Humphrey, nicknamed "Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office", who died in 2006.

Outrageous and discriminatory, I think you’ll find.

I have contacted the Cat Protection League, whose lawyers are, as we speak, filing a complain with the Equalities and Hoomin Rights Commission.

Power to the pussies!

AJ

There’s a thing doing the rounds today. I saw it via @LossOfPrivacy on Twitter.

The site detailing this gadget is here.

The story goes that:

When plugged in the device boots up automatically, looking for an open wireless network or any network for which it already has a password – something often given for the price of a coffee. It then reverse SSH tunnels (using SSH keys) to a foreign server, allowing a remote user on that server to SSH back into the machine from afar, issuing commands as they see fit.

This however is just the beginning.

The device then performs a sophisticated modification of the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Table on both the hotspot hardware and the clients associated with it. These include iPhones, Android devices and laptop computers.

There’s some irrelevant shell scripting smokescreen.

And there’s a neat Visio diagram that would have taken 2 minutes to put together from stock elements.

Now to call

BULLSHIT.

First, go and click through to the article and view the video clip. (Sadly, I can’t embed Vimeo)

Now, with reference to the diagram above, they claim that:

1) The device when plugged in, powers up and attaches to any open WiFi network, or any it knows passwords for. This is perfectly feasible.

2) That the device alters the ARP table on the WiFi router, and on other devices on the network. It is possible to spoof ARP responses, thus poisoning the ARP cache on devices, but it is not possible to stop the genuine device responding to the ARP request and pre-empting or overwriting the response issued by the rogue device. The result would be a collapse of the Wifi network in chaos.

3) That the rogue device is able to supplant an established WiFi network for existing clients. This is not going to be possible, because the client devices already HAVE the genuine ARP entry for the WiFi router in their ARP cache and will not, therefore issue an ARP request for several minutes, and only then after a period of making no internet requests.

Indeed, if you watch the video, you will see that the ARP entry for the default gateway in the cache shows exactly the same MAC address before and after.

4) That the rogue device acts as a transparent (if transformative) proxy. Yet, if the rogue device were to succeed in poisoning ARP caches and hijacking the IP address of the WiFi router, how exactly would it then forward requests for content to the internet, being as the rogue device, itself, is masquerading the IP address by which it would otherwise need to connect to for web access.

In summary, then, this ‘hack’ is not feasible, and if it could be implemented, it certainly would not be reliable, and would in most likelihood, if it did anything at all, just wreck the WiFi LAN until it was removed.

I’m happy, as ever, to be proved wrong.

AJ

UPDATE: It has been suggested to be that the notes beneath the video on this page explain the ARP results.

Again, I call BULLSHIT.

Those notes say:

This video demonstrates the technology behind this hack.

Two points:
1/ You will notice in the video, when we plug the device into the wall it takes a while to boot before the traffic is altered.

Innocuous, true and meaningless… carry on…

2/ We issue the ‘arp’ commands as forensic proof that the network layout was modified. As the spoofing uses ‘remote’ we are poisoning the gateway router who’s own arp table we cannot (and don’t need to see). With the second issuing of the command however, we see a new device in the arp table (the Newstweek module) that wouldn’t normally be seen without spoofing. This is the device through which traffic between router and client is passed. Note also that immediately after spoofing, the arp command can’t retrieve the hostnames, hence the "?".

Err no.

Two things.

1) We can clearly see that the MAC address against 192.168.12.1 does not change between  the before and after arp commands. This directly contradicts their explanation of how this ‘hack’ works.

2) The explanation for the “?” seen against the entries on the second arp command is the use of the ‘n’ switch, which is not used in the ‘before’ example.

This Laptop is running Ubuntu. The Ubuntu Man page for arp tells us that:

-n, –numeric shows numerical addresses instead of trying to determine symbolic host, port or user names.

The ‘n’ switch deactivates looking up the host names (‘wrt’ in the ‘before’ entry), not looked up in the ‘after’ entry, therefore the column entry is replaced by a ‘?’.

3) The 192.168.12.121 address appears in the ARP table of the laptop. This may be the IP address of this rogue device. It could have got into the ARP table of the laptop by a script running in the background on the laptop, continually pinging the 121 address. Or the rogue device could be running it’s WLAN interface in promiscuous mode, sniffing the laptop’s IP then pinging it. This would also put the 121 entry in the laptop’s ARP cache. This is someone unlikely, but it COULD be achieved by the device during the 15 seconds after it’s plugged in.

One last thing. In the video, we don’t see what keypresses are make on the laptop just before the refresh. This could have been a macro that was invoked to, eg, change the proxy settings in the browser, possibly even to point to a local proxy setup for the purpose. It’s all easy to do.

BTW, The MAC against the router belongs to a Cisco/Linksys device. The one allegedly belonging to the rogue device is for a ‘PLANEX Communications’ device. They make all kinds of wireless device chips, e.g. USB dongles, but it’s impossible to say what the device using that IP address is with any kind of certainty. It could be this rogue device, but that doesn’t mean anything.

I have some thoughts and observations, in no particular order.

• If a man were to refuse to submit to DNA testing, does McCarthy think he should be arrested, and if so, on what charge?
• On what basis can McCarthy assume that no woman was involved in this crime, which she must since she only wants men to be DNA tested?
• Why so certain that the culprit(s) live in the Bristol area?

And now, let’s consider the likely costs and logistics of such a scheme.

• 250,000 men to be DNA tested.
• I’m going to take a blind guess at the cost of £600 per test, based on the cost of the lab work, as well as police time, administration etc. (See update below for some reasoning behind my guess at the cost, which turns out to be pretty close, actually.)

(I have to assume significant police time would be involved in collecting and processing samples, due to the requirements of the rules of evidence, in the event of any prosecution based on a DNA match.)

• So, the cost then. 250,000 x £600. That’s £150 MILLION.

A snip, I think you’ll agree.

But how long would this ambitious endeavour take?

Not an easy question to answer, but consider the bottlenecks:

• Locations for collecting samples.
• Space to properly store samples.
• Police officers available for collection and processing work.
• Capacity of laboratories to work accurately and consistently on the samples.

This last one is a particularly interesting one, since it’s been shown that different labs can easily return different results based on samples of the same DNA, that there are flaws in the process, and miscarriages of justice as a result, that the human element always introduces some degree of error, and that there are intrinsic statistical reasons why accuracy of testing will diminish across a larger sample group.

From 250,000 men, the police could still end up with a shortlist of thousands.

So how long would it all take? 1 year? 5 years? Well… finger in the air again:

• 240 working days a year. 1000 samples processed a day. 250 days – just over a year.
• But…1000 samples a day? Hardly possible, is it? To collect that many, let alone process them, is absurd.
• So lets say 200 samples a day. That means the process could take over 5 years.

Will the police sit on their hands, waiting for a 5 year process to come up with a shortlist of (say) 2,500 men?

I think not.

So, in conclusion, can we agree that Kerry McCarthy is a fucking idiot?

Good.

AJ

UPDATE: Twittist @PME200 nudged me into trying to put some substance behind my figure of £600 per DNA test.

Well, I haven’t been able to find a definitive number, but:

UK Media report 1 says £500.

UK Media report 2 says (of the same case) £1000.

US Media report says $1000 -$1500 for basic testing, plus much more for further analysis.

Google shows that non-police DNA tests for paternity/heredity can cost £99. However, this cost provides for no police involvement, no chain of evidence, no compliance. Nor does it cost for the emergency logistics involved in such a massive operation, not for any overtime for police/labs working around the clock.

My correspondent, a lawyer, attests that his experience has shown that such basic and cheap DNA tests are worthless at law.

So, for the sake of the argument, will £600 do you?

UPDATE 2:

Via the Ministry of Justice list of approved DNA testing companies, I reached the site of Anglia DNS services, who undertake forensic DNA testing for purposes of investigative identification. They are on the MoJ site as approved for paternity tests. I assume from the wording of their forensic offering that they are also MoJ or ACPO approved for that as well.

For one test, they charge from £450 (dependent on peace of mind or legal), for a 5-10 day turnaround.

For 24hr turnaround add a further £200.

These costs are just for the lab work. They do not include any police time or logistics.

I’ve been as indulgent as the next blogger in the pastime of rubbishing these imbeciles.

This particular column, though, is so unspeakably absurd, that I took it to be nothing but outright trolling.

Perhaps my ennui is showing, or perhaps I’m just no longer so easily trolled as Devil’s Kitchen and, as he links:

A great many bloggers have rightfully excoriated George Monbiot’s latest piece of arse-wibble,

Why? Why did you do that? Have a Scotch, skin up a joint, watch some porn, darn a sock for Christ’s sake, but don’t let Monbiot get a rise out of you with this comically calculated arse gravy.

If you want to read a fisking of Georgie’s nonsense, by all means, refer to the Devil, or Tim Worstall, or whoever else.

If you lack the critical skills to do it yourself in 0.2 of a second.

Otherwise, choose something important to get annoyed about. Fuck knows, there’s no shortage.

AJ

Ed West provided some enlightenment on Twitter this morning, and it speaks to so much that’s going on right now in the world of politics and affiliated fuckwittery.

Love it!

In the unlikely event that you’re interested, I may resume normal service sometime soon, if a topic comes up that cannot be disposed of using the above.

AJ

I’m honoured and humbled.

Don’t feel left out though, help yourself to one.

Cheers!

AJ

Yes. Yes, you did read that right. A government plan to increase philanthropy.

Banks are to adopt a system that allows people to make a small donation to charity whenever they withdraw cash.

The Government also wants shops to offer customers the opportunity to “round up the pound” when using a debit or credit card, with the extra money going to charity.

Pfffft. Whatever. A million reasons why that’s a crappy idea, from the outset.

Where will all those pennies go? Who is the arbiter?

No doubt favoured schemes and fake charities will do very nicely out of it: ASH will get cash to bully and denormalise smokers. The RSPCA will have more money to pursue vindictive and unjust private prosecutions against animal lovers. The NSPCC will have spondoolies to spend on stigmatising and eliminating home-schoolers.

And there are plenty more where those came from. The special interest groups and QUANGOs masquerading as charities are queuing round the block to take your money and use it to persecute the person stood next to you.

In any case, could it be that, actually, we give plenty and there’s no need at all for ..

The plans in a discussion paper published by Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, who wishes to foster a culture of charitable giving.

‘Wishes to foster a… ‘. That’s straight out of the ‘3rd sector’ bullshit bingo playbook.

Okay, sorry Francis. You’re gonna have to fuck off, I’m afraid. You’ve swallowed that big throbbing charity cock whole, mate.

And whatever he’s been reading recently, must have been a pretty well drug-induced view of the concept of altruism.

“We are arguing for new social attitudes that celebrate giving,” Mr Maude said. “Talking about what we do for good causes is often seen as vulgar. But sharing experiences can inspire others.

“Giving is too often characterised as worthy and selfless, but there’s nothing wrong with doing things for each other and repaying kindnesses.

“If we can agree as a society the values that underpin helping each other we can unlock huge potential for a stronger, bigger society.”

Have you ever heard such utter shit?

But wait. It gets better.

Under the proposals, which will lead to plans for legislation in the spring, people could also be prompted to give money when they fill in tax returns or apply for passports, driving licences and other state services. They may also be encouraged to donate over new mobile phone services.

That’s right. While the government is charging monopoly rates for mandatory pieces of paper, the proceeds of which keep millions of bureaucrats off the streets, you’ll also be leaned on to donate to a CHARITY!?

Hectored at every fucking transaction.

Think about that, next time you’re paying for your road tax, the proceeds of which go nowhere near road building and maintenance.

Mull it over as you click ‘submit’ to pay tens of thousands of pounds in tax each year, on threat of imprisonment. Money that will be siphoned off, from your pockets, into the pockets of scroungers, wasters, peasants, bureaucrats, foreign aid, the fucking QUEEN.

Consider it as you stare down the barrel of a new calendar year, in which you’ll work the first 5.5 months just to pay for the state, and before you’ve earned a penny to put food on your table.

Feeling philanthropic? Then you’re a fucking idiot.

Mr Maude said the Coalition was not trying to “compel” people to give. But he unveiled two schemes that would offer taxpayers’ money to match private donations.

Go on, read that again.

The coalition is not ‘trying to compel people to give’.

But he unveiled two schemes that would offer taxpayers’ money to match private donations.

I‘m a taxpayer. It’s MY MONEY. YOU’RE COMPELLING ME TO GIVE, you utter cunts.

But, you know… people in this country already give quite a lot to charity, I reckon.

Britons are already among the most generous donors in the world. This country is currently ranked as the eighth most charitable nation.

About 73 per cent of people donate money each year with individuals giving charities an estimated £10.6 billion a year.

So… errr. What precisely is the compelling argument for this massive project of make-work and syphoning even more money away to favoured special interest groups? What makes them think, especially with times as they are, that we have ANY MORE TO GIVE??

However, Britons are much less generous at donating their time by volunteering compared with many other countries.

Oh… right. We’re uncharitable with our time?

Yes, you fucking cunt. We don’t HAVE time. We are TIME POOR compared to those in most western countries. We work longer hours, we commute further, on a less efficient infrastructure.

And what if we do want to volunteer? That’s right. We have to be CRB checked, measured, approved, licensed and authorised. Risk assessed, health and safety trained, diversity aware, compliant and certified.

In summary, Francis Maude, if you want to give the impression that you, and the government are ‘in touch’ with the people, I have a simple suggestion that will go a long way to achieving your goal:

Stop being a complete cunt, just for a day, eh?

AJ

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren’t going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don’t really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

*Chortle*

Also, BBC from 2004

The data collected by experts from the university suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.

Go experts!

Pffft. Fuckwits, the lot of them. And if you believed them, so are you.

AJ

That any topic should come as a surprise to me, being reasonably well read, in terms of keeping abreast of current affairs, is cause in itself for concern.

Well, I certainly sat up and took notice when I happened upon this Daily Mises Podcast about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Gennady Stolyarov at the Mises Institute, opens thusly:

A clandestine international treaty is currently being negotiated among parties including the United States, Canada, New Zealand, the European Union, Japan, Singapore, and Morocco. It can justly be called the greatest threat of our time to the advancement of human civilization. Considering the magnitude of the other abuses of power pervading the world today, this might seem an exaggeration, but the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) contravenes every principle of civilized society, both in its content and in the nature of the proceedings leading to its creation.

It threatens to undo the accomplishments of the great Internet revolution and to thrust humankind back to a time when individuals had no public voice and no countervailing power against politically privileged mercantilist institutions. ACTA tramples on essential rights that have achieved even mainstream recognition: innocence until one is proven guilty, due process, personal privacy, and fair use of published content. Moreover, because of its designation as a trade agreement, ACTA could be imposed on the people of the United States by the president, without even a vote of Congress.

So far, so alarmist, huh?

Read on or get the MP3 Podcast to hear the narrative unfold.

Some excellent background information on ACTA can be found in posts by Stephan Kinsella (here and here) and Justin Ptak (here), as well as in a detailed communiqué from the American University Washington College of Law. The first official draft text of ACTA was released only as late as April 20, 2010, even though the treaty has been negotiated since 2006. A subsequent draft text was leaked on July 1, 2010. An earlier discussion draft was made available on WikiLeaks on May 22, 2008. Indeed, the extreme secrecy in which the ACTA negotiations have been shrouded should itself lead to the strongest doubts regarding the merits and desirability of its framers’ intentions.

Learn how not only will all free-content providers end up on the wrong side of the law, but how powers will be introduced enabling, and perhaps obligating at the request of a corporation or trade body, border forces to inspect the personal property of travellers for ‘contraband’ or ‘pirated’ copyright material. That means, potentially, having to account for the contents of your pen drive, you laptop, your phone and your iPod.

The EU protests that it isn’t so.

But do you think it won’t happen?

As Stolyarov reminds us:

It is immaterial whether or not the intent is to target massive commercial cross-border "pirating" operations: where the authority to engage in a certain act against ordinary individuals exists, it will be invoked somewhere, sometime, by somebody.

Yes they will. Oh yes the will. The thin end of the wedge isn’t always a fallacy or rhetorical diversion.

In any case, US border agencies already have all these powers – unsurprisingly, what with the all powerful, protectionist dinosaurs, RIAA and MPAA being US organisations. This makes it all the more likely that the US based WTO and UN will support throwing this global, totalitarian, cultural faraday cage over us all, and the EU will sign up with alacrity.

I plan to do more reading on this, but on first inspection, it seems like a nightmare waiting to be unleashed on us.

AJ

Click through, and once you’ve digested the main thread of the story, steel yourself for a masterpiece of self-serving dissemblance from the Thames Valley Power Rangers.

AJ

First, there will be regulation of what clothes shops are allowed to sell for children.

ORLY? Presumably, these children are feral orphans, who are turned loose into the world at 7 years old. They don’t have parents to raise them, guide them or retain responsibility for them. Enter Nanny. Presumably the same Nanny that Andrew Lansley says he’s making redundant from the Department of Health.

And as if that’s not bad enough,

The document also promised to create a new group of experts to tackle “low levels of body confidence” among children and teenagers. Ministers are concerned that many young boys and girls feel they have to live up to impossibly thin airbrushed images of celebrities in magazines and advertisements.

Oh. Okay. Because the 60s, 70s & 80s didn’t have skinny models.. anorexia wasn’t invented until 1997 after all..

And anyway, maybe ‘the kids’ feel that the images they have to live up to are impossibly thin because they graze on Greggs pasties and Krusty Cremes, and play Xbox all day.

In any case, what is is that the government thinks qualifies it to have opinions on any of these things, less still to start imposing whatever ludicrous, misguided and spendthrift schemes they have in mind?

Speaking of which…

I.. errr.. oh will you all just fuck right off.

AJ

They’ve barely been in charge for 5 minutes, yet they’ve managed to abandon all the policies, promises and pledges that might vaguely have appealed to me, or at least to the traditional conservative.

As if that’s not depressing enough, they rub our faces in it by being as good as their word on the most hideous, interfering, statist articles of Social Democratic endarkenment that they’d promised us.

Take Mr Andrew Lansley, who got a brief mention the other day.

In February, Obo wrote a post about one of Lansley’s proposals, and he tackled the subject with his usual uncompromising aplomb.

Hannan and Carswell are regarded as utter fucking lunatics by the Tory leadership, who prefer to have policies like this instead:

Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, has launched the Conservative Party’s new green paper on public health – A Healthier Nation.
The Green Paper outlines how we will tackle Britain’s public health crisis by completely overhauling Labour’s failing system of dealing with public health.

Okaaaaayyyy …

Much greater responsibility for tackling problems like obesity, drug use and teenage pregnancy will be devolved to communities on a new payment-by results basis, with extra rewards for improving the public health of the poorest. In spending their dedicated public health budgets, communities will be obliged to partner with local bodies, like schools, businesses, councils and GPs.

I’m sorry, Mr Lansley, but just chucking the word "devolved" in there doesn’t fucking mean shit, you mendacious cunt. And what’s with this "partnering" cockwaffle? Obliged? So if my local trust doesn’t want to "partner", fuck them anyway? How is that "devolution", you lying fuck?

There will be a new focus on innovative strategies, with national campaigns harnessing the latest behaviour change research and delivered by providers who are paid by results. We will provide prizes for ‘open source’ suggestions for successful new public health strategies.

No. No. No. Just fucking NO!

And as assuredly as anything ‘good’ has been abandoned, everything ‘bad’ is being pursued with relish, and to the letter.

Schools, employers, the food and drink industry and communities themselves are being urged to do their bit to make the nation healthier.

Ministers said they wanted to unlock the potential of all sections of society in setting out their plans.

Projects being promoted include everything from bike training in schools to voluntary cuts in salt and fat content by food manufacturers.

I’m sorry? What? I seem to recall the last 10 years have been marked by schools forcing kids to have ‘healthy’ school meals, intruding into packed-lunch items in search of contraband calories, by the drinks industry being forced to adopt “Drink Aware” bollocks and food manufacturers ruining every damned item of food they’ve sold by replacing all the fat, salt and sugar with sawdust and grubs.

And as if companies don’t already do enough interfering and hectoring of their staff?

But no, it’s not enough. Andrew Lansley thinks there’s still some way to go. Still some potential to be unlocked. Because we’re not absolutely fucking miserable and downtrodden yet, so there must be pockets of joy, fun and indulgence that have remained beyond the reach of the bully-state.

Good job the Big Society is here to make sure that everyone is equally, and irrevocably miserable.

Isn’t this just the most New Labour thing you ever heard? Heir to Blair indeed.

If you voted for this, you’re a fucking idiot and I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.

AJ

UPDATE: TimDog (in the comments below, the filthy linkwhore) has written a very good piece on this.