Matt Please Don't Spoil It For Me, I'm Not Visiting Your Site

****ing bastard school play, oh hang the asterisks, fucking fucking bastard school play and removal to Reading and no way of recording, argh, oh fuck, oh fucking fucking fuck. Doubtless this man knows all about it, well he would wouldn't he, the miserable lucky fucking bastard, oh bollocks. bollocks bollocks bollocks I probaly won't know for a week!!! A WHOLE WEEK!!!! Fuck!!!!!

Everyone is a bastard.

Bastards!!!

Bollocks. Even the gf won't even hint at what happened. Miserable cow.


Dare I go to Outpost Gallifrey....no, I daren't. I don't want to know, I just want to SEE THE FUCKER.

Now you know. This is why I was not having sex when I was 13, or indeed 16. Because this is what I was saying all the time. Well, 13, yes, but by 16, there was no Who, so it was all about not meeting the gf(as she then was) but spending my £10 on the latest VHS (such as the Daemons). At 16 1/2 I wanted to see DOCTOR WHO AND THE SILURIANS more than I wanted to kiss the then gf. ~Much as I loved kissing her, the thought of Jon Pertwee..and the luscious Caroline John, and early synth music, and that gorgeous converted VHS quality, and Fulton Mackay, and Major Baker, and Nyder!!! And GEOFFREY PALMER.....well now, that was more than enough for me then: nervous fumbling? awkward tongues? rejected advances? Fuck it all!!!

DOCTOR WHO IS THE DOG'S BOLLOCKS.

NuWho is more like the mongrel's slightly lower hanging right testicle, but it is still ace.


No wonder I've never exactly been a stud, but am somewhere to the right (I assume) of the Spectrum*.



*What do you mean, what Spectrum? The Aspergers one of course.


"But would you do it?"
..."Yes, yes, I would do it." [snaps forefinger and thumb] "That power would set me up above the gods! And through the Daleks, I shall have that power!"

Fucking Bloody Mess

Or is it Bloody Fucking Mess? I can't remember: either way it's supposed to be a quote from some Sex Pistols song or other.

Anyhoo.

You know you are in real, serious, cultural trouble, when your most creative and subversive tv programme in a tv-saturated society (ie Doctor Who, in the UK), deliberately, and carefully, advocates rule by elite and slags off democracy as rule by ignorant bleached-blond, jewellery-wearing, heterosexual mob. Cleverly, one character even referred to the alien as an "immigrant". Oh how I bet they laughed in Hampstead, thinking of us racist cunts out here in the styx. Oh how we would of applauded her simplistic specisicissticisismthingy, how we would of loved to see all things we don't understand destroyed. After all, we routinely hound out anyone of different colour.*

Because that's how we are, see. Out here. In the country. We hate. That's all we do. You people in the city, oh how clever you are, how learned, how non-ignorant.

You can almost sense the fear in their breath: if those scumbags, the people, fuck me even Daily Mail readers...if they ever got to choose, if they were ever allowed a say....Jeeezus....



*It's true. We do.

The Government Is A Bunch of Cunts

I really don't think I can say any more than this.

I Don't Know What to Say to This

Almost more depressing is the sight of black and Asian Britons following the wind blowing the Tories to victory. Boris has recruited Afro Caribbean "leaders" who believe in physical chastisement and smart young Asians who deny the existence of racism and want an end to political correctness. The more old-fashioned Uncle Toms and their female equivalents are now expediently making themselves known to the Tories and right-wing think tanks.

Truly I don't.

Luckily, Dale does. As do many of his commenters. And, more gratifyingly, do the commenters on the original article.

Don't Waste Your Non Tax Payer Funded Money on This Book

--From Anger to Apathy by David Garnett.


This cost me twenty fucking quid for a piece of shit that even the author admits he more or less came up with in 1980, before he'd done any fucking research. Jeesus, why do these lefty twats keep giving us the same shit, year after year, why do they pass off the same bias, the same pseudo-intellectual "theorising" as impartial history, while slagging everyone else off for bias? Why don't they ever admit any blame on the part of the left? Why are there always these little mini-histories of evil rightwingers (let me guess - in the histories of 20 years' time there'll be just the same nasty little chapters on Nadine Dorries instead of Ross McWhirter)? Why do they insist on couching blatantly partisan points in neutral-sounding terms? Do they *really* think that the public was fed up in the late 1970s because they were blinded by greed instead of loving social justice (which is never, damnit, never properly defined)? Why do these histories always tell the same stories of good, honest Labour governments brought down by shadowy media-MI5-USA led conspiracies? Why was their only fault not to be lefty enough?

Why are good, non-socialist histories of Britain so damn hard to come by?

Listen Garnett, you twat, we're not socialists and we're not deluded. We're not passive drones led by the evil Murdoch empire or the dastardly Daily Mail, we just don't like socialism and we don't fucking want it. OK? It's fascinating how much the "stupid" or "passive" public features in the narratives of the academic left. Constantly betrayed by cynical Conservatives, or self interest media, the public either act in bad faith or through ignorance. You see the problem is they've never gone for socialism. Hence they've made a massive error.

Being consumers makes us active, not passive, we LIKE having choice, it's made life a lot easier since milk had to be sold by the Milk Marketing Board; it's made people in charge of their own damn lives, whereas all you wanted was sex and abortion on demand; that was supposed to be enough to shut everyone the fuck up, wasn't it? You want us to accept the loss of electricity whenever some union or other deems it necessary, and you call that social justice?? Jesus you are either really fucking stupid or just damn dishonest.

No. The public was not fooled in the late 1970s. It was betrayed by a weak, incompetent government too close to selfish and anti-democratic unions to be able to make a difference. Historians like Garnett just don't give a toss about the majority of the population who were not members of the powerful unions and who just had to damn well do what those bastards told them...and they call it "social justice".

Fuck me. Vote Thatcher. Vote Thatcher now.

It's 1995 Again...

...which is what you feel listening to the BBC today. No sign of a new era, or the relief of getting rid of a bored, boring administration in London or anywhere else, such as we got in 1997: instead we've got all the typical BBC crap of giving people with no expertise in politics like the shit presenter of the shit sports-comedy show on Radio 5 "Fighting Talk" the space for gems like: "[Sue Mott]...he's locked in CCHQ...[shit host] let's hope so..." of Boris. The casual, even causal, non-political slagging off of Tories that used to be a staple of 1990s BBC output while the Tories were the decadent, corrupt party of power. All they've done now, to deserve this, is win. That's all it takes. Indeed the shit unfunny host of Fighting Talk called his regular "AOB" slot at the end of the show "Boris" on the assumption that everyone would wish to slag off the new Mayor of London. As two of them did, the other two refusing to comment.

Anyone who thinks the BBC is not biased is ignorant or is a liar. Check out the BBC website for its references to the "series of articles" published by the Guardian urging people not to vote for Boris and its wholly stupid "other newspapers did the same" supporting evidence. I saw, or read, no evidence of the Daily Telegraph's long series of articles urging people to vote for Boris: it's not even on the stupid hack's radar: he was writing solely for his mates in North London.

They are gutted: expect the BBC to do their damndest to make Boris's tenure as Mayor uncomfortable. The Tories must both privatise the BBC and conceal their intentions until election time - as it is, we're going to see some real hardcore flag-waving for Labour over the next two years; if the Tories announce any such plans the Beeb would doubtless resort to subliminal red-rose images during CBBC.

"As I was going to say before I was interrupted..." as Gordon Brown did not need to say during his Toady interview this week.

My own fave this week was Radio 5's trailing of a report on immigration by "the think tank the IPPR", never, to my knowledge, mentioning that it is, quite openly, a Labour think tank. You can always tell when a "report" (which rubbish seems disturbingly often to be the lead news items on Five Dead) says stuff they like because they don't identify its origin. We get "the IPPR" or "the Joseph Rowntree Foundation" but "the right wing think tank Civitas" although, to be _scrupulously_ or even _radically_ fair, they have failed, recently, to identify "the Tax Payers' Alliance" as right wing.

As a matter of interest, why is the most important news of any given day often the results of a report by an NGO into a subject whose opinion you could predict after 10 pints of Stella? I could count on the glasses of one visit to the pub the number of damnfool times I have heard this shit: as if anyone with half an-alcohol swamped braincell couldn't tell that any given report by Greenpeace is going to recommend that we all give up on land, even the trees, and fuck off back to the oceans. Recycling our clothes first, of course. Or that any report by the IPPR is going to tell us that immigration is wonderful and also to reinforce what Labour told us in 2004 about East European migrant workers - by some staggering coincidence.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't really give a fuck about immigration. I do give a fuck about biased "national treasures".

Five to one that Ken Livingstone gets his own show on Radio 2,4 or 5; is a regular guest on Question Time; is a rent a quote on all news bulletins; is even invited to take over from Jimmy Armfield summarising the football when old Armfield is kicked out for being a stupid old twat (which he is NOT, emphatically, but which phrase reflects my expectation that someone of his class, integrity and intelligence is barely even relevant to today).

Fuck it, two-to one. And I might even pay out early.


UPDATE: Fuck me I have forgotten English tenses. Any English graduates please feel free to advise me accordingly.

Fuck Me, That's Harsh

Jeezus, a minimum of 17 years for beating the shit out of a poor innocent fucker and killing him! Fucking hell that is a bit much isn't it? I mean, it's not as if it was a hate crime, eh? I mean, they were just beating one poor cunt to death, weren't they? Not an entire group of society, so it's ok, surely? And they were, er, sort of young, even if they had previous, which only goes to show how, like totally disadvantaged they were. I mean, not like I would have tackled those cunts at the scene, no way, but really, if you kill someone it's not like you should give up all of your rights, because, like, the point of human rights is that they're absolute, yeah? No-one can take them away. Oh, wait, yeah, well some buggers will always take away your rights but nothing gives you the right to take away any of their rights. Why? Because they're absolute. What? Yeah, but that's, like, an accident, so it can't be stopped. Just because you're killed, or some twat like your dad or your grandad, it doesn't mean you've got the right to take away their rights, I mean you just don't know what they've suffered. Plus, their rights are absolute. Yeah, well, so are yours. Yeah, but's it's like, absolute with regard to the state if you're a healthy adult, not absolute with regard to evil cunts. No, we don't really think there's any such thing as evil. It's like, Thatcher and that. So it's kind of, sometimes an excuse. It's complicated: the sort of thing a twat like yourself wouldn't really get. No, obviously, absolute rights can't stop murder and that. So, no, you don't have an absolute right to live. No-one does. But, sort of, the state can't just go taking lives away. Yeah, but that's different, they've consented, or they're not really human anyway. Yeah but that's also different, because that's war, innit? Collateral damage, sort of thing. No-one meant to. Anyway, you can't kill people just because they've killed someone, also you can't lock someone up for life because they'll have nothing to live for and that isn't fair, like. Yeah, but that's a bit simplistic: it's not really their fault, they're disadvantaged, see. Oh, yeah, I know we said that in 1965, but, let's face it, we can't lock someone up for 50 years just because they've beat some poor innocent cunt to death for no reason can we, I mean that just isn't, fucking fair, is it? You don't deserve to lose your chances in life just because you've beat the fucking daylights out of some cunt and left his brains on the pavement, do you? Yeah, but it's an isolated incident, it means nothing, the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, I know it was his driveway but it was still the wrong place. He should of locked himself in his bog and called the cops. Yeah but they can't be blamed can they, they're busy people, no-one could blame them if they didn't come to a sort of minor sounding incident sort of thing, yeah? Anyway it just goes to show that alcohol should be loads more expensive, because it's Stella drinkers like you who become murderous bastards. Yeah, you. How much have you had tonight anyway? You stupid old twat. I could have you for that. Yeah, straight up. Go on, you can buy me a pint for that. Or I'll tell the barman you're Alistair Darling.

President Sar-Cosy

Well, helloooo. Is that La Marseillaise in your pocket or are you just frankly totally uninspired by seeing me?

According to Yahoo news:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has addressed both Houses of Parliament and hailed Westminster as a "touchstone" for democracies around the world.

Damn straight. Life peers, hereditary peers, the whip system, a dual party system of left and a bit less left parties, fudged votes, whips on matters of personal conscience, attempts to stop bastard taxpayers finding anything out about the parasites' expenses in courts of law, a long and sorry history of doing fuck all except feathering their own stinking nests: damn right it's a "touchstone" - the sort of stone I wouldn't touch with a ten foot bargepole that's been sterilised in a mixture of boiling water, hydrochloric acid and piss. In fact it's a stone I wouldn't even take a shit on, if I were utterly desperate. I'd probably go by the roadside and have motorists give me the v signs and everything instead.

Speaking in French, Mr Sarkozy said: "For the President of the French Republic, it is a signal honour indeed to address both Houses of the British Parliament.

Well, yes, but not enough of an honour to speak to it in its native language, eh? But then again it's a barbarous tongue, the bastard offspring of some northern abomination and a hick dialect of Old French so who gives a toss anyway.

"It is indeed in these walls which house your chambers that modern political life was born. Without your Parliament, parliamentary democracy would never have existed in this shape anywhere in the world."

ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho. I love it (wipes tears from eyes)! Yes: we'd never have speakers lining up with governments, governments defending speakers as one of their own, we'd never have empty chambers for 90% of the time debating issues no-one gives a toss about in ways no-one gives a toss about, we'd never have laws passed by foreign secret chambers that our own parliament has to approve, we'd never have hundreds of laws passed every year, every one restricting our range of thought, opinion and action.

Mr Sarkozy called for a new "Franco-British brotherhood for the 21st century" in which the two countries can take a lead in shaping the forces of globalisation.

Fuck me it sounds like a ghastly late 70s pop group. One whose top hit was a No.34.


Mr Sarkozy emphasised that while Europe needed Britain, Britain was stronger for being in Europe. "We cannot build a prosperous, democratic, effective, efficient Europe without the the United Kingdom," he said.

Look, Sarko, Britain is in the continent of Europe whether or not it wants to drink the piss of your stupid federalist ideas. We all know the EU will be shit without Britain but Britain will not be shit without the EU, despite your old chum keeping us out with his paranoid delusions for twenty years. Britain has global trading interests, right? It wants global trading interests, yes? It doesn't want you telling us, "er, actually, you need to pay for our farmers, despite the fact that we're more or less the same size economy as you". It wants you all to piss off and enact your little ruling fantasies elsewhere, while the rest of us get on with making and losing money as God himself intended. Now its rulers may for the last 50 years have wanted to sneak us in, all the while lying to us about what it entails, but that only goes to prove that we don't actually want it:

we want money.

That's what we want.


Money is, after all, tremendously stylish.


Anyway, back to work. Any change, guv? Price of a cup of tea, sire? Oi, I can hear the stuff rattling in your pocket you lying git. No need for that attitude, sir. Change, guv? Cup of tea?

End Bacon Now

Well, this is the message of the experts as any fule no by now. And, as Anita Anand said to a guest on last night's Drive show on Radio 5, "who are you to argue with peer reviewed science?". I presume the words "Sokal" and "hoax" mean little to her, but I'll defer to her point nonetheless.

The question is, apart from the simple "ok then" or "fuck off", what does one do? When I heard the news I did experience a moment of genuine panic and I can't help but think that this is partly the aim of such studies, however much they bleat about it actually being a good thing "because it helps us control our lives" or whatever. But while some people will, others, like myself, will continue to manage the risks and try to be careful with our diet.

The facts being "known" however, and I know DK has done a fine job of casting doubt on them, the _other_ question is - do I deserve medical treatment, should it become necessary, for refusing to follow the peer reviewed advice? Should I be regarded as a fool? I can't help thinking that this will happen, sooner or later, but, more, (oddly enough), food and drink we will expect people to control thoroughly but their sex lives we will not. No one, as far as I know, has suggested that people have less sex due to the risks, or that people should not receive treatment for sex-related conditions.

Why are we becoming collectively neurotic about food, obsessed with finger-pointing and threats of losing basic civil rights through it; but seem not to think that people can control what happens to them by having less sex?

I'm going down the pub, despite being exhorted to drink little or no alcohol. I won't be causing any fights, but I suppose I might fall over or something.

I probably won't come up with answers to my questions, but I might think about them a bit more.

Shut Up, I Don't Like You

Iain Dale notes, but rather pulls his punches away from, another arrogant, selfish column from Polly Toynbee. This time she rails against - mainly right wing - bloggers, whom she accuses of rudeness and vitriol. This is rather rich, coming from someone who has earned plenty of money making unsubstantiated accusations and vituperative rantings, directed in part at people of my religion. She believed herself to be a greater moral authority than a man who worked underground in Nazi-occupied Krakow, and thought she knew a great deal more about the world than he did. Whatever. That's not my point here.

Iain quotes her thusly:

I have around 50 arch-enemies who seem to get up at about five in the morning — they have obviously never bought The Guardian, they wouldn't contaminate their fingers with it, and they are right-wingers who hate The Guardian and everything it stands for. Letters used to be quite polite, emails were a bit ruder, but this is of another dimension because you can't answer back unless in public because they're anonymous. I think that's wrong — they should have to put their own names up there. It would make them stop and think twice if they thought their colleagues and families would see what they wrote. Anonymity brings out real mischief in us. It is a debased discourse.

My two-pennorth on the anonymity issue is: so what? Writers and hacks have used pseudonyms and written anonymously for thousands of years: we've no idea who wrote most Anglo Saxon poetry. Doesn't stop it being good poetry though. Polly evidently thinks that rudeness should be the province of the left (read some leftist blogs to see what I mean), and that for rightists to be rude is beyond the pale. The fact is that with a left-dominated government, left ideals becoming law in various areas of public discourse and civil society (my school anti-racism policy reminds me - in bold print- that a racist incident is one defined as such by a victim or any other party - a total regression from basic notions of justice or ethics); with Labour's brazen hypocrisy on matters of human rights among other things being totally unhighlighted by the BBC and even the right media (the Telegraph is bloody useless) the right blogosphere needs to shout to be heard. And it's worked so far, though judging from the recent blogwars the left is starting to get its act together.

Another noise is getting louder though: from the government advisors we roundly fisked months ago, to left bloggers, to left columnists now - the movement seems to be on to shut the right blogosphere down or restrict it (the implication being that some kind of code of practice might need to be introduced). I've no stomach for fights myself, and I can quite easily be the good man who does nothing but I'd implore other right-leaning bloggers to get hold of this article and vigorously refute its premises and conclusions.

UPDATE: 4.30PM. As usual I'm very slow on the uptake. See the Devil for rather more substance on the idea of controlling blog-speech.